Is mind body duality a simple misconception?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I assume you know the simple double slit experiments, and then the complications thereof to counterfactual measurements. That is the standard way in which it is explained to lay people.

The double-slit experiment is the result of superposition states (or path integerals; it depends on how advanced you want to get), not entanglement. Also, it's counterfactual indefiniteness (or causation in some cases), as there is no such thing as counterfactual measurements. The standard way to explain entanglement to people is to do what I did when I described paired photons. If you'd like to know more, I've spent some time trying to put together sources (mostly free) for laypersons:
The best sources to understand cosmology and physics

The Perfect Package for Popular Physics (QM)

Interested in Quantum Mechanics? A surprising(ly good) source

Mass vs. Energy

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The double-slit experiment is the result of superposition states (or path integerals; it depends on how advanced you want to get), not entanglement. Also, it's counterfactual indefiniteness (or causation in some cases), as there is no such thing as counterfactual measurements. The standard way to explain entanglement to people is to do what I did when I described paired photons. If you'd like to know more, I've spent some time trying to put together sources (mostly free) for laypersons:
The best sources to understand cosmology and physics

The Perfect Package for Popular Physics (QM)

Interested in Quantum Mechanics? A surprising(ly good) source

Mass vs. Energy

I think it is just termed as being entangled with itself. It is not the case that entanglement only applies with more complex situations, or so to say the complex experiments do not really make for fundamentally new phenomena which do not apply to the simple experiments.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think it is just termed as being entangled with itself.

No, interfered with. This is fundamental. The two-slit experiment is the standard laypersons example in part because in classical physics only waves exhibited interference effects and diffraction patterns. It turns out that even if we send single electrons at the splitting screen we can set up a detection screen and watch them "hit" the screen as little, localized spots that over time form a pattern that is exactly like that from classical waves and cannot be formed by particles.

It is not the case that entanglement only applies with more complex situations

The entire framework for entanglement was laid out in 1935. It was so complicated that it wasn't until 1982 that we could first test it. Meanwhile, the first double-slit kind of experiments were performed by Young at the turn of the 19th century.

 

[FreeTHinker4eva]

Whenever mind body duality is explained, or people tell me that I am 'denying the reality of spirit' and so on - they use words to describe 'spirit' that are contradictory.

Spirit is immaterial and real at the same time, words are used that refer to physical matter,- ie spirit EXISTS, is REAL etc.

Can anyone frame mind body duality without referring to spirit using words that infer a material, physical existence? If spirit is physical, that is not dualism.

And if it can not be framed in a fashion that conflates the real with the immaterial, what validity can it have?

Spirit is valid because it exists wholly in a dimension(s) we physical humans are only now exploring in depth. 4th dimension. Spirit is not dependent upon 1,/2, dimensions=physical, nor 3rd dimension=time. Spirit exists whether or not we acknowledge or experience spirit. Spirit does not need the physical planes nor human constructs to be validated. We who are of these three dimensions perceive, imply, infer, experience, only. We label, name, limit, spirit to suit personal biases, human perceptions. We humans create dogmas, religions, laws, cultures, around our perceptions of Spirit. We cannot measure, touch, nor replicate spirit through scientific testing. yet we conceptualize and create this discussion. We have a mind, yet mind cannot be seen, measured, felt, though none argue against mind's validity, only it's soundness. We may not hear a tree falling in a forest yet that fact does not also mean sound waves are not emitted. Should an ear drum experience these waves bouncing off it we are then perceiving, experiencing, then labeling these waves as 'sound'. Yet sound waves exists without us.
Perhaps this: The simple fact that we can conceive of such questions goes far to proving the subject matter without humans. "Spirit is science we have yet to understand." Author's name escapes my mind.

 

[Thornbrier]

It's a common misconception based on the misapplication of the brain's sense of self and our pattern seaking & agency detection systems having a minor conflict. There is no duality.

 

[jchristopher]

Whenever mind body duality is explained, or people tell me that I am 'denying the reality of spirit' and so on - they use words to describe 'spirit' that are contradictory.

Spirit is immaterial and real at the same time, words are used that refer to physical matter,- ie spirit EXISTS, is REAL etc.

Can anyone frame mind body duality without referring to spirit using words that infer a material, physical existence? If spirit is physical, that is not dualism.

And if it can not be framed in a fashion that conflates the real with the immaterial, what validity can it have?

Spirit is composed of physical elements, it's just of a much finer consistency as not to be discernible by the human eye.

 

[ruselwilliams]

Spirit is composed of physical elements, it's just of a much finer consistency as not to be discernible by the human eye.

That is an assumption about the spirit, but the soul, the emotional and intellectual soul, is no doubt made of finer vibrations of light, the body is mainly condensed light. Spirit is void, empty of all that is material that enables cognition, the invisible sees the visible, as visible and the visible sees the invisible as invisible.
Spirit is outside of time and space, nor does it belong to a body as it is whole, fills all forms, as indeed emptiness does. As we know from Quantum Physics matter is just not an energy field, with an assumed neutron the size of a marble, being encircled by an electron the size of a pinhead 5 klms away or whatever.....matter does not exist without an observer........consciousness........which creates matter, being the first cause.

 

[Bunyip]

Spirit is composed of physical elements, it's just of a much finer consistency as not to be discernible by the human eye.

And what are these elements Christopher? Or did you just make that up?

 

[Bunyip]

Spirit is valid because it exists wholly in a dimension(s) we physical humans are only now exploring in depth. 4th dimension.

The fourth dimension? Time? How are we exploring time - and what makes you think that 'spirit' exists in time? What does that even mean ajd what is 'spirit'?

Spirit is not dependent upon 1,/2, dimensions=physical, nor 3rd dimension=time.

I think you mean three dimensions - time is the fourth.

Spirit exists whether or not we acknowledge or experience spirit.

What do you mean by 'exists' here? I really need to know what you mean by 'spirit' and 'exists', because as far as I can see it -'spirit' came from an old Hebrew word for breath. You seem to see it as some kind of time dependant substance, well what sort of substance is it?

Spirit does not need the physical planes nor human constructs to be validated.

'Spirit' is a human concept - what do you mean by 'validating' it?

We who are of these three dimensions perceive, imply, infer, experience, only. We label, name, limit, spirit to suit personal biases, human perceptions. We humans create dogmas, religions, laws, cultures, around our perceptions of Spirit. We cannot measure, touch, nor replicate spirit through scientific testing. yet we conceptualize and create this discussion. We have a mind, yet mind cannot be seen, measured, felt, though none argue against mind's validity, only it's soundness. We may not hear a tree falling in a forest yet that fact does not also mean sound waves are not emitted. Should an ear drum experience these waves bouncing off it we are then perceiving, experiencing, then labeling these waves as 'sound'. Yet sound waves exists without us.
Perhaps this: The simple fact that we can conceive of such questions goes far to proving the subject matter without humans. "Spirit is science we have yet to understand." Author's name escapes my mind.

What do you mean by 'spirit'?

 

[Bunyip]

Reducible? Let me introduce you to a real physicist, a leader in this field, and his thoughts on reductionism (not in some speech, blog, or ideological outlet, but in college course on particle physics)

No it isn't. This is quite obviously and NON-trivially so, considering that how many thousands of journal articles, conference proceedings, and similar one can read without ever coming across "matter" and given the disparate and mutually exclusive ways in which energy is defined, not to mention the fact that a large amount of physics cannot fit into this neat little box you've made. An enormous amount of work in physics is procedural:

Where do you see matter there?

Legion, I know that you created a few threads on your ideas about QM, that nobody seemed very interested in - just as you derailed another of my threads to your pet subject of scientific misconceptions, you are now trying to derail several more to QM.

Mate, this thread is about how the LANGUAGE we use to describe mind-body duality, consciousness and how we distinguish linguistically and logically between abstracts/concepts and matter.

It is about the LANGUAGE we use to describe and discuss these notions and the problems I see in how we do so.

It is not a forum for yet another endless lecture on QM. I am not interested in further lectures from you in QM.

 

[jchristopher]

That is an assumption about the spirit, but the soul, the emotional and intellectual soul, is no doubt made of finer vibrations of light, the body is mainly condensed light. Spirit is void, empty of all that is material that enables cognition, the invisible sees the visible, as visible and the visible sees the invisible as invisible.
Spirit is outside of time and space, nor does it belong to a body as it is whole, fills all forms, as indeed emptiness does. As we know from Quantum Physics matter is just not an energy field, with an assumed neutron the size of a marble, being encircled by an electron the size of a pinhead 5 klms away or whatever.....matter does not exist without an observer........consciousness........which creates matter, being the first cause.

I guess it all depends on what you consider to be spirit. I do not believe spirit to be "void, empty". Secondly, physical matter is not confined to "time and space". I also believe we have an eternal intelligence that is independent of our spirits and that it is our spirits that house our intelligence. Even God is a being composed of physical elements, a body of flesh and bone.

 

[jchristopher]

And what are these elements Christopher? Or did you just make that up?

Our spirits are composed of finer physical matter that is not discernible to the natural eye. And no, I did not make it up. I also believe we have an intelligence that is independent of our spirit or carnal mind.

 

[Bunyip]

Our spirits are composed of finer physical matter that is not discernible to the natural eye. And no, I did not make it up. I also believe we have an intelligence that is independent of our spirit or carnal mind.

The ancient Hebrews believed that our breath contained the divine spark of life - 'spirit'. You seem to view spirit as some kind of physical material - what gave you that idea? What makes you think 'spirit' exists, and what is it?

 

[covam]

I'm not sure what the word 'spirit' means exactly, but 'mind' or 'consciousness' is certainly a real phenomenon which exists. The phenomenological experience of 'what it's likeness'. In fact our subjective thoughts, emotions, perceptions, sensations, memories are the only things we can be sure do exist as they are direct experience - where-as what they infer about an 'exterior' reality is open to doubt.

The mind-body problem is a genuine conundrum. There are well evidenced correlations between particular brain states and particular mind states, there's clearly a connection. But to claim they are exactly the same thing (monism) leaves us with a problem because they have very different properties. Brains are objectively third person measurable and observable, mind states are subjective and private, they don't have colour or weight etc like brains do.

So to say Brain Is Mind just invites more questions rather than providing a satisfactory explanation.

But to say Brain and Mind are different types of substance (substance dualism) introduces a whole different type of Stuff into the world which isn't accounted for or required by physics, as it's currently understood at least. And there is no known mechanism or process which can apparently account for Brain Stuff producing Mind Stuff. Not even an agreed notion of what such a mechanism would look like at present.

Other approaches involve hypotheses about emergence and variations of property (rather than substance) dualism, or even the denial that consciousness is real. (The latter being a desperate attempt to cram a square peg into the round hole of materialism imo).


What to do?


If we could create a conscious AI that could help us understand more about what is and isn't necessary for consciousness, it would be evidence that a biological carbon based substrate isn't essential for consciousness. But then we have the problem of how do you test whether an AI is conscious? Might it be a different type of consciousness, how could we test that?

So for now, it's looking like a genuinely Hard Problem.

Reply

Forward

Click here to Reply or Forward

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, I know that you created a few threads on your ideas about QM, that nobody seemed very interested in

I wonder where all those "likes" came from then....

Also, the video clip wasn't on QM but particle physics.

you are now trying to derail several more to QM.

Once again, not QM, physics. Also, you asked me a question:

What is physics Legion?

- just as you derailed another of my threads to your pet subject of scientific misconceptions

I love it how you have no problem with responding dismissively to my posts when you are able either of faking knowledge or are just expressing inaccurate views (I can't tell which if any of the inaccurate statements you've made you believe), but once you reach the extent of your capacity to maintain positions so clearly wrong all of a sudden I'm "derailing" your thread.

It is about the LANGUAGE we use to describe and discuss these notions and the problems I see in how we do so.

As you said:

'Real', 'exists' are words that refer to the physical

You're concerned with how words refer to the physical. Either you intend "the physical" to have meaning such that words can refer to it, or this entire thread could be summed up by "definitions should be changed or made clearer, preferably according to my worldview".

Now, back to relevant matters:

Spirit is immaterial and real at the same time, words are used that refer to physical matter,- ie spirit EXISTS, is REAL etc....And if it can not be framed in a fashion that conflates the real with the immaterial, what validity can it have?

I'm guessing that last part was an error (otherwise, you are saying that it is valid to conflate the real with the immaterial), but as for the first part the problem isn't just with language but your assumptions about reality.

You conflate real, material, and physical and define them in opposition to conceptual, immaterial, non-physical, etc. Only concepts have a physical basis, and properties, processes, and other facets of reality are non-physical. I've given you an example. You dismissed it, me, and a variety of sources, but you give no basis for doing so other than repeating your epistemic claims over and over again (occasionally peppered with poorly wrought descriptions of physics and/or science as well as the not infrequent error).

This entire thread is predicated upon the assumption that your worldview is correct, and in particular with respect to what is "physical", but you not only object to the use of physics to help define what is or isn't physical, you don't actually understand some fairly basic concepts of modern physics (understandable, as you aren't a physicist). This seems either a mechanism to express your own beliefs couched in a question you aren't really asking, or a pointless discussion because you refuse to actually engage in challenges to your view or even to offer evidence that they have a basis.

I am not interested in further lectures from you in QM.

The problem is you don't seem to be interested in your own questions.

 

[Bunyip]

I wonder where all those "likes" came from then....

Also, the video clip wasn't on QM but particle physics.




Once again, not QM, physics. Also, you asked me a question:


I love it how you have no problem with responding dismissively to my posts when you are able either of faking knowledge or are just expressing inaccurate views (I can't tell which if any of the inaccurate statements you've made you believe), but once you reach the extent of your capacity to maintain positions so clearly wrong all of a sudden I'm "derailing" your thread.



As you said:


You're concerned with how words refer to the physical. Either you intend "the physical" to have meaning such that words can refer to it, or this entire thread could be summed up by "definitions should be changed or made clearer, preferably according to my worldview".

Yes, that is an accurate summation. That is what I am saying.

Now, back to relevant matters:

I'm guessing that last part was an error (otherwise, you are saying that it is valid to conflate the real with the immaterial), but as for the first part the problem isn't just with language but your assumptions about reality.

You conflate real, material, and physical and define them in opposition to conceptual, immaterial, non-physical, etc. Only concepts have a physical basis, and properties, processes, and other facets of reality are non-physical. I've given you an example. You dismissed it, me, and a variety of sources, but you give no basis for doing so other than repeating your epistemic claims over and over again (occasionally peppered with poorly wrought descriptions of physics and/or science as well as the not infrequent error).

This entire thread is predicated upon the assumption that your worldview is correct, and in particular with respect to what is "physical", but you not only object to the use of physics to help define what is or isn't physical, you don't actually understand some fairly basic concepts of modern physics (understandable, as you aren't a physicist). This seems either a mechanism to express your own beliefs couched in a question you aren't really asking, or a pointless discussion because you refuse to actually engage in challenges to your view or even to offer evidence that they have a basis.



The problem is you don't seem to be interested in your own questions.

 

[JosephThomas]

a few notes*:

immaterial and real are not contradicting.
Eternity outside time is immaterial, however by definition of the very idea, cannot not exist. Therefor it does.

Spirit is a connectivity of the body+mind { Both are in fact the same } to the rest of it's existing counterparts. The environment, the future, work, art, etc.. I couldn't think of a 5th counterpart..