What is the default position in the mind-body problem?

[Nous]

Since when was dictionary.com a reliable academic source for philosophical terminology and nomenclature?

If you dispute any definition that I have quoted here, then quote another definition.

There is no satisfactory account of the ability of 'thoughts' to initiate voluntary bodily movements - under any worldview...that's why they call it a "problem".

So you agree (now) that the thesis of physicalism does not provide a satisfactory account of voluntary bodily movements.

Physicalism may require realism of the properties of whatever the fundamental stuff of reality is, but the so-called "fundamental particles" are not it in a quantum mechanical view are they?

Say what? Fundamental particles are not quanta?

Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities demonstrate the inability of classical models of reality to describe the fundamental physical reality, not the 'unrealness' of the properties of particles.

The empirical findings of the violation of Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities refutes the postulates of realism (i.e., that the properties exist in a definite state in the absence of a measurement):

Bell's inequality is established based on local realism. The violation of Bell's inequality by quantum mechanics implies either locality or realism or both are untenable. Leggett's inequality is derived based on nonlocal realism. The violation of Leggett's inequality implies that quantum mechanics is neither local realistic nor nonlocal realistic. The incompatibility of nonlocal realism and quantum mechanics has been currently confirmed by photon experiments.​

Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect : Scientific Reports

LGI violations imply that such hidden-variable (or “realistic”) alternatives to quantum mechanics cannot adequately describe a system’s time evolution.​

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...cillations/links/56c3ef1008ae60234250be1d.pdf

 

[Nous]

Pure causality..as in, all current events are resultant from prior events.

I determined whether I would write or not write a post with the name of King Lear's youngest daughter in it. Correct?

If things WERE as I think they are(humour me), and everything you experience as YOU was simply an extremely complex game of dominoes, given we can only experience what is as it unfolds but not what will be(that pesky dimension of time), how could you tell tell the difference?

I'm not sure what you're asking. How could I tell the difference between what and what?

I've never seen any dominoes determining their own acts.

 

[Nous]

Prediction:
...a statement about an uncertain event.

If you state something you will do tomorrow, and then do it tomorrow, was it ever uncertain?

I obviously was not required to write a post with "Cordelia" in it. Stating that I would write such a post the next day, and doing so demonstrates that it was the product of voluntary bodily movements. I cannot predict or anyone else's involuntary bodily movements. Right?

 

[Nous]

No one can choose what to believe.

Prove it.

 

[Nous]

So, why do you think that a lack of explanation for how the brain initiates voluntary movements somehow provides support for the claim that the mind separate from the body?

Why don't you ask me about something I've actually said?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I determined whether I would write or not write a post with the name of King Lear's youngest daughter in it. Correct?

I'm not sure what you're asking. How could I tell the difference between what and what?

I've never seen any dominoes determining their own acts.

Dominoes have been falling since before anyone can remember, people speculate whether there was a prime-domino mover. Some think they have always been falling. You are a domino that believes it has chosen to knock over the next.

 

[Willamena]

I obviously was not required to write a post with "Cordelia" in it. Stating that I would write such a post the next day, and doing so demonstrates that it was the product of voluntary bodily movements. I cannot predict or anyone else's involuntary bodily movements. Right?

You are obviously not required to, but nevertheless if you do what you said you would, that is an outcome that does not qualify as uncertain.

 

[Nous]

Dominoes have been falling since before anyone can remember, people speculate whether there was a prime-domino mover. Some think they have always been falling. You are a domino that believes it has chosen to knock over the next.

Dominoes do not foretell what they will do a day in advance, do they?

 

[Nous]

You are obviously not required to, but nevertheless if you do what you said you would

And I wouldn't have been able to foretell my act of writing a post with "Cordelia" in it if it were just an involuntary bodily movement, such as a muscle spasm, hiccup, or heart attack. Right?

 

[Willamena]

Prove it.

Belief is an attitude of truth. If we can claim to choose what is true and what is not about the world, then we can claim to believe. We cannot choose what is true and what is not about the world with any genuine honesty. Thus, we cannot choose what to believe.

 

[Willamena]

And I wouldn't have been able to foretell my act of writing a post with "Cordelia" in it if it were just an involuntary bodily movement, such as a muscle spasm, hiccup, or heart attack. Right?

If you wrote it by accident, then your prediction would have to have been about accidentally writing "Cordelia" for the prediction to have come true. But it wasn't.

Prediction of accidents has inherent uncertainty, predicting deliberate acts does not.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Dominoes do not foretell what they will do a day in advance, do they?

No, no they don't. I'm not sure if you truly aren't understanding or if you are holding your ground, so in case of the former, I'll try one last time.

Would you have posted that had you not read this thread? Had you not been home that day? Had you been born omish? Had you tripped moments before, breaking your leg and being rushed to the hospital? There are a million million factors and conditions that had to be met to arrive at that moment when you posted that name.

Why should you assume pure causality of the sort that governs all other movement we are aware of vis a vis matter suddenly stopped when it reached you to make way for some other nebulous mechanism?

 

[Nous]

Belief is an attitude of truth. If we can claim to choose what is true and what is not about the world, then we can claim to believe. We cannot choose what is true and what is not about the world with any genuine honesty. Thus, we cannot choose what to believe.

I don't have a clue as to what any of that is supposed to mean.

When I say, "Prove it," what I mean is for one to cite the evidence substantiating a fact, then deduce one's claim from the fact. Adding further babbling to previous babbling does not prove anything.

If we can claim to choose what is true

Quote where someone here claimed that. Direct your response to that person.

 

[Nous]

If you wrote it by accident, then your prediction would have to have been about accidentally writing "Cordelia" for the prediction to have come true. But it wasn't.

Prediction of accidents has inherent uncertainty, predicting deliberate acts does not.

Noting I have written here has been written "by accident". Everything I have written here (except for the typos) has been voluntarily and intentionally written. Such can only be done by an entity acting willfully.

 

[leibowde84]

Why don't you ask me about something I've actually said?

You asked me to provide an explanation for how the brain could be responsible for making decisions, voluntary movement, etc., did you not? You've actually asked me about that repeatedly even though I've never claimed to have any such explanations. So, why would it be inappropriate for me to ask you what explanation you have for how the mind interacts with the brain?

 

[Nous]

No, no they don't. I'm not sure if you truly aren't understanding or if you are holding your ground, so in case of the former, I'll try one last time.

Would you have posted that had you not read this thread? Had you not been home that day? Had you been born omish? Had you tripped moments before, breaking your leg and being rushed to the hospital? There are a million million factors and conditions that had to be met to arrive at that moment when you posted that name.

My answers to these questions obviously cannot imply that either my foretelling my act of writing "Cordelia" or my act of writing "Cordelia" as I foretold was anything but voluntary acts. If I had accidentally died between the time of my foretelling and my act of writing "Cordelia," it would only have been an example of an involuntary act that I could not have foretold. That's the difference between voluntary and involuntary acts: voluntary acts are under the control of the person; involuntary acts are not.

Why should you assume pure causality

I don't make any assumptions about "pure causality" because I don't even know what that term means. Define it.

 

[leibowde84]

Why don't you ask me about something I've actually said?

This is what I asked: "So, why do you think that a lack of explanation for how the brain initiates voluntary movements somehow provides support for the claim that the mind separate from the body?"

This is what you said previously:

The fact that we commonly do things such as demonstrating that we can engage in voluntary bodily movements is evidence contrary to the proposition that "the mind is . . . the brain".

 

[Willamena]

I don't have a clue as to what any of that is supposed to mean.

When I say, "Prove it," what I mean is for one to cite the evidence substantiating a fact, then deduce one's claim from the fact. Adding further babbling to previous babbling does not prove anything.

Logic is evidence.

Quote where someone here claimed that. Direct your response to that person.

That could not possibly provide proof.

 

[Nous]

You asked me to provide an explanation for how the brain could be responsible for making decisions, voluntary movement, etc., did you not? You've actually asked me about that repeatedly even though I've never claimed to have any such explanations. So, why would it be inappropriate for me to ask you what explanation you have for how the mind interacts with the brain?

For one thing, I'm fairly sure I have not written the phrase "mind interacts with the brain"--unless I was quoting someone else. That isn't a phrase I generally use.

Just between you and me, what I am on the verge of possibly believing at the moment--partly because of Bertrand Russell's denial of causation--is that all causation is mental causation. I.e., there is no such thing as "causation" happening when, say, a billiard ball impacts another billiard ball, and the second ball then moves. Our idea of a cause and effect occurring there is delusional. Momentum was transferred, and that's all that happened.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

My answers to these questions obviously cannot imply that either my foretelling my act of writing "Cordelia" or my act of writing "Cordelia" as I foretold was anything but voluntary acts. If I had accidentally died between the time of my foretelling and my act of writing "Cordelia," it would only have been an example of an involuntary act that I could not have foretold. That's the difference between voluntary and involuntary acts: voluntary acts are under the control of the person; involuntary acts are not.

I don't make any assumptions about "pure causality" because I don't even know what that term means. Define it.

The word determinism is too loaded for my tastes, but you can substitute it if you wish.

Anyway you still don't seem to be grepping my point. This could be due to a failure of communication on my part, or maybe you are just a hard target to penetrate. I don't know you well enough to say.

Either way, I'll respond again tomorrow after things have a chance to marinate on both ends.