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

[Nous]

I believe that reason that you can't name the "rule of the universe" that is supposedly violated by my ability to freely choose black socks rather than argyle sock to wear tomorrow is because there isn't any such rule or law. It is just a blatant anti-scientific myth that there is only one possible future that is going to happen.

On the contrary, it is for a very similar reason to why it is impossible to predict weather 3 months in advance.

As far as I know, we are unable to predict weather 3 months in advance because of nonlinear dynamics, which are, nevertheless, deterministic. Are you claiming that my choosing of black or argyle socks tomorrow is deterministic, but just isn't predictable?

Polymath, you have obviously implied here (and in another post) is that the brain is deterministic but the reason no one can predict something as simple as which color socks I shall choose to wear tomorrow is because of nonlinear dynamics. That doesn't make sense. I can "predict" (that is, determine) my own voluntary acts far, far into the future. People do it all the time, e.g., agreeing to pay a mortgage company a certain amount by a certain day of each month for the next 30 years, and fulfilling that agreement.

Note that yesterday I said:

If so, how do you account for the fact that I am now able to correctly predict that tomorrow on this thread I will write a post containing the name of King Lear's youngest daughter?

No one as answered that question. Obviously I don't have a clue as to what any of my neurons are doing. I wouldn't know how it is possible to cause a neuron to increase its electrical potential by thinking. But it happens practically all the time (except when I'm sleeping).

King Lear, Act I, Scene 1:

Cordelia:

Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth.

 

[Nous]

Because there is no obstacle, rule or law of nature that prevents me from choosing to wear black socks tomorrow rather than while socks, or that determines which color I will wear.

A very ambitious claim, which is if anything evidenced against by what we actually know.

Cite the evidence that there exists some law or rule that determines what color sock I will wear tomorrow.

I don't think any reasonably informed person would dare to make such a statement in seriousness.

You don't think I'm "reasonably informed"? Can you show anything I've said to be erroneous?

It is not possible to know whether it is of my own volition.

What prevents you from knowing whether you have initiated an action? What prevents you from knowing whether you bodily movements are voluntary or involuntary?

 

[Nous]

The evidence for mind-body physicalism has been corroborated in laboratories and scientific field studies thousands and thousands of times.

What is "mind-body physicalism"? Define that thesis. Cite a few of those thousands of studies.

 

[Cobol]

can you provide evidence of mind - brain correlation in plant intelligence? or bacterial intelligence?

The PEAR lab was closed because it was considered nonsense. Their research was below the standards of rigorous science.

Minds require ideas or thoughts, which are essentially representations—inner pictures, sentences, or maps of the environment external to the mind—and plants don’t have representations.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

False. Neither quantum mechanics nor effects of quanta are restricted to the microscopic scale, as the gedankenexperiment of Schrodinger's cat demonstrates. Closer to home, physicist Henry Stapp et al. points out:

At their narrowest points, calcium ion channels are less than a nanometre in diameter (Cataldi et al. 2002). This extreme smallness of the opening in the calcium ion channels has profound quantum mechanical implications. The narrowness of the channel restricts the lateral spatial dimension. Consequently, the lateral velocity is forced by the quantum uncertainty principle to become large. This causes the quantum cloud of possibilities associated with the calcium ion to fan out over an increasing area as it moves away from the tiny channel to the target region where the ion will be absorbed as a whole, or not absorbed at all, on some small triggering site.

This spreading of this ion wave packet means that the ion may or may not be absorbed on the small triggering site. Accordingly, the contents of the vesicle may or may not be released. Consequently, the quantum state of the brain has a part in which the neurotransmitter is released and a part in which the neurotransmitter is not released. This quantum splitting occurs at every one of the trillions of nerve terminals. This means that the quantum state of the brain splits into a vast host of classically conceived possibilities, one for each possible combination of the release-or-no-release options at each of the nerve terminals. In fact, because of uncertainties on timings and locations, what is generated by the physical processes in the brain will be not a single discrete set of non-overlapping physical possibilities but rather a huge smear of classically conceived possibilities. Once the physical state of the brain has evolved into this huge smear of possibilities one must appeal to the quantum rules, and in particular to the effects of process 1, in order to connect the physically described world to the streams of consciousness of the observer/participants.​

Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction

Further reading of your seemingly legit source has given me pause.

The idea of the mind as a 'bootstrap loader' is very interesting, but I would still be inclined to see consciousness (the 'clear observer' phenomenon described in your source) as an observer rather than an actor.

I will concede this for now, pending some research into your source.

 

[Fool]

The PEAR lab was closed because it was considered nonsense. Their research was below the standards of rigorous science.

Minds require ideas or thoughts, which are essentially representations—inner pictures, sentences, or maps of the environment external to the mind—and plants don’t have representations.

the study of consciousness is a rather new discipline itself. most scientist didn't want to study consciousness. that has changed in the last 20 yrs.


humans actually have more neurons in their gut, than in their brains.


PEAR actually progressed to a non-profit organization called ICRL.org


i agree that humans work in abstract ideas and concepts compared to our counterparts, but that isn't exclusive to intelligence, or consciousness. self-awareness and abstract ideas are higher forms of consciousness.

 

[Nous]

Further reading of your seemingly legit source has given me pause.

The idea of the mind as a 'bootstrap loader' is very interesting, but I would still be inclined to see consciousness (the 'clear observer' phenomenon described in your source) as an observer rather than an actor.

I will concede this for now, pending some research into your source.

You definitely get big points with me for being willing and able to take in new information and apply it.

In any case, I would just point out that the article is primarily concerned with mental "effort" (a section is named "Effort") and causing effects, as it notes in one of the first paragraphs:

It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that there is at least one type of information processing and manipulation that does not readily lend itself to explanations that assume that all final causes are subsumed within brain, or more generally, central nervous system mechanisms. The cases in question are those in which the conscious act of wilfully altering the mode by which experiential information is processed itself changes, in systematic ways, the cerebral mechanisms used. There is a growing recognition of the theoretical importance of applying experimental paradigms that use directed mental effort to produce systematic and predictable changes in brain function (e.g. Beauregard et al. 2001; Ochsner et al. 2002). These wilfully induced brain changes are generally accomplished through training in, and the applied use of, cognitive reattribution and the attentional re-contextualization of conscious experience. Furthermore, an accelerating number of studies in the neuroimaging literature significantly support the thesis that, again, with appropriate training and effort, people can systematically alter neural circuitry associated with a variety of mental and physical states that are frankly pathological (Schwartz et al. 1996; Schwartz 1998; Musso et al. 1999; Paquette et al. 2003). A recent review of this and the related neurological literature has coined the term ‘self-directed neuroplasticity’ to serve as a general description of the principle that focused training and effort can systematically alter cerebral function in a predictable and potentially therapeutic manner (Schwartz & Begley 2002).​

Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction

Of course, we don't need to look at "neural circuitry" to see the effects of our willful acts.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You definitely get big points with me for being willing and able to take in new information and apply it.

In any case, I would just point out that the article is primarily concerned with mental "effort" (a section is named "Effort") and causing effects, as it notes in one of the first paragraphs:

It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that there is at least one type of information processing and manipulation that does not readily lend itself to explanations that assume that all final causes are subsumed within brain, or more generally, central nervous system mechanisms. The cases in question are those in which the conscious act of wilfully altering the mode by which experiential information is processed itself changes, in systematic ways, the cerebral mechanisms used. There is a growing recognition of the theoretical importance of applying experimental paradigms that use directed mental effort to produce systematic and predictable changes in brain function (e.g. Beauregard et al. 2001; Ochsner et al. 2002). These wilfully induced brain changes are generally accomplished through training in, and the applied use of, cognitive reattribution and the attentional re-contextualization of conscious experience. Furthermore, an accelerating number of studies in the neuroimaging literature significantly support the thesis that, again, with appropriate training and effort, people can systematically alter neural circuitry associated with a variety of mental and physical states that are frankly pathological (Schwartz et al. 1996; Schwartz 1998; Musso et al. 1999; Paquette et al. 2003). A recent review of this and the related neurological literature has coined the term ‘self-directed neuroplasticity’ to serve as a general description of the principle that focused training and effort can systematically alter cerebral function in a predictable and potentially therapeutic manner (Schwartz & Begley 2002).​

Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction

Of course, we don't need to look at "neural circuitry" to see the effects of our willful acts.

Yet even this willful reprogramming is a result of(or at the very least subject to) a cascade of external influence.

The same goes for willful actions of any sort. You can say the mind is causing them, but it seems counterintuitive to assume the mind itself is uncaused.

 

[osgart]

the brain is a receiver of the soul and when the body deteriorates, such as the hippocampus and memory, the brain no longer accesses the immaterial soul for its use in the physical environment.

 

[Cobol]

What is "mind-body physicalism"? Define that thesis. Cite a few of those thousands of studies.

The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But such items supervene on the physical.


This post answers your other question.

The evidence for mind-body physicalism has been corroborated in laboratories and scientific field studies thousands and thousands of times… the evidence has converged from numerous different directions on the same conclusion. We never catch the human mind at work without also catching the human brain at work.

Scientists have shown that for dozens of specific mental events, there is always a corresponding brain event. When people report seeing something, there is always activity in what we know to be the visual centers of the brain. When people report remembering something, there is always activity in the brain where we know memories are stored. And so on.

Electrode brain stimulation of a certain part of the brain will always cause a particular memory to replay in the mind’s stage. Brain injury or impairment with drugs or magnetic fields results in the loss of specific mental functions as the specific areas related to those functions are lost or numbed. There are thousands of examples.

Scientists now understand many of the chemicals that make the brain work, and changing the chemical makeup of the brain changes mental states and even personality. Comparative anatomy also testifies to physicalism. There is a direct correlation between increased mental powers and increased brain complexity, even within specific parts of the brain. For example, an animal with a highly developed sense of smell has a disproportionately large part of their brain devoted to smell.

Near Death Experiences, out of Body Experiences, communication with the dead, ghost sightings, and recalling memories from past lives are all anecdotal, ambiguous, weak, and often fraudulent. And, if mind-body physicalism is true, then of course life after the death of the body is impossible.

 

[james bond]

By the above choices, mine would be solipism. However, I was stuck recently when trying to explain the mind and spirit as immaterial. Apparently, this is a bias that I had in that I was about to use the mind vs the brain as examples of immaterial and material. Thus, I had to go back to my studies and concluded the default position in US medicine is that of materialism and the brain. Thus, there is no immaterial in traditional US medicine. However, I grew up in an era where this default position was being challenged and read articles to that effect. Thus, I came to accept that the mind as evidence that the immaterial exists. I was also primed to believe in the immaterial because my elementary school education consisted of a formal Catholic education. Thus, it is easier to accept solipism as the default position if one believes the mind and brain are separate functions. In the case of the brain, they are led to believe the mind is the output of the brain. Either way, I don't think there is any question that we live in a matrix world and that which we are certain to exist is in our mind/brain. We can test this.

As to the question of testing free will, the opposite to that would be unquestionable obedience. The first test for humans according to the Bible was the Tree of Knowledge, which was a negative test. You have to obey this one thing or else you have disobeyed the Creator. Everything else that which is perfect and I have created is yours to rule over. (Today, we have John 3:16 as the positive ToK test.) The actual first test of free will according to the Bible, as I understand it, was that which occurred in heaven. God gave his angels free will. All did his bidding and worshiped God. Lucifer, who was the best angel, thought he was doing the best job and wanted a promotion. He was at the top already, so there was no place else for him to go. Thus, he asked to be God. Perhaps, he didn't say it the right way and it was a demand instead of a promotion. Usually, in business, one who is at the top with others would have to bide their time until the top position opened up. Or else go somewhere else. This is free will. Only God the Father could hold that position, so a war ensued. That definition of free will seems to imply that free will constitutes being able to challenge for top position as there being only one. Going elsewhere is not an option. Thus, free will implies being able to challenge and declare war if the request/demand is not satisfied. Just my opinion. The human choice appears to be between good and evil. If you have that criteria, then you have free will. Another movie that described this scenario was Clockwork Orange. I didn't see where they actually changed the brain through surgery or through drugs. They did it through BF Skinner therapy and some drugs in order to change the mind. Whatever actually happened, they were able to flip the switch back.

Now, I realize there is another default position to solipism which the OP is implying and no question there is hard evidence to back materialism, physicalism, naturalism and the like. Empiricism seems to favor that default position whichever you choose. The problem is there is evidence to back both in my opinion and that which backs solipism is rationalism. Otherwise, we can't have the Theory of Everything, for example.

 

[leibowde84]

Many claim that physicalism is the default assumption, where some believe it is idealism. I personally believe it to be solipsism, as with absolute certainty we can only be aware we exist in some manner, and nothing further. Not to say I'm a solipsist, I think we can reject the problem even if just on pragmatism, but rejection is exactly what you try to do to a default position. I think physicalism, dualism, emergence, idealism, etc all require a rejection of this default position. At that point, we accept the position which makes the least assumptions.

Do you agree with this default? What is yours? In what way can the position held, if not solipsism, be supported with the least assumptions?

I think that the default position has to be physicalism; that the mind is a product of the brain, our senses and our nervous system. The only arguments against it seem to be a lack of current understanding. In other words, we can't jump to the conclusion that the mind is not physical simply because we merely cannot currently explain it physically. Obviously, I'm open to contradictory evidence, but arguments from ignorance shouldn't be considered valid.

 

[Nous]

Yet even this willful reprogramming is a result of(or at the very least subject to) a cascade of external influence.

No one denies that our decisions are generally influenced by a variety of factors. Alfred Mele identifies the "influence argument" as one of the straw men arguments against free will.

 

[Nous]

The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical.

I have never seen one experiment that tested a hypothesis about everything in the universe conforming to the condition of being "physical". Link to a few of the thousands experiments: arXiv.org e-Print archive

How do you define "physical"? It isn't a scientific term.

This post answers your other question.

Reread the post of yours that you quoted, then look up the fallacy called cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[Nous]

I think that the default position has to be physicalism; that the mind is a product of the brain, our senses and our nervous system. The only arguments against it seem to be a lack of current understanding. In other words, we can't jump to the conclusion that the mind is not physical simply because we merely cannot currently explain it physically. Obviously, I'm open to contradictory evidence, but arguments from ignorance shouldn't be considered valid.

So are you claiming that you were unable to choose to not write your post here, that it was just something that you couldn't prevent yourself from doing?

Denial of free will is self-stultifying. Right? A person who is unable to choose to state a true statement rather than a false one will be unable to choose to state a true claim about the existence of free will.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No one denies that our decisions are generally influenced by a variety of factors. Alfred Mele identifies the "influence argument" as one of the straw men arguments against free will.

Do we really need an argument against what is effectively an article of Faith? I mean, from the data you provided earlier one could, if one was already predisposed, maintain a belief in freewill, but you know what they say about extraordinary claims.

Why limit the scope of influence at a random point if it is only to protect a belief? While I applaud you for providing me with new data(new avenues of inquiry are precious to me), I am nowhere near your conclusion.

 

[Nous]

Do we really need an argument against what is effectively an article of Faith?

Positing the existence of free will (the ability to choose between available options) is merely a way of accounting for facts that otherwise cannot be accounted for. Such as this:

If so, how do you account for the fact that I am now able to correctly predict that tomorrow on this thread I will write a post containing the name of King Lear's youngest daughter?

King Lear, Act I, Scene 1:

Cordelia:

Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth.

 

[Cobol]

I have never seen one experiment that tested a hypothesis about everything in the universe conforming to the condition of being "physical". Link to a few of the thousands experiments: arXiv.org e-Print archive

How do you define "physical"? It isn't a scientific term.

Physical - Having material existence

Mathematical laws play a striking role in our growing understanding of the universe or physical world.

Reread the post of yours that you quoted, then look up the fallacy called cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Not pertinent to my post.

 

[leibowde84]

So are you claiming that you were unable to choose to not write your post here, that it was just something that you couldn't prevent yourself from doing?

Denial of free will is self-stultifying. Right? A person who is unable to choose to state a true statement rather than a false one will be unable to choose to state a true claim about the existence of free will.

No. Where did you get the idea that i don't believe in free will?

 

[Milton Platt]

Many claim that physicalism is the default assumption, where some believe it is idealism. I personally believe it to be solipsism, as with absolute certainty we can only be aware we exist in some manner, and nothing further. Not to say I'm a solipsist, I think we can reject the problem even if just on pragmatism, but rejection is exactly what you try to do to a default position. I think physicalism, dualism, emergence, idealism, etc all require a rejection of this default position. At that point, we accept the position which makes the least assumptions.

Do you agree with this default? What is yours? In what way can the position held, if not solipsism, be supported with the least assumptions?

more folks may join in if you define what you mean by the "mind/body" problem.