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

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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:

All quite accountable to causality.

Look, I'm not ruling out the possibility that some form of freewill exists, I've just not seen evidence convincing enough to reach your conclusion.

Take away the element of time..at least insofar as we perceive it, and what's left? Just events causing events regressing past our ability to measure.

I just don't see humans as being special enough to warrant a universal exception, maybe one day, but not today.

 

[james bond]

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

If you're a physicalist, then you do not have free will, but everything is determined already. I suppose your brain just reacts or your choices are determined by preceding events or natural laws. Choice is just an illusion.

Is Free Will Possible for the Physicalist?

 

[leibowde84]

If you're a physicalist, then you do not have free will, but everything is determined already. I suppose your brain just reacts or your choices are determined by preceding events or natural laws. Choice is just an illusion.

Is Free Will Possible for the Physicalist?

That's not true. Phyisicalism just means that the physical world is all there is. And, fyi, I only claimed that it was my default position in regards to the mind. The mind being physical dies not mean that free will doesn't exist.

 

[Nous]

Physical - Having material existence

One can only assume that by "material" you are referring to matter--i.e., objects that have mass and volume. Energy is not an object that has mass and volume. Therefore the thesis of physicalism as you have defined it is false.

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

Absolutely true. Scientific realism begets mathematical realism. Scientific Realism Begets Mathematical Realism It's further refutation of the thesis of physicalism.

Not pertinent to my post.

This:

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.

is a perfect and extensive example of the fallacy of inferring causation from correlation.

 

[Nous]

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

From this: "I think that the default position has to be physicalism; that the mind is a product of the brain . . ."

How does something "physical" (whatever you mean by that) in the brain supposedly create the ability of a person to choose between available options?

What is the something "physical" that supposedly creates the ability to choose between available options?

And given that you presumably cannot answer either of those questions except by "I don't know," why should anyone conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true (or that "the default position has to be physicalism")?

 

[Nous]

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:

All quite accountable to causality.

What do you mean? "Causality" is "the relation of cause and effect". the definition of causality
No one here has denied the relation between cause and effect.

The ability to choose among available options is not accounted for as the effect of any known "physical" phenomenon, nor accounted for by any law of nature. If humans lack the ability to choose to perform or not perform our acts, then all of our acts are involuntary bodily movements like muscle cramps or heart attacks. Humans cannot predict their involuntary muscle movements a day in advance. Yet I said in an earlier post that I would write a post the next day containing the name of King Lear's youngest daughter. And I did exactly that. Making such an announcement then writing a post with "Cordelia" in it is not accounted for as an involuntary bodily movement. It was a voluntary bodily movement.

The responses of the nervous system to stimuli may be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary responses are mainly under conscious control, but some voluntary movements, such as walking, require less conscious attention. There are two types of involuntary response, autonomic and reflex. Autonomic responses regulate the body’s internal environment. Reflexes mainly affect those muscles that are normally under voluntary control.

Voluntary responses

All voluntary activities involve the brain, which sends out the motor impulses that control movement. These motor signals are initiated by thought and most also involve a response to sensory stimuli. For example, people use sight and sense of position to help them coordinate the action of walking.​

Medical Encyclopedia - Function: Voluntary and Involuntary Responses - Aviva

This distinction between voluntary and involuntary bodily movements is the basis of diagnoses of dyskinesia.

 

[Nous]

Phyisicalism just means that the physical world is all there is.

Define "physical".

It isn't an adjective that any scientific discipline has ever defined or depends upon.

 

[Cobol]

is a perfect and extensive example of the fallacy of inferring causation from correlation.

Here, read this.

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.

Absolutely true. Scientific realism begets mathematical realism. Scientific Realism Begets Mathematical Realism It's further refutation of the thesis of physicalism.

One can only assume that by "material" you are referring to matter--i.e., objects that have mass and volume. Energy is not an object that has mass and volume. Therefore the thesis of physicalism as you have defined it is false.

Energy is a physical quantity that follows precise natural laws.

It is an abstract mathematical quantity that turns out to be very useful to calculate because it tells you important information about the state of the system. There are many kinds of energies associated with motion (kinetic energy), position (potential energy), mass, and others. When physicists speak of transferring energy from one system to another, it is shorthand for talking about some physical processes changing the state of two systems. In many interacting systems, Newton's Third Law states that interactions have opposite effects on the two systems: one speeds up, the other slows down. The overall effect is to keep the total energy associated with motion constant. In fact, physicist often choose a definition for energy so that it stays constant to make calculations easier.

 

[Nous]

Here, read this.

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.

And?

Energy is a physical quantity that follows precise natural laws.

You defined "physical" as "having material existence," which I noted apparently means "having existence of objects that have mass and volume." As you have shown here, energy is not an object that has mass and volume.

It is an abstract mathematical quantity

I absolutely agree!

 

[Cobol]

You defined "physical" as "having material existence," which I noted apparently means "having existence of objects that have mass and volume." As you have shown here, energy is not an object that has mass and volume.

I stand corrected.

Physical - material and immaterial existance

It's immaterial, but it has a material equivalent in matter.

E=mc^2 Matter and energy can be converted. One equals the other.

And?

I'll assume you want more examples?

I have to step away for a few hours, but i will get back to you.

 

[leibowde84]

How does something "physical" (whatever you mean by that) in the brain supposedly create the ability of a person to choose between available options?

What is the something "physical" that supposedly creates the ability to choose between available options?

And given that you presumably cannot answer either of those questions except by "I don't know," why should anyone conclude that the thesis of physicalism is true (or that "the default position has to be physicalism")?

As I stated in my original response to the OP, I think that the default position should be that the mind is a combination of the brain and the nervous system until it can be shown that it isn't. All animals "choose", and our ability to choose has increased through evolution. The same is true for all of our thinking processes. We know that empathy is part of the brain. We know that we can affect our consciousness with physical substances like narcotics. So, it seems plausible that the mind; that consciousness that can be affected directly with physical substances is itself physical.

I admit that we don't have enough evidence to conclude absolutely that the mind is physical. But, I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever (aside from arguments from ignorance) that proves the mind is not physical.

 

[leibowde84]

Define "physical".

It isn't an adjective that any scientific discipline has ever defined or depends upon.

phys·i·cal·ism
ˈfizəkəlˌizəm/
noun
PHILOSOPHY

1. the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.

Physical = of or relating to that which is material.

 

[Nous]

As I stated in my original response to the OP, I think that the default position should be that the mind is a combination of the brain and the nervous system until it can be shown that it isn't.

Given that assuming that "the mind is . . . the brain" does not provide an explanation of our ability to choose between available options, why should one assume that the ability to choose between available options is somehow a creation of something in brains?

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".

 

[Nous]

phys·i·cal·ism
ˈfizəkəlˌizəm/
noun
PHILOSOPHY

1. the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.

Physical = of or relating to that which is material.

So we can say unequivocally that the thesis of physicalism is false--there is more to the "real world" than objects that have mass and volume.

Thank you.

 

[Nous]

I stand corrected.

Physical - material and immaterial existance

Where did you get that definition?

E=mc^2 Matter and energy can be converted. One equals the other.

The "m" in that equation does not denote matter. Energy is not matter. Energy is a conserved quantity. Matter is not a conserved quantity.

I'll assume you want more examples?

What did you give examples of?

 

[Willamena]

Also by the way, according your thesis, all human movements are essentially involuntary movements, i.e., none are determined by the individual. Is that correct?

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?

If tomorrow you write a post containing the name of King Lear's youngest daughter, then it was never a prediction, just a plan. Prediction has an outcome that is unknown.

 

[leibowde84]

So we can say unequivocally that the thesis of physicalism is false--there is more to the "real world" than objects that have mass and volume.

Thank you.

That is quite the straw man. I only used physicalism as the default state for the mind/body problem. Please keep to the subject of this thread.

Also, there is a lot more to the material world than what has "matter and volume". "Space", for example, is part of the material world.

 

[leibowde84]

Given that assuming that "the mind is . . . the brain" does not provide an explanation of our ability to choose between available options, why should one assume that the ability to choose between available options is somehow a creation of something in brains?

This is false. Our CURRENT understanding of the brain does not include an explanation for the mind. That in no way means that our understanding will vastly improve in the future.

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".

No it isn't. Why would you think that. The brain controls bodily movements. That we actually know for sure. We can prod different parts of the brain causing parts of the body to move.

 

[Nous]

That is quite the straw man.

I applied this definition for "material" in the definition you gave for "physical":

material

adjective
8. formed or consisting of matter; physical; corporeal:
the material world.
9. relating to, concerned with, or involving matter:
material forces.​

the definition of material

"matter" is any object that has mass and volume.

The "real world" does not consist of only matter.

 

[leibowde84]

So we can say unequivocally that the thesis of physicalism is false--there is more to the "real world" than objects that have mass and volume.

Thank you.

Also energy, electricity, light, gravity (and other forces) are all part of the material world. So, you merely have a very incorrect understanding of what "material world" includes.