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

[siti]

the objectivity of determinism is that it is not true.

No - and that's not what determinism means - most of what you mentioned is entirely beside the point. The point of determinism is that each event is caused by a sequence of preceding conditions that could have caused no other event. There are many experiments in the physical sciences that show this to be the case - if I add an appropriate quantity of an acid to a basic solution it will be neutralized and form a salt plus water - I could do it a million times under the same conditions and it will always produce the same result. I could predict the phase of the moon and its position in the sky a thousand years from now - and - assuming all other conditions remain more or less constant - there the moon will be. We know what time the sun will rise tomorrow, when the next high tide will occur...these are all examples of determined (deterministic) events. So there is a degree of determinism apparent in the world - even in the everyday world of ordinary events.

The question then arises as to whether there is any indeterminacy apparent in the world. The weather, for example, seems not to be accurately predictable - but it turns out that this is just because we don't have sufficiently detailed knowledge of the conditions that cause the weather. For all we can tell, it is still a determined process - a sequence of events that each have preceding determinate causal effects on what is happening now. And those causal influences might include seemingly insignificant things like Edward Lorenz's butterfly effect. But it is still determined. So far we have yet to meet any indeterminacy at all in the physical world.

What if we probe the deepest levels of reality - surely 'quantum indeterminacy' qualifies as evidence against determinism. It might be that the outcome of certain experiments or processes is inherently unpredictable, the outcome is one of a constrained set of possible outcomes - not even truly random, let alone 'willed'.

But going back to the weather thing - surely it is my will that decides whether to carry an umbrella or not? But there is evidence that the neurological process that makes you thrust out a hand to grab your brolly has already happened in your physical brain before your "free-will" is ever expressed. I don't know if this is right and the experimental means of doing this kind of experiment are crude and we have a very long way to go. And even if it turns out that such trivial expressions of "free-will" are actually physically determined after all - even that doesn't prove that there is no such thing as free-will at all. But there is certainly no scientific evidence to prove that there is.

On the other hand, I don't think we have any choice but to live 'as if' we had free will. That may be the ultimate irony of human life - we are compelled to live 'free' whilst we exist as entirely disenfranchised slaves to our natural and unavoidable destiny.

 

[Nous]

Also, the definition of the term/concept "the material world" that I am using in this discussion includes the following:
Matter, energy, and anything relating to the physical world. Obviously, forces, light, concepts, man-made constructs, mathematics, etc. would all be included in the "material world". If you have a problem with the term, we can just leave it as the measurable world.

Honestly, this is not something that I've thought of a lot until recently, so I am still trying to better define my concept of the "material world".

Since matter does reduce to energy, since energy is fundamental, why not call it the "energy world"? That sounds better to me.

It more quickly gets us to the question of what caused the energy of the closed-system of the universe.

 

[leibowde84]

!!!!!!! Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).
It's mind-boggling!!. You are obviously aware of this fallacious argument, yet you state it emphatically!! You've done it before!!

From the facts that "because our understanding of the brain, neurology, and how those things interact with our senses/experience of the world is not nearly complete, and because our understanding of consciousness and the mind is relatively miniscule," one cannot deduce that "the mind is a product of the brain". Try something else.

It isn't an argument from ignorance, as I am not arguing that the mind IS a byproduct of the brain and other physical parts of the body. I am merely claiming that it can't be counted out. An argument from ignorance would be to claim that, because there is no explanation for the mind being a byproduct of the brain, the mind MUST be separate from the body.

Again, the OP asked only for the default position for the mind/body problem. It did not ask for an argument for why the mind is part of the body. My position is merely that, until there is evidence that the mind must be separate from the body, it seems most reasonable to treat the mind as a byproduct of the body. We certainly do not have enough evidence to conclude anything either way, and I've stated that multiple times.

I quoted:

All voluntary activities involve the brain, which sends out the motor impulses that control movement. These motor signals are initiated by thought . . .
Medical Encyclopedia - Function: Voluntary and Involuntary Responses - Aviva

And you replied, "Motor signals are initiated by thought. And, thoughts can absolutely be seen by neural activity in the brain." I don't know how else it is possible to interpret that claim other than as indicating that the causes and effects by which voluntary movement is produced is a closed loop in the brain: "neural activity" --> motor signals --> voluntary movements.

In your idea of physicalism, how does it happen that a person's voluntary bodily movements are under a person's control?

And where have you ever gotten the idea that "thoughts can be . . . seen"? What do they look like?

When it comes to the mind/body problem, my idea of "physicalism" simply means that the mind COULD be a byproduct of the evolution of our brain, nervous system and senses. Personally, I don't know how the mind works to control movement. If we had enough information to KNOW that the brain is responsible for the mind, my position would change. For now, it is just that the most reasonable default position is to consider the mind as a byproduct of the brain until more evidence comes up.

 

[Cobol]

So you do not dispute my statements that "Energy is not matter," with one essential difference being that "Energy is a conserved quantity. Matter is not a conserved quantity"?

Wrong, energy is matter. Your not understanding it right.

 

[leibowde84]

Use a dictionary, and tell us what this means:






Bull****. That isn't what materialism means.

The thesis of physicalism obviously doesn't account for the ability of thoughts to initiate voluntary bodily movements. Physicalism does not account for a person's ability to choose between available options.

Physicalism requires realism of the properties of fundamental particles. Physicalism is therefore refuted by the correlations found in tests of Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities, which demonstrate that the postulate of realism is violated.

So, in your opinion, how does the mind interact with the brain to control voluntary bodily movements? What evidence is there to prove this hypothesis?

 

[leibowde84]

Since matter does reduce to energy, since energy is fundamental, why not call it the "energy world"? That sounds better to me.

It more quickly gets us to the question of what caused the energy of the closed-system of the universe.

What is your theory to answer that question? What evidence is there that supports that theory?

 

[siti]

Use a dictionary, and tell us what this means

Since when was dictionary.com a reliable academic source for philosophical terminology and nomenclature? But I take you point - dictionaries are useful - you might even find your own expletives instead of just repeating mine.

The thesis of physicalism obviously doesn't account for the ability of thoughts to initiate voluntary bodily movements. Physicalism does not account for a person's ability to choose between available options.

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".

Physicalism requires realism of the properties of fundamental particles. Physicalism is therefore refuted by the correlations found in tests of Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities, which demonstrate that the postulate of realism is violated.

No and no. 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? 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.

 

[james bond]

No - and that's not what determinism means - most of what you mentioned is entirely beside the point. The point of determinism is that each event is caused by a sequence of preceding conditions that could have caused no other event. There are many experiments in the physical sciences that show this to be the case - if I add an appropriate quantity of an acid to a basic solution it will be neutralized and form a salt plus water - I could do it a million times under the same conditions and it will always produce the same result. I could predict the phase of the moon and its position in the sky a thousand years from now - and - assuming all other conditions remain more or less constant - there the moon will be. We know what time the sun will rise tomorrow, when the next high tide will occur...these are all examples of determined (deterministic) events. So there is a degree of determinism apparent in the world - even in the everyday world of ordinary events.

The question then arises as to whether there is any indeterminacy apparent in the world. The weather, for example, seems not to be accurately predictable - but it turns out that this is just because we don't have sufficiently detailed knowledge of the conditions that cause the weather. For all we can tell, it is still a determined process - a sequence of events that each have preceding determinate causal effects on what is happening now. And those causal influences might include seemingly insignificant things like Edward Lorenz's butterfly effect. But it is still determined. So far we have yet to meet any indeterminacy at all in the physical world.

What if we probe the deepest levels of reality - surely 'quantum indeterminacy' qualifies as evidence against determinism. It might be that the outcome of certain experiments or processes is inherently unpredictable, the outcome is one of a constrained set of possible outcomes - not even truly random, let alone 'willed'.

But going back to the weather thing - surely it is my will that decides whether to carry an umbrella or not? But there is evidence that the neurological process that makes you thrust out a hand to grab your brolly has already happened in your physical brain before your "free-will" is ever expressed. I don't know if this is right and the experimental means of doing this kind of experiment are crude and we have a very long way to go. And even if it turns out that such trivial expressions of "free-will" are actually physically determined after all - even that doesn't prove that there is no such thing as free-will at all. But there is certainly no scientific evidence to prove that there is.

On the other hand, I don't think we have any choice but to live 'as if' we had free will. That may be the ultimate irony of human life - we are compelled to live 'free' whilst we exist as entirely disenfranchised slaves to our natural and unavoidable destiny.

You only say this because I disproved determinism logically. It's a silly position and easy one to defeat if you ask me. It's similar to the internet atheists who state about predestination and God as prescient. They make all these silly arguments like why did God make Adam and Eve if he knew what they were going to do. The simple answer is foreknowledge does not mean that he caused it. Many people do not understand this concept. Predestination is the situation that God placed you in. For example, you did not select your parents. You did not select whether they are rich or poor. You did not select whether you will be successful at 40. However, God gave you free will and you chose how much you studied. You chose how much you worked at something towards a goal. You did not know whether you would be a genius or someone with low IQ, a moron. A moron can study a lot, but he will not be able to do better than a genius. This is predestination. The moron's hard work may make him smarter than his peers and his determination and hard work skills may make him a terrific worker to have. In this way, the moron becomes successful. The genius, God put in a wheel chair as he ended up developing a crippling disease while at college. He was named Stephen Hawking which he didn't get to choose either. However, Hawking worked hard, too, and became a famous quantum physicist. Yet, he chose to become an atheist. God knrw all these things would happen to him, but he didn't make the choices for him. Thus, these people who believe in determinism as the rule do not understand that which was predetermined versus that which was free choice. If a mind isn't free, then Hawking can't state his mind is free. It was determined already at birth. We all can come up with alternative choices. We all can think new thoughts and ideas given the ability to do so.. This is part of free will and free thinking. The default determinist is trapped in a self-fulfilling world.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Again, you are apparently implying that the reality of a person's ability to choose between available options is somehow a denial a "the relation between cause and effect". the definition of causality Whatever you mean by that, it is at best a straw man argument. To say that I chose to write a post with the name "Cordelia" in it, as I said that day before that I would do the next day, is not in any a denial of any relation between cause and effect.

The fact that I announced what I would do and, a day later, did exactly what I said I would do is also not explained by known laws that govern empirical phenomena.

Pure causality..as in, all current events are resultant from prior events. I don't see why you insist on drawing what seems to be an arbitrary line insofar as you experience choices.

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?

 

[siti]

You only say this because I disproved determinism logically.

No you didn't - you didn't disprove it at all - let alone logically. But I agree that determinism is counter-intuitive. We certainly seem to have at least a degree of 'free-will' - but as your comments show, most of our circumstances are mapped out for us - we don't choose our parents, our IQ, our natural aptitudes, our siblings, our genes, our congenital disorders, the color of our eyes, the length of our nose, the shape of our ears...etc...so in what sense is the 'will' 'free'? I reckon it would be fairly easy to formulate an argument to show that all our choices are, at least to some extent, governed by genetic predisposition and environmental influences. Exactly how that works is irrelevant - there is no need to postulate anything beyond the natural (physical) world to explain the apparent 'freedom' of the human 'will'. And suggesting that God does the predestination is, frankly, an absurdly Calvinistic throwback to an age of relative ignorance. If God "placed me in my situation" then He chose my parents and the time, place and circumstances of my conception and birth (otherwise I would not be 'me' would I?), then is he also telling me when to have sex and with whom? Because that is what you must accept if my existence, parents, genetic makeup etc. were all 'predestined' by 'God's will'. If I don't even get to choose that for myself - in what possible sense do I have "free will"?

 

[Willamena]

Prove it.

the definition of predict

verb (used with object)
1. to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell:
to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
verb (used without object)
2. to foretell the future; make a prediction.​

Lame.

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

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

 

[Willamena]

So you're saying that you cannot choose to state and believe true propositions (such as about free will) rather than false ones?

No one can choose what to believe.

 

[Nous]

It isn't an argument from ignorance, as I am not arguing that the mind IS a byproduct of the brain and other physical parts of the body. I am merely claiming that it can't be counted out.

So I take it you agree that because of our ignorance, dualism and panpsychism also cannot be counted out.

Again, the OP asked only for the default position for the mind/body problem.

Most people understood that there is no "default position". There is no logical justification for such assumptions.

 

[Nous]

Wrong, energy is matter. Your not understanding it right.

Prove it.

. . . mass must be differentiated from matter (see below), since matter may not be perfectly conserved in isolated systems . . .

[. . .]

A particular difficulty with the idea of conservation of "matter" is that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles that are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place over time, even within isolated systems.​

Conservation of mass - Wikipedia

 

[Nous]

So, in your opinion, how does the mind interact with the brain to control voluntary bodily movements?

I don't have any such opinion.

 

[leibowde84]

So I take it you agree that because of our ignorance, dualism and panpsychism also cannot be counted out.

No, of course not. We don't have enough information to reach a conclusion either way.

Most people understood that there is no "default position". There is no logical justification for such assumptions.

Imho, there has to be a default position. It is human nature. Since, I have yet to see any demonstrable evidence that the mind exists apart from the body, I won't assume that it does. There is also no demonstrable/measurable evidence for a soul, ghosts, demons, etc. Anecdotal evidence is all we have currently.

 

[leibowde84]

Prove it.

. . . mass must be differentiated from matter (see below), since matter may not be perfectly conserved in isolated systems . . .

[. . .]

A particular difficulty with the idea of conservation of "matter" is that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles that are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place over time, even within isolated systems.​

Conservation of mass - Wikipedia

So, would you agree that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't have any such opinion.

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?

 

[Nous]

Since matter does reduce to energy, since energy is fundamental, why not call it the "energy world"? That sounds better to me.

It more quickly gets us to the question of what caused the energy of the closed-system of the universe.

What is your theory to answer that question ?

I don't have a theory to answer the question of what caused the energy of the closed-system of the universe. I only raise a question because it throws a wrench in the idea that all causes are "physical" causes.

 

[Nous]

So, would you agree that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically?

I'd say "matter" is adequately defined as "any object that has mass and volume," as one can still find in many chemistry books. It's just that "matter" is not a useful term in physics.