Do you Think we have Free Will

[danieldemol]

BTW, a major figure in cognitive science and philosophy, Daniel Dennett died today.

That's a shame in my view.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Minds are physical in that sense--as an emergent property of neural activity. Nothing I have said above is contradictory. It is just that you don't see minds as emergent physical systems..

No .. it's just that you seem to deflect discussion of the concept of mind, which is not physical, and
don't want to acknowledge psychological problems as anything other than physical abnormality.

Unless I mistake you, you believe in a reality that consists of two types of existence--the spiritual and the physical..

I acknowledge the existence of the two, but don't consider them as necessarily separate .. the
two work together in tandem.
There can be separate investigations, when it comes to studying mental health.

Brains are a type of analog computing device, so they don't actually run programs in the same sense that digital computers do..

OK..

 

[Copernicus]

No .. it's just that you seem to deflect discussion of the concept of mind, which is not physical, and
don't want to acknowledge psychological problems as anything other than physical abnormality.

I disagree with your claim that the mind is not physical, and I have explained what I mean by that in terms of emergence, a well-understood concept. Minds supervene on neural activity. The nature of that supervenience has been discussed at length in the philosophical literature.

See, for example, this entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Supervenience and Mind​

I acknowledge the existence of the two, but don't consider them as necessarily separate .. the
two work together in tandem.
There can be separate investigations, when it comes to studying mental health.

Yes. You are a dualist, and I am not. I see no credible evidence to assume any interaction between neural activity and some kind of immaterial spiritual force. Since you believe in that spiritual force, you are convinced that it must work in tandem with neural activity, but I find that an unnecessary assumption.

...Brains are a type of analog computing device, so they don't actually run programs in the same sense that digital computers do..

OK..

Analog computing devices do not run programs. Basically, they operate by reconfiguring their own structure physically. Brains alter their electrochemical behavior by making changes to the physical structure of their neural connections. They continually rewire themselves.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I disagree with your claim that the mind is not physical..

It's not a claim .. I'm not saying the mind is "a separate entity" or otherwise.
It's just that you refuse to acknowledge non-physical concept due to your idealism, and always deflect to
talking about the physical.

Since you believe in that spiritual force, you are convinced that it must work in tandem with neural activity, but I find that an unnecessary assumption.

You are merely trying to steer the conversation towards your pet topic.

I don't consider your post as answering any of my questions about mental health.
Are you claiming that mental health is purely about our physical health?

 

[Copernicus]

It's not a claim .. I'm not saying the mind is "a separate entity" or otherwise.
It's just that you refuse to acknowledge non-physical concept due to your idealism, and always deflect to
talking about the physical.

You said "the two work together in tandem". I don't see any other way to see it than as a claim. And calling my opinions "idealism" is disrespectful, as it implies that they are driven by dogma rather than reasonable consideration. I don't refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a non-physical or supernatural force just because I consider it unlikely and implausible. Your belief in Cartesian dualism is just as much "idealism" as my rejection of it.

You are merely trying to steer the conversation towards your pet topic.

I suppose that we all have pet topics that we tend to steer toward.

I don't consider your post as answering any of my questions about mental health.
Are you claiming that mental health is purely about our physical health?

That would be my default assumption, given that I see the mind and willpower as a type of emergent physical force. If someone can show me where a nonphysical force comes into play, then I would certainly consider the possibility. Do you simply reject out of hand that mental health is part of physical health? I feel that I have answered your questions reasonably well, given that I have explained why and how I think minds are physical phenomena. Obviously, I am not claiming to know all the physical causes of mental illnesses or how to diagnose and cure them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That would be my default assumption, given that I see the mind and willpower as a type of emergent physical force.

Then what is the point of calling it "mental health" then?
Does a "mental health" practioner study brain surgery?

Do you simply reject out of hand that mental health is part of physical health?

I have already explained that both mental health and physical health are different concepts,
and that you can't have the health of one without the other.
..and that has nothing to do with emergent properties at all, as far as I can see.
..unless of course you are redefining the concepts for your own way of thinking.

..and that is not the widely accepted definition in society globally .. it's nothing to do
with philosophy, and all to do with psychology and medicine.

 

[Copernicus]

Then what is the point of calling it "mental health" then?
Does a "mental health" practioner study brain surgery?

If mental activity is a type of emergent physical activity, then that would be the point of calling it "mental health". As for mental health practitioners, they study all types of therapy, including surgery. Drugs can be very effective, because they change the physical chemistry of the brain, but so does meditation and other forms of less invasive therapy.

...Do you simply reject out of hand that mental health is part of physical health?

I have already explained that both mental health and physical health are different concepts,
and that you can't have the health of one without the other.
..and that has nothing to do with emergent properties at all, as far as I can see.
..unless of course you are redefining the concepts for your own way of thinking.

..and that is not the widely accepted definition in society globally .. it's nothing to do
with philosophy, and all to do with psychology and medicine.

I'm guessing that you are replying positively to my question, although you avoided an explicit reply. That's too bad. And I am not the only one to think of mental activity as a type of physical activity. You resist considering the possibility, but I think I have made my case on that score. I urge you to at least skim the article on supervenience and mind that I posted above. You aren't really trying to refute anything I said. You just appear to reject it out of hand and carry on as if I had made no attempt to justify my opinions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If mental activity is a type of emergent physical activity, then that would be the point of calling it "mental health"..

What???
We can call it 'mental health' whether it is "a type of emergent physical activity" or otherwise!

I'm guessing that you are replying positively to my question, although you avoided an explicit reply. That's too bad.

I haven't avoided any such thing .. you seem to have a problem understanding my posts.
You said "Do you simply reject out of hand that mental health is part of physical health?"

It is NOT a part of physical health, although physical health is necessary to have good mental health,
AND VICE-VERSA.

Perhaps you have little knowledge of psychology .. you should take a brief look, if so..

And I am not the only one to think of mental activity as a type of physical activity.

From a philosophical standpoint, I would agree.
In practice, mental health is not confined to discussion of electro-chemical transmission.

Talking therapies are not JUST about distraction, they include the power of positive thinking,
and many other techniques.
Imagining its all about repairing "the physical", is purely dependent on the philosophical views
of the practioner .. and even then, I'm sure they don't have that in mind constantly.

A medic or surgeon would OF COURSE.

You just appear to reject it out of hand and carry on as if I had made no attempt to justify my opinions.

I have no need to refuse to acknowledge non-physical concepts.
Basically, because intellectually, I see they exist.

Now, whether they are only concepts/models, or whether they are more than that, I couldn't tell you.
..and neither can you

I know one thing for sure, mankind's knowledge is but a drop in the ocean, compared to 'the whole'

 

[Copernicus]

What???
We can call it 'mental health' whether it is "a type of emergent physical activity" or otherwise!

You asked me to justify calling it 'mental health', and that is just what I did, as you seem to admit here. You just take the position that you wouldn't call it that.

...I'm guessing that you are replying positively to my question, although you avoided an explicit reply. That's too bad...

I haven't avoided any such thing .. you seem to have a problem understanding my posts.
You said "Do you simply reject out of hand that mental health is part of physical health?"

It is NOT a part of physical health, although physical health is necessary to have good mental health,
AND VICE-VERSA.

Perhaps you have little knowledge of psychology .. you should take a brief look, if so..

And, once again, you avoid a direct answer to my question, which you have very helpfully quoted here. It's a yes/no question, not an essay question, although you can explain your answer, if you ever make it explicit. You have a different take on the matter, because you seem to believe that mental illness can have some non-physical causes and treatments. Fair enough. That's your opinion. I have been giving mine, which you reject out of hand. As I've said, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that you are right, if you can provide some evidence to back your position up.

From a philosophical standpoint, I would agree.
In practice, mental health is not confined to discussion of electro-chemical transmission.

Then we agree. My position is that all therapies involve causal events that change brain structure and function. Surgery and drugs are invasive methods. Psychoanalysis involves less invasive physical events that cause changes to brain function.

Talking therapies are not JUST about distraction, they include the power of positive thinking,
and many other techniques.
Imagining its all about repairing "the physical", is purely dependent on the philosophical views
of the practioner .. and even then, I'm sure they don't have that in mind constantly.

A medic or surgeon would OF COURSE.

Yes, but you can't apply talking therapies without actually talking or using some means of physical interaction with the patient. Therapy is a type of physical event, just as surgery and prescribing pills is. Physical events have to happen in order for therapy to have a causal effect on brain function. Even reading a book causes changes in the brain, so why would therapy not have the same effect?

I have no need to refuse to acknowledge non-physical concepts.
Basically, because intellectually, I see they exist.

Now, whether they are only concepts/models, or whether they are more than that, I couldn't tell you.
..and neither can you

I know one thing for sure, mankind's knowledge is but a drop in the ocean, compared to 'the whole'

Saying that we don't know everything should actually go without saying.

You don't have to actually believe that non-physical forces exist in order to acknowledge the concept of non-physical forces. I acknowledge the concept, not their existence. You acknowledge their existence, which I consider a gratuitous acknowledgment on your part. You cannot come up with a way of justifying your belief, so you merely declare it to be true. I cannot come up with a way of justifying your belief either, but we do at least agree that physical activity plays a role in mental activity, including mental illness.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's a yes/no question

I repeat .. NOT!

You have a different take on the matter, because you seem to believe that mental illness can have some non-physical causes and treatments. Fair enough. That's your opinion.

It is my opinion.

As I've said, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that you are right, if you can provide some evidence to back your position up..

Pointless me discussing further .. because you will not acknowledge the reality of non-physical concept from the off.

My position is that all therapies involve causal events that change brain structure and function..

Right, so these therapies can result in better "brain function", and better physical health will also affect "brain function" too.
Similarly, poor "brain function" can cause physical ill health, as one affects the other.

Therapy is a type of physical event..

Mmm .. sometimes it involves SHOUTING AT THE PATIENT !!!

Physical events have to happen in order for therapy to have a causal effect on brain function..

Right .. if we don't "do" anything, then nothing changes..

You don't have to actually believe that non-physical forces exist in order to acknowledge the concept of non-physical forces.

No, you don't..

I acknowledge the concept, not their existence..

OK..

You acknowledge their existence, which I consider a gratuitous acknowledgment on your part. You cannot come up with a way of justifying your belief, so you merely declare it to be true.

I only have to justify my belief to myself .. nobody else.
It's interesting to note, that psychologists recognize the part that religion plays in a healthy mind.
Naturally, extremism of any polarity is NOT healthy.

..and I don't see that in terms of the physical, of course.

I cannot come up with a way of justifying your belief either, but we do at least agree that physical activity plays a role in mental activity, including mental illness.

Absolutely .. physical health is essential for our mental health, and is a major goal in psychiatric hospitals,
to make sure patients get adequate nutrition .. alongside sedation and other therapies.

 

[Copernicus]

I repeat .. NOT!


It is my opinion.


Pointless me discussing further .. because you will not acknowledge the reality of non-physical concept from the off.


Right, so these therapies can result in better "brain function", and better physical health will also affect "brain function" too.
Similarly, poor "brain function" can cause physical ill health, as one affects the other.


Mmm .. sometimes it involves SHOUTING AT THE PATIENT !!!


Right .. if we don't "do" anything, then nothing changes..


No, you don't..


OK..

It's interesting how far down in the post you got before you acknowledged my acknowledgement of non-physical causes but not their reality. I'm glad I could clear that up, but I still think the thread is mainly about free will and determinism, not mental health.

only have to justify my belief to myself .. nobody else.
It's interesting to note, that psychologists recognize the part that religion plays in a healthy mind.
Naturally, extremism of any polarity is NOT healthy.

If you are just talking to yourself, then you only need to justify your opinions to yourself. This is a discussion forum involving people other than yourself, however, so don't expect people to be interested in those opinions that you cannot defend in public. I would prefer to keep the discussion relevant to free will and determinism. My position is that minds are physical phenomena that are subject to natural influences. If you believe that there are supernatural or spiritual issues, but cannot justify your belief to others or explain their relevance to the topic, then I don't see why you feel a need to mention those issues.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..don't expect people to be interested in those opinions that you cannot defend in public. I would prefer to keep the discussion relevant to free will and determinism. My position is that minds are physical phenomena that are subject to natural influences..

..and that is your opinion.
However "a mind" by definition is NOT a physical concept .. where as the brain is, I would agree.

If you believe that there are supernatural or spiritual issues, but cannot justify your belief to others or explain their relevance to the topic, then I don't see why you feel a need to mention those issues.

I CAN "justify my belief" .. but it is tedious to make numerous quotes from Wikipedia on psychological
phenomena.

Suffice to say, whatever I may quote, you will still harp on about everything being physical..
..which is missing the point entirely.

 

[Copernicus]

I CAN "justify my belief" .. but it is tedious to make numerous quotes from Wikipedia on psychological
phenomena.

Suffice to say, whatever I may quote, you will still harp on about everything being physical..
..which is missing the point entirely.

Quote mining is a time-honored tradition in social media discussion groups, but it isn't a very effective way to discuss a topic. I try to explain my views and back them up in my own words before turning to online sources like Wikipedia, which are primarily useful for background information. They don't actually prove anything, but they sometimes serve as a kind of appeal to authority fallacy. I like Wikipedia for explaining concepts that I think readers of a post might not be familiar with--for example, philosophical jargon terms such as "eliminative materialism" or "substance dualism". Wikipedia can do a reasonably good job of explaining those terms, but it often fails to do a good job of critiquing or supporting issues surrounding the terms.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Quote mining is a time-honored tradition in social media discussion groups..

That is a negative way of looking at learning something new.

Example
-------------

A professional practitioner or researcher involved in the discipline is called a psychologist. Some psychologists can also be classified as behavioral or cognitive scientists. Some psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior. Others explore the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.
- Wikipedia -

..but you just keep going on about the various roles as being essentially the same i.e. about 'the physical'
..which they are not.

 

[Copernicus]

That is a negative way of looking at learning something new.

Example
-------------

A professional practitioner or researcher involved in the discipline is called a psychologist. Some psychologists can also be classified as behavioral or cognitive scientists. Some psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior. Others explore the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.
- Wikipedia -

..but you just keep going on about the various roles as being essentially the same i.e. about 'the physical'
..which they are not.

But I don't need your Wikipedia article to inform me of such things. I have worked in academia and with academics my whole life, including a great many psychologists. My point was that Wikipedia can be useful, but don't assume that what strikes you as new and interesting information will strike other people the same way.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But I don't need your Wikipedia article to inform me of such things..

No .. maybe it's only for dumb people like me.

 

[Copernicus]

No .. maybe it's only for dumb people like me.

You are definitely not dumb, in my opinion. But notice that your quote from Wikipedia does underscore a point I made earlier--that chaotic systems can be described at two levels. They can be described in terms of the the components that interact to create them, or they can be described at the higher level in patterns of systemic emergence. Emergence is the key to understanding this point. Your quote recognizes two types of psychologist--those who study cognitive behavioral patterns associated with the mind and those who study the neurological activity associated with the mind. The field of psychology per se does not reject the physical underpinning of minds. It just studies them from two different perspectives. Minds are still basically physical systems, even if you don't have to be a physicist to study them.

The same is true in my field of linguistic theory--language can be studied from the perspective of an individual speaker (cognitive behavior) or from the perspective of a speech community made up of individual speakers (social behavior). Psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics are different branches of the field of linguistics, but you don't have to be a psychologist or a sociologist to be an expert in linguistics, the study of language.