Life From Dirt?

[Polymath257]

There's a little more to it than that, L think. The physics of sound doesn't account for the experience of listening to Mozart or Miles Davis. Nor does the wavelength of visible light account for the experience of seeing the colour red.

As I said, *our* interaction and interpretation of the sound (and light) reaching our senses.

The brain adds a lot to the raw information from the senses. And the interaction between the brain and the senses is what produces the experience.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, there is a correlation between the physical and the mental. To infer from this that the one is entirely reducible to the other, requires an inductive leap which does not logically follow from the observation.

If it was only occasional congruence, you might be correct. But the level of detail we now have concerning brain functioning makes the introduction of 'something else' rather unnecessary. The correlation between the physical and the mental is to the point that we can 'read minds' to some extent by doing brain scans and we can 'patch in' our electronics to the biological ones to restore signals and regain functioning and control when nerves are damaged.

In many cases, we know specific regions of the brain where the relevant 'thoughts' are generated and how those areas respond to differences in chemical environment, leading to behavior.

So, while it may well have been a (reasonable) inductive 'leap' 25 years ago, it is far from being such a leap today. It is NOT simply a case of a Cartesian 'correlation' between physical and mental. It is to the place we can read minds from the physical.

 

[RestlessSoul]

As I said, *our* interaction and interpretation of the sound (and light) reaching our senses.

The brain adds a lot to the raw information from the senses. And the interaction between the brain and the senses is what produces the experience.

But what are we, who interact with and interpret sound conveyed by *our* senses; who or what is that entity, that observer which experiences and responds?

 

[Polymath257]

But what are we, who interact with and interpret sound conveyed by *our* senses; who or what is that entity, that observer which experiences and responds?

You assume a single entity? We are the sum total of our brain's interaction in real time with itself and the senses. The observer is the brain. The responder is the brain. The experiencer is the brain. The brain is a real-time simulator of us in the world. That real time simulation *is* our experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If it was only occasional congruence, you might be correct. But the level of detail we now have concerning brain functioning makes the introduction of 'something else' rather unnecessary. The correlation between the physical and the mental is to the point that we can 'read minds' to some extent by doing brain scans and we can 'patch in' our electronics to the biological ones to restore signals and regain functioning and control when nerves are damaged.

In many cases, we know specific regions of the brain where the relevant 'thoughts' are generated and how those areas respond to differences in chemical environment, leading to behavior.

So, while it may well have been a (reasonable) inductive 'leap' 25 years ago, it is far from being such a leap today. It is NOT simply a case of a Cartesian 'correlation' between physical and mental. It is to the place we can read minds from the physical.

Well, the problem is this: I am going to say there is something missing and that you can't show the meaning of this sentence in purely physical and chemical terms.
Now it is a very simple test. You defeat my argument by doing what I say you can't do.
So here is another one, in purely physical and chemical terms show all of the meaning of this sentence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You assume a single entity? We are the sum total of our brain's interaction in real time with itself and the senses. The observer is the brain. The responder is the brain. The experiencer is the brain. The brain is a real-time simulator of us in the world. That real time simulation *is* our experience.

State that in purely physical and chemical terms. As along as you use words with first person subjective meaning you are in effect cheating.
Just do what you claim you can do.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If it was only occasional congruence, you might be correct. But the level of detail we now have concerning brain functioning makes the introduction of 'something else' rather unnecessary. The correlation between the physical and the mental is to the point that we can 'read minds' to some extent by doing brain scans and we can 'patch in' our electronics to the biological ones to restore signals and regain functioning and control when nerves are damaged.

In many cases, we know specific regions of the brain where the relevant 'thoughts' are generated and how those areas respond to differences in chemical environment, leading to behavior.

So, while it may well have been a (reasonable) inductive 'leap' 25 years ago, it is far from being such a leap today. It is NOT simply a case of a Cartesian 'correlation' between physical and mental. It is to the place we can read minds from the physical.

It’s irrelevant how intimately detailed the correlation; correlation requires two distinct phenomena, and to argue in this case that consciousness is activity in the brain and nothing more, is solipsism in reverse. Thus if the mind resides entirely in some aspect of objective physical reality (in this case the brain), so objective physical reality resides entirely in the mind. Either way, the paradox is not resolved by asserting that the one is reducible to the other.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I start with the reasoned position that God exists, a faith, no proof. My reasoning tells me that the universe did not self assemble without a designer who made things to be able to do that and arranged the environment for it to happen, and especially if that designer has shown us humans that He exists and spoken to us to let us know what is happening in the universe and why and what He is doing about it.

If you're relying solely on faith, then you do not hold a reasoned position. Anything can be believed on faith. A reasoned position would rely on the use of logic and reason, rather than logical fallacies, like the one above.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You assume a single entity? We are the sum total of our brain's interaction in real time with itself and the senses. The observer is the brain. The responder is the brain. The experiencer is the brain. The brain is a real-time simulator of us in the world. That real time simulation *is* our experience.

We may be the sum total of innumerable temporarily convergent phenomena, sure. And any one of those phenomena may contain within it echoes of all the others. But recognising this makes any attempt to explain the whole by reference to only one of the parts, certain to be incomplete.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you are attributing too much to the ability of science and how far we have come in terms of knowledge.

I think you aren't attributing enough to science and it's abilities as a methodology.

You reject it, because the things you believe in cannot be demonstrated. That's not a shortcoming of science, rather, it's a shortcoming of your beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

We may be the sum total of innumerable temporarily convergent phenomena, sure. And any one of those phenomena may contain within it echoes of all the others. But recognising this makes any attempt to explain the whole by reference to only one of the parts, certain to be incomplete.

Yes, the brain has multiple parts. And it is the interaction of all of those parts in real time together with the sensory information coming in that leads to the complexities of personality and consciousness.

I'm not sure why we would want to limit our explanations to references to only one part. The point is that all of the parts are physical/chemical and not supernatural.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, the problem is this: I am going to say there is something missing and that you can't show the meaning of this sentence in purely physical and chemical terms.
Now it is a very simple test. You defeat my argument by doing what I say you can't do.
So here is another one, in purely physical and chemical terms show all of the meaning of this sentence.

And you overly simplify the problem. The issue is that the physics and chemistry of any individual is incredibly complex and the meaning of a sentence is affected by ttory of that individual (as recorded in the physics and chemistry, of course). The meaning is a societal thing, but that doesn't negate it being based in physics and chemistry.

 

[Polymath257]

It’s irrelevant how intimately detailed the correlation; correlation requires two distinct phenomena, and to argue in this case that consciousness is activity in the brain and nothing more, is solipsism in reverse. Thus if the mind resides entirely in some aspect of objective physical reality (in this case the brain), so objective physical reality resides entirely in the mind. Either way, the paradox is not resolved by asserting that the one is reducible to the other.

I have never found that argument very convincing or even very coherent.

As an example, pressure *is* the momentum of the atoms and molecules of a system. The temperature *is* the average kinetic energy of those atoms and molecules. Water *is* made of molecules containing two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. In all of those cases, the phenomenon was known long before the explanation. The correlation between the older observations and the newer ones is what leads us to make the identification between the two.

I have no idea what 'paradox' you are talking about. The mind is a collection of activities of the physical brain. And no, physical reality does NOT reside entirely in the mind. Only our *understanding* of it does. The reality exists whether or not our minds perceive it or comprehend it, just like the atmosphere has pressure even if we are not measuring it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And you overly simplify the problem. The issue is that the physics and chemistry of any individual is incredibly complex and the meaning of a sentence is affected by ttory of that individual (as recorded in the physics and chemistry, of course). The meaning is a societal thing, but that doesn't negate it being based in physics and chemistry.

If we can agree on based on, but not reducible to, then that is fine with me.

 

[Polymath257]

State that in purely physical and chemical terms. As along as you use words with first person subjective meaning you are in effect cheating.
Just do what you claim you can do.

The problem is that to describe even a simple nerve cell completely in terms of physics and chemistry is overwhelming. Avagadro's number is too big. But we can *and do* build up the properties of macroscopic things like nerve cells from the properties of the components and the components of those components, on down to the subatomic particles.

But it is also the case that to describe even a simple water molecule in terms of the standard model of physics is going to involve way too many components to keep track of completely. That does not mean the water molecule isn't made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, the protons and neutrons are made of quarks, etc. But to explain the wetness of water using quarks and electrons is just jumping too many levels of organization.

The same happens for personality and brain functioning.

 

[Polymath257]

If we can agree on based on, but not reducible to, then that is fine with me.

What is the difference? The reduction is based on the emergent properties of the base components.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

there is a correlation between the physical and the mental. To infer from this that the one is entirely reducible to the other, requires an inductive leap which does not logically follow from the observation.

But that isn't the claim. The claim is that mind appears to be generated by matter (materialism). What we see is most consistent with that. Yes, there are other logical possibilities (idealism, neutral monism, and dualism), but the evidence for them is scant, and the materialism model works well to explain the observed relationship between brain and mind. Changes in brain lead to predictable and reproducible changes in mind.

The fallacy is to insist that this cannot be the case because a mechanism is as yet unelucidated - an ignoratiam fallacy.

Let's consider the alternative hypotheses. There is nothing to support Cartesian dualism to my knowledge. Neutral monism has always appealed to me simply because physics has been a series of unifications since Maxwell unified electricity, magnetism and light. These were wed to the weak force (electroweak) and then the strong force (grand unified theory). Space and time have been wed. Position and velocity uncertainty have been connected. Energy and matter as well. Will mind and matter be next? Will we be able to discover some kind of conservation law where more of one means less of the other the way that in a closed system, more ice means less water and vice versa (ignore evaporation and condensation for the sake of simplicity)? If we didn't already know that water and ice were the result of a single substance, that relationship would let us know that they are.

So how about neutral monism? Are you aware of any changes in mind changing brain? I suspect that that can happen, that persistent habits of thought might lead to perceptible change in brain architecture over sufficient time. Also, experience leads to new neural connections. How do we incorporate these observations into our model for the relationship between mind and brain? This and the series of unifications I just named are weak evidence for that possibility.

Idealism is the last logical possibility in this list. The theist has already decided that reality is an idea of God, that God is thought, and that this mind is the original substance responsible for and underlying material reality, so he can be expected to reject other logical possibilities out of hand.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, the brain has multiple parts. And it is the interaction of all of those parts in real time together with the sensory information coming in that leads to the complexities of personality and consciousness.

I'm not sure why we would want to limit our explanations to references to only one part. The point is that all of the parts are physical/chemical and not supernatural.

If all the parts of a conscious entity are physical, how do we account for abstract thought?

You may argue that the abstraction cannot exist independently of the mind it issues from, but at the very least you have to acknowledge an existential hierarchy implied by the concept of the abstract.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have never found that argument very convincing or even very coherent.

As an example, pressure *is* the momentum of the atoms and molecules of a system. The temperature *is* the average kinetic energy of those atoms and molecules. Water *is* made of molecules containing two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. In all of those cases, the phenomenon was known long before the explanation. The correlation between the older observations and the newer ones is what leads us to make the identification between the two.

I have no idea what 'paradox' you are talking about. The mind is a collection of activities of the physical brain. And no, physical reality does NOT reside entirely in the mind. Only our *understanding* of it does. The reality exists whether or not our minds perceive it or comprehend it, just like the atmosphere has pressure even if we are not measuring it.

The paradox arises from a mind existing in and defined by the natural world, experiencing a natural world existing in and defined by the mind.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But that isn't the claim. The claim is that mind appears to be generated by matter (materialism). What we see is most consistent with that. Yes, there are other logical possibilities (idealism, neutral monism, and dualism), but the evidence for them is scant, and the materialism model works well to explain the observed relationship between brain and mind. Changes in brain lead to predictable and reproducible changes in mind.

The fallacy is to insist that this cannot be the case because a mechanism is as yet unelucidated - an ignoratiam fallacy.

Let's consider the alternative hypotheses. There is nothing to support Cartesian dualism to my knowledge. Neutral monism has always appealed to me simply because physics has been a series of unifications since Maxwell unified electricity, magnetism and light. These were wed to the weak force (electroweak) and then the strong force (grand unified theory). Space and time have been wed. Position and velocity uncertainty have been connected. Energy and matter as well. Will mind and matter be next? Will we be able to discover some kind of conservation law where more of one means less of the other the way that in a closed system, more ice means less water and vice versa (ignore evaporation and condensation for the sake of simplicity)? If we didn't already know that water and ice were the result of a single substance, that relationship would let us know that they are.

So how about neutral monism? Are you aware of any changes in mind changing brain? I suspect that that can happen, that persistent habits of thought might lead to perceptible change in brain architecture over sufficient time. Also, experience leads to new neural connections. How do we incorporate these observations into our model for the relationship between mind and brain? This and the series of unifications I just named are weak evidence for that possibility.

Idealism is the last logical possibility in this list. The theist has already decided that reality is an idea of God, that God is thought, and that this mind is the original substance responsible for and underlying material reality, so he can be expected to reject other logical possibilities out of hand.

You have acknowledged a distinction between brain and mind, which is a reasonable starting point if we are to consider the relationship between the stuff of the mind, and the stuff of mind-independent reality. That’s something at least, which many naive materialists either struggle to grasp, or refuse to recognise.

I have no idea who he is btw, this character who you continually refer to as “the theist”. You seem to do a lot of his thinking for him though.