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

[Nous]

So you agree that there is no evidence acquired by the scientific method that leads to the conclusion that physicalism is true.

I'm saying there can be no evidence either way so the question is literally meaningless.

Then it seems we agree that this statement cannot be true:

Since that [the scientific method] is our *only* way of knowing, we are left with the physicalist position.

 

[Polymath257]

Show me where quantum mechanics invalidates causality. Something peer reviewed.

So you are saying there are no competing theories to, or alternate interpretations of, QM, as one would expect if it were not theoretical?

There are different *interpretations*, but all interpretations agree on the predicted results of experiments, which is why they are *interpretations*. The actual predictions are supported by all the investigations into atomic, subatomic, and even chemical phenomena over the past 100 years or so. That is very, very far away from being 'purely theoretical'. Our modern understanding of solids, of chemical bonding, of spectra, of lasers, of semiconductors, of nuclear events, of the structure of atoms, etc are ALL based on quantum mechanics. Those have very real, practical effects.

The one 'interpretation' of QM that is deterministic is Bohmian mechanics. The problem with it is that it is non-local and can't be extended to deal with the field theories, including QED. In particular, it doesn't do well with dealing with anti-matter. it is purely a version of the classical Schrodinger equation and not of the Dirac or any other relativistic equation. In fact, it very specifically violates special relativity.

 

[Polymath257]

Then it seems we agree that this statement cannot be true:

Not being true is different than being meaningless. The question of physicalism vs non-physicalism is literally meaningless because there is no way to test it. But, we *know* physical things exist and we can explain all we see without assuming anything else exists. That is sufficient.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

There are different *interpretations*, but all interpretations agree on the predicted results of experiments, which is why they are *interpretations*. The actual predictions are supported by all the investigations into atomic, subatomic, and even chemical phenomena over the past 100 years or so. That is very, very far away from being 'purely theoretical'. Our modern understanding of solids, of chemical bonding, of spectra, of lasers, of semiconductors, of nuclear events, of the structure of atoms, etc are ALL based on quantum mechanics. Those have very real, practical effects.

The one 'interpretation' of QM that is deterministic is Bohmian mechanics. The problem with it is that it is non-local and can't be extended to deal with the field theories, including QED. In particular, it doesn't do well with dealing with anti-matter. it is purely a version of the classical Schrodinger equation and not of the Dirac or any other relativistic equation. In fact, it very specifically violates special relativity.

Ok, so you think causality is invalidated on the macro by sub atomic weirdnesses? Seems to me to be a catch all fall back to justify just about any magical belief...in this case freewill.
Do you have any evidence to connect these two dots?

 

[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?

 

[sealchan]

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 physicalism is probably the default. An old (?NOVA) series on the mind had the effective conclusion "The Mind Is What the Brain Does". Also based on what you find in neurobiology textbooks, that conclusion is sound.

The Consciousness Studies community certainly considers consciousness from all angles and it debated.

My own thought is that "truth" is poly-modal meaning that there is no one system for determining truth that is effective, consistent and comprehensive. Consciousness cannot be understood from the perspective of one mode of knowing truth. In other words a logical theoretical explanation of consciousness will never fully satisfy well-trained thinkers. Spiritual perspectives will be non-reductive (providing little information compression) and therefore not be effective unless they are subjectively validated and so on...

By using two "ways of knowing" to approach a study of the mind/body problem one can obtain a transitory but significant personal insight that may provide personal satisfaction lasting much longer than its rational justification would seem to accommodate in terms of either way of knowing. In some ways this could be understood as one being able to convince one's self that one had the answer but over time that personal conviction will dissolve as long as that individual continues to employ the two ways of knowing that lead to the initial "revelation". The metaphor of seeing something "in depth" with "two eyes" (two ways of knowing) seems applicable.

I might call this an "objective solipsism". I have, elsewhere, outlined some topics that a science of subjectivity might pursue that would help to further understand aspects of our subjective perspective (i.e. consciousness).

 

[Nous]

Not being true is different than being meaningless.

A proposition that is meaningless cannot be a proposition that is true. Right?

The question of physicalism vs non-physicalism is literally meaningless because there is no way to test it.

Many people (especially philosophers) would disagree that there is no way to test or acquire evidence for one metaphysical thesis over another.

But, we *know* physical things exist and we can explain all we see without assuming anything else exists.

Energy. It's a quantity. You can't see it or touch it, and it is neither created nor destroyed in a closed system (i.e., it's a conserved quantity). And when you get in your most scientific mode, you really can't explain what you see without deducing that it exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you have no problem with the concept of "will" as given in those definitions?

No, I do not. But I don't think they serve as even a starting point for a meaningful concept of "free will".

In no small part, of course, because those that I have met are all meaningless and/or self-contradictory.

Those definitions are all I think of as "free will".

If you say so.

So, let's use definition #2, and, again, I ask: Did you use your ["power of choosing your own actions"] to determine that there are true statements in the article you linked to?

That is a meaningless question, that can't be answered with any meaning.

 

[Nous]

Ok, so you think causality is invalidated on the macro by sub atomic weirdnesses?

No one here said anything about "invalidating" "causality". What quantum mechanics and the scientific evidence shows to be false is the metaphysical thesis that you advocated above: determinism.

 

[Nous]

No, I do not. But I don't think they serve as even a starting point for a meaningful concept of "free will".

Why not?

Again, when I refer to "free will," all I mean is just the ability to choose--such as the ability to choose to put black socks on my feet rather than white socks.

That is a meaningless question, that can't be answered with any meaning.

It's meaningless to ask whether you used your power to choose your acts for determining whether there are true statements in the article you recommended?

Why did you recommend that article?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No one here said anything about "invalidating" "causality". What quantum mechanics and the scientific evidence shows to be false is the metaphysical thesis that you advocated above: determinism.

On the micro scale only, which is neither here nor there.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why not?

Again, when I refer to "free will," all I mean is just the ability to choose--such as the ability to choose to put black socks on my feet rather than white socks.

Why would you call it "free"? I am not sure it qualifies as will either, but let's let that slide.

It's meaningless to ask whether you used your power to choose your acts for determining whether there are true statements in the article you recommended?

Yes, it is.

How would I even know any meaningful answer for such a question?

For that matter, how would anyone know that a meaningful answer is possible in the first place? It is far less than self-evident.

Why did you recommend that article?

Because it dispells a lot of myths about the supposed evidence for a soul, and that applies to the supposed "mind/body problem".

 

[Jumi]

I don't believe either is default since they are considered or taught positions, neither is solipsism. I've actually never met a solipsist or considered solipsism. My guess would be that it's relatively rare.

 

[Polymath257]

A proposition that is meaningless cannot be a proposition that is true. Right?

It can be neither true nor false.

[QUOTEMany people (especially philosophers) would disagree that there is no way to test or acquire evidence for one metaphysical thesis over another. [/QUOTE]

In that case, provide the evidence.

Energy. It's a quantity. You can't see it or touch it, and it is neither created nor destroyed in a closed system (i.e., it's a conserved quantity). And when you get in your most scientific mode, you really can't explain what you see without deducing that it exists.

Energy is physical. That is why physics studies it.

 

[Fool]

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?

in understanding the self, not the subjective but the objective self, one grasps a greater sense of the other self.

And he said unto them, When you pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

as above; so below. i am that i am

 

[Cobol]

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?

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.

 

[Nous]

On the micro scale only

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

 

[Nous]

Again, when I refer to "free will," all I mean is just the ability to choose--such as the ability to choose to put black socks on my feet rather than white socks.

Why would you call it "free"?

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.

Why did you recommend that article?

Because it dispells a lot of myths about the supposed evidence for a soul, and that applies to the supposed "mind/body problem".

So, somehow, of your own volition, you determined that the article contains true propositions. Right?

Does the article explain how you were able to use your will in order to do that? Or does it imply that you just can't initiate actions of your own volition?

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

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

So, somehow, of your own volition, you determined that the article contains true propositions. Right?

You are not listening, or perhaps you just like to be stubborn. It is not possible to know whether it is of my own volition.

Does the article explain how you were able to use your will in order to do that? Or does it imply that you just can't initiate actions of your own volition?

Neither. It does however remind one of how precarious any claims about human will are.

 

[Fool]

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.

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