Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

I guess that my thread is questioning the physicalist perspective. So many thinkers view the body and brain as 'real' and see the mind and consciousness from the standpoint of mechanical materialism. I am not advocating idealism necessarily but questioning the underlying basis of how 'reality is seen. Is 'mind' itself as real as the physical aspects of the world, or is the attempt to split mind and body as categories a philosophical mistake in itself?

To identify the mind as a distinct thing is a "philosophical mistake", I think. To look at the mind in isolation is not useful, that I can see. A human mind is embodied; a human body is 'enminded'. To consider one without the other cannot lead to useful or usable conclusions. Dualism for intellectual convenience can sometimes be useful. But in this case, we cannot afford to consider the mind as an isolated entity because our conclusions will be incomplete, and thereby mistaken.

The viewing of the mind as a separate entity was the approach of Cartesian dualism, and it even was related to ideas of immortality, in the form of a soul which could live on beyond death. It is probable that the reason why many do not believe in life after death in the twentieth first century is because the idea of disembodied minds doesn't work too well. Fritjof Capra, a physicist who wrote about the limitations of Cartesian dualism, spoke of the complexity of the interrelationship between mind and body. However, in such a picture mind itself is not ruled about but seen as imminent within it, as opposed to separate.

Yes, and I see no real problem with 'life after death' either. In that case, we would have to learn about a new vehicle for mind ... or maybe a disembodied mind? I'm not sure about the latter. Actually, I'm not sure about any of this, but that's the fun of topics like this, yes?

When I was on a philosophy module of study, I attended a lecture on the topic of life after death. The tutor suggested that the 'soul' may continue as a disembodied form between death and the end of the world. He was trying to piece together the ideas within Christianity. I did wonder about this perspective but do see the idea of such disembodied form ot consciousness as problematic. However, I do take the accounts of people who have near death experiences as interesting. It does not mean that they can be taken at face value but it is hard to know what happens at death exactly. It is hard to know if death is like falling asleep and gradually losing all consciousness. The problem is that those who had near death experiences did not die ultimately. 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' speaks of people entering into states of heaven and hell for some time previous to future incarnations in bodies. It is hard to know what happens at death because it is about the question of what it means to be alive in the first place, and even the question of when life and consciousness before birth remains unclear.

[Pattern-chaser]

It does seem that seeing the body as indefinable is an unusual perspective, as most people do take the body and the material world as givens. It seems to me that Chomsky is coming from the angle of seeing the body as a reality apart from its connection with mental processes as meaningless. If one was simply a body without the life of subjective experience it would be like some kind of non living being. This would be like people who are unconscious after some kind of accident, often kept alive artificially on respiratory. Even then, it may be that these people do have some kind of dream states.

Of course, there is the philosophy of idealism, but it does not mean that Chomsky goes that far. But, there is the whole perspective which sees the physical as an illusion and the mental as more real. This is the perspective of Berkley and some Eastern metaphysics. In many ways this is the opposite to the way most people think because the body can be observed and measured. However, at a phenomenological level, mind as the processing aspect of consciousness is the lens through which this is observed. It is possible to check this out through interaction with others, although it does mean that the reality has to involve believing that the other people are real. If this was doubted it would involve a solipsism in which everything in the outer world was seen as being like a dream.

It looks to me like Chomsky is making the complementary point to mine:

To identify the mind as a distinct thing is a "philosophical mistake", I think. To look at the mind in isolation is not useful, that I can see. A human mind is embodied; a human body is 'enminded'. To consider one without the other cannot lead to useful or usable conclusions. Dualism for intellectual convenience can sometimes be useful. But in this case, we cannot afford to consider the mind as an isolated entity because our conclusions will be incomplete, and thereby mistaken.

[GE Morton]

Kant's definition implies that the physical world as a whole isn't a body if it is spatially infinite, since an extended object with an infinite volume doesn't have a spatial boundary (and thus doesn't have a figure either). But I think this restriction is unnecessary for the general concept of a body. The concept of an infinitely extended body is acceptable, whereas the concept of a non-extended body is not.

Disagree. An infinitely extended body is as incoherent, as self-contradictory, as an unextended one. We are justified in denoting some X as a body only when we can discern, and specify, its limits. An infinitely extended elephant would be indistinguishable from a non-existent one.

[JackDaydream]

It does seem that seeing the body as indefinable is an unusual perspective, as most people do take the body and the material world as givens. It seems to me that Chomsky is coming from the angle of seeing the body as a reality apart from its connection with mental processes as meaningless. If one was simply a body without the life of subjective experience it would be like some kind of non living being. This would be like people who are unconscious after some kind of accident, often kept alive artificially on respiratory. Even then, it may be that these people do have some kind of dream states.

Of course, there is the philosophy of idealism, but it does not mean that Chomsky goes that far. But, there is the whole perspective which sees the physical as an illusion and the mental as more real. This is the perspective of Berkley and some Eastern metaphysics. In many ways this is the opposite to the way most people think because the body can be observed and measured. However, at a phenomenological level, mind as the processing aspect of consciousness is the lens through which this is observed. It is possible to check this out through interaction with others, although it does mean that the reality has to involve believing that the other people are real. If this was doubted it would involve a solipsism in which everything in the outer world was seen as being like a dream.

It looks to me like Chomsky is making the complementary point to mine:

To identify the mind as a distinct thing is a "philosophical mistake", I think. To look at the mind in isolation is not useful, that I can see. A human mind is embodied; a human body is 'enminded'. To consider one without the other cannot lead to useful or usable conclusions. Dualism for intellectual convenience can sometimes be useful. But in this case, we cannot afford to consider the mind as an isolated entity because our conclusions will be incomplete, and thereby mistaken.

The actual line about viewing the mind separately being a philosophical mistake' was my interpretation of his writing. The lecture I read by him was fairly short so I may try to find other writing by him on the topic.

However, I do read on the nature of mind generally because I am extremely interested in the area between psychology and philosophy. One book which I have been reading is ' Other Minds' by Peter Godfrey-Smith. In this, he refers to David Hume's remark that, ' A person is just a bundle or collection of images and feelings'. Nevertheless, this author goes on to suggest omissions in Hume's perspective. In particular, there are specific combinations, meaning that, 'Our experiences usually form an integrated "scene". Also,'When people look inside, most people find a flow of inner speech, a monologue which accompanies much of our conscious life.' Culture and language learned play an important role here and the connection with the individual mind with those of other people.

[Consul]

Kant's definition implies that the physical world as a whole isn't a body if it is spatially infinite, since an extended object with an infinite volume doesn't have a spatial boundary (and thus doesn't have a figure either). But I think this restriction is unnecessary for the general concept of a body. The concept of an infinitely extended body is acceptable, whereas the concept of a non-extended body is not.

Disagree. An infinitely extended body is as incoherent, as self-contradictory, as an unextended one. We are justified in denoting some X as a body only when we can discern, and specify, its limits. An infinitely extended elephant would be indistinguishable from a non-existent one.

There is only body which is possibly infinitely extended: the corpus mundi, Weltkörper (in German), or world-body, i.e. the world as a whole as one extended material substance. This one possibility makes the concept of a boundaryless body coherent. The concept of a boundaryless elephant is surely incoherent.

[SteveKlinko]

Part of the mind and body comes down to the question of dualism but it is also related to the issue of materialism or idealism. It also comes down to how mind and body are defined. In particular, I am thinking how other concepts come in, such as the 'soul' and the 'self' come in, to speak of mental states of human beings.

I have been reading Noam Chomsky on the mind and body problem, in his lecture titled, 'The View Beyond: Prospects for the Study of Mind', in which he explores the way in which the idea of the body itself is vague. He states,
'there is no definite concept of the body. Rather, there is a material world, the properties of which are to be discovered, with no a priori demarcation of what will count as "body". The mind-body problem can therefore not be formulated. The problem cannot be solved, because there is no clear way to state it. Unless someone proposes a definite concept of the body, we cannot ask whether some phenomena exceed its bounds. Similarly, we cannot pose the problem of other minds'.

I am wondering how this fits into the psychological and philosophy debates about what is 'mind', which is sometimes ambiguous. I am quoting Chomsky with a view to questioning the ambiguity of body as well as mind. I am also thinking how many see the issue of mind in terms of neuroscience, which is about connecting mental states to the brain. Does this approach solve the problem of the mind-body problem, or does it still leave unanswered philosophy questions about the meaning and relationship between mind and body? Can mind be reduced to 'brain' and the body or is consciousness a larger 'reality' imminent through the organs of human perception?

I don't quite understand the premise that the Body is not definable. What are some examples of things that are ambiguous about the Body?

It does seem that seeing the body as indefinable is an unusual perspective, as most people do take the body and the material world as givens. It seems to me that Chomsky is coming from the angle of seeing the body as a reality apart from its connection with mental processes as meaningless. If one was simply a body without the life of subjective experience it would be like some kind of non living being. This would be like people who are unconscious after some kind of accident, often kept alive artificially on respiratory. Even then, it may be that these people do have some kind of dream states.

Of course, there is the philosophy of idealism, but it does not mean that Chomsky goes that far. But, there is the whole perspective which sees the physical as an illusion and the mental as more real. This is the perspective of Berkley and some Eastern metaphysics. In many ways this is the opposite to the way most people think because the body can be observed and measured. However, at a phenomenological level, mind as the processing aspect of consciousness is the lens through which this is observed. It is possible to check this out through interaction with others, although it does mean that the reality has to involve believing that the other people are real. If this was doubted it would involve a solipsism in which everything in the outer world was seen as being like a dream.

If you are saying that the Body is ambiguous because of Idealism which says there is no real Body but, but only Consciousness, then maybe I get it. From my point of view there is a Real External Physical Universe plus an separate Real Internal Conscious Universe. These two Universes are Connected in some unknown way. The Physical Universe can go away, as it eventually will, but the Conscious Universe will always still be around. Since we are actually Conscious Minds in this Conscious Universe we will be around after the Physical Universe falls back into the Big Crunch or expands into the Big Whimper. There will be no more Physical Stuff for Conscious Stuff to Connect to. We will all then be Pure Conscious Experience. We cannot imagine what that will be like at this time.

[Consul]

A body (in the physical sense of the term) is a spatially or spatiotemporally extended material object or substance.

Another question is whether bodies qua substances must be mereological atoms, i.e. bodies which don't have any other, smaller bodies as parts. If the answer is yes, then all bodies are simple extended material substances; and then all apparent bodies such as horses and rocks are only societies of bodies.

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"The word body, in the most general acceptation, signifieth that which filleth, or occupieth some certain room, or imagined place; and dependeth not on the imagination, but is a real part of that we call the universe."

(Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. [Pt. 3, ch. 34, §2.] p. 261)
<QUOTE

It should be mentioned that a body as "that which fills, or occupies some certain room" needn't be solid. A mass of water and a cloud of gas are bodies too.

[JackDaydream]

Part of the mind and body comes down to the question of dualism but it is also related to the issue of materialism or idealism. It also comes down to how mind and body are defined. In particular, I am thinking how other concepts come in, such as the 'soul' and the 'self' come in, to speak of mental states of human beings.

I have been reading Noam Chomsky on the mind and body problem, in his lecture titled, 'The View Beyond: Prospects for the Study of Mind', in which he explores the way in which the idea of the body itself is vague. He states,
'there is no definite concept of the body. Rather, there is a material world, the properties of which are to be discovered, with no a priori demarcation of what will count as "body". The mind-body problem can therefore not be formulated. The problem cannot be solved, because there is no clear way to state it. Unless someone proposes a definite concept of the body, we cannot ask whether some phenomena exceed its bounds. Similarly, we cannot pose the problem of other minds'.

I am wondering how this fits into the psychological and philosophy debates about what is 'mind', which is sometimes ambiguous. I am quoting Chomsky with a view to questioning the ambiguity of body as well as mind. I am also thinking how many see the issue of mind in terms of neuroscience, which is about connecting mental states to the brain. Does this approach solve the problem of the mind-body problem, or does it still leave unanswered philosophy questions about the meaning and relationship between mind and body? Can mind be reduced to 'brain' and the body or is consciousness a larger 'reality' imminent through the organs of human perception?

I don't quite understand the premise that the Body is not definable. What are some examples of things that are ambiguous about the Body?

It does seem that seeing the body as indefinable is an unusual perspective, as most people do take the body and the material world as givens. It seems to me that Chomsky is coming from the angle of seeing the body as a reality apart from its connection with mental processes as meaningless. If one was simply a body without the life of subjective experience it would be like some kind of non living being. This would be like people who are unconscious after some kind of accident, often kept alive artificially on respiratory. Even then, it may be that these people do have some kind of dream states.

Of course, there is the philosophy of idealism, but it does not mean that Chomsky goes that far. But, there is the whole perspective which sees the physical as an illusion and the mental as more real. This is the perspective of Berkley and some Eastern metaphysics. In many ways this is the opposite to the way most people think because the body can be observed and measured. However, at a phenomenological level, mind as the processing aspect of consciousness is the lens through which this is observed. It is possible to check this out through interaction with others, although it does mean that the reality has to involve believing that the other people are real. If this was doubted it would involve a solipsism in which everything in the outer world was seen as being like a dream.

If you are saying that the Body is ambiguous because of Idealism which says there is no real Body but, but only Consciousness, then maybe I get it. From my point of view there is a Real External Physical Universe plus an separate Real Internal Conscious Universe. These two Universes are Connected in some unknown way. The Physical Universe can go away, as it eventually will, but the Conscious Universe will always still be around. Since we are actually Conscious Minds in this Conscious Universe we will be around after the Physical Universe falls back into the Big Crunch or expands into the Big Whimper. There will be no more Physical Stuff for Conscious Stuff to Connect to. We will all then be Pure Conscious Experience. We cannot imagine what that will be like at this time.

That's an interesting perspective with the two universes of mind and body. It could be like an overlapping Venn diagram whereby the two come together. I am interested in the perspective of non dualism which is about overcoming the two aspects of mind and matter itself. It is complex though, from the standpoint of the human mind which cannot see beyond completely, as both Kant pointed out.

As for the idea that the physical may fall away and the consciousness remain, that is a form of idealism. But, it could also be that mind fell into matter initially. That is the viewpoint of some esoteric thinkers. Of course, it is hard to know how mind could exist prior to matter or after it has vanished. Such a view is at odds with the basics of scientific materialism.

I do find the area interesting but it is hard to know how minds would exist but it may be that there are inherent structures of mind or memory which do exist even though most people are unaware of them. One writer who speaks of such memories underlying nature is Rupert Sheldrake. His theory of morphic resonance suggests morphogenic fields as memories underlying developments in nature and life forms.

One other aspect is whether the mind is a blank state at birth. That is what John Locke thought and the contemporary thinker, Stephen Pinker. But, that is where one gets into the nitty gritty question of what is mind exactly? If at some point the physical world does cease to exist it could be asked if consciousness of beings were to continue. What form would it take. I imagine that disembodied forms would be like spirits. The idea of spirits is not accepted much very easily and is often compartmentalised into religious or esoteric thinking but it may be that there is a lot more to life and reality than most people are aware, although it is hard to find clear evidence because that is bound up with the knowledge and perception of the material world. I am not certain of such dimensions but I keep an open mind.

[JackDaydream]

QUOTE>
"The word body, in the most general acceptation, signifieth that which filleth, or occupieth some certain room, or imagined place; and dependeth not on the imagination, but is a real part of that we call the universe."

(Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. [Pt. 3, ch. 34, §2.] p. 261)
<QUOTE

It should be mentioned that a body as "that which fills, or occupies some certain room" needn't be solid. A mass of water and a cloud of gas are bodies too.

Your point about a body not having to be 'solid' is interesting because especially at the quantum level there is not complete solidity. Even the human body is not solid and comprised of fluid.

Also, it all comes down to energy structures and this is important to change. As it is, there is recognition that every cell in the body dies and is remade every seven years. So, in a way each of us is a different being to who we were 7 years ago physically. If anything it is 'mind' as the architecture or narrative structure which keeps it all together through memory and a sense of personal iidentity. These all involve the brain and chromosomes but the physical cells are new ones.

The internal sense of identity may change throughout the course of life in relation to the experiences in life but there is an underlying memory and sense of self. I can think back to when I was at primary school and I look and think differently but I still have a sense of being the same person in the form of continuity of identity.

[GE Morton]

There is only body which is possibly infinitely extended: the corpus mundi, Weltkörper (in German), or world-body, i.e. the world as a whole as one extended material substance. This one possibility makes the concept of a boundaryless body coherent. The concept of a boundaryless elephant is surely incoherent.

That concept is itself incoherent. It is a purely verbal construct, and by construing a disjoint, distributed plurality as a "body," an abuse of that term.

[GE Morton]

That concept is itself incoherent. It is a purely verbal construct, and by construing a disjoint, distributed plurality as a "body," an abuse of that term.

We do need to keep in mind that "body" also has another, quite distinct meaning --- it can also refer to a collection of some kind, such as "body of law," or "body of evidence."

[SteveKlinko]

I don't quite understand the premise that the Body is not definable. What are some examples of things that are ambiguous about the Body?

It does seem that seeing the body as indefinable is an unusual perspective, as most people do take the body and the material world as givens. It seems to me that Chomsky is coming from the angle of seeing the body as a reality apart from its connection with mental processes as meaningless. If one was simply a body without the life of subjective experience it would be like some kind of non living being. This would be like people who are unconscious after some kind of accident, often kept alive artificially on respiratory. Even then, it may be that these people do have some kind of dream states.

Of course, there is the philosophy of idealism, but it does not mean that Chomsky goes that far. But, there is the whole perspective which sees the physical as an illusion and the mental as more real. This is the perspective of Berkley and some Eastern metaphysics. In many ways this is the opposite to the way most people think because the body can be observed and measured. However, at a phenomenological level, mind as the processing aspect of consciousness is the lens through which this is observed. It is possible to check this out through interaction with others, although it does mean that the reality has to involve believing that the other people are real. If this was doubted it would involve a solipsism in which everything in the outer world was seen as being like a dream.

If you are saying that the Body is ambiguous because of Idealism which says there is no real Body but, but only Consciousness, then maybe I get it. From my point of view there is a Real External Physical Universe plus an separate Real Internal Conscious Universe. These two Universes are Connected in some unknown way. The Physical Universe can go away, as it eventually will, but the Conscious Universe will always still be around. Since we are actually Conscious Minds in this Conscious Universe we will be around after the Physical Universe falls back into the Big Crunch or expands into the Big Whimper. There will be no more Physical Stuff for Conscious Stuff to Connect to. We will all then be Pure Conscious Experience. We cannot imagine what that will be like at this time.

That's an interesting perspective with the two universes of mind and body. It could be like an overlapping Venn diagram whereby the two come together. I am interested in the perspective of non dualism which is about overcoming the two aspects of mind and matter itself. It is complex though, from the standpoint of the human mind which cannot see beyond completely, as both Kant pointed out.

As for the idea that the physical may fall away and the consciousness remain, that is a form of idealism. But, it could also be that mind fell into matter initially. That is the viewpoint of some esoteric thinkers. Of course, it is hard to know how mind could exist prior to matter or after it has vanished. Such a view is at odds with the basics of scientific materialism.

I do find the area interesting but it is hard to know how minds would exist but it may be that there are inherent structures of mind or memory which do exist even though most people are unaware of them. One writer who speaks of such memories underlying nature is Rupert Sheldrake. His theory of morphic resonance suggests morphogenic fields as memories underlying developments in nature and life forms.

One other aspect is whether the mind is a blank state at birth. That is what John Locke thought and the contemporary thinker, Stephen Pinker. But, that is where one gets into the nitty gritty question of what is mind exactly? If at some point the physical world does cease to exist it could be asked if consciousness of beings were to continue. What form would it take. I imagine that disembodied forms would be like spirits. The idea of spirits is not accepted much very easily and is often compartmentalised into religious or esoteric thinking but it may be that there is a lot more to life and reality than most people are aware, although it is hard to find clear evidence because that is bound up with the knowledge and perception of the material world. I am not certain of such dimensions but I keep an open mind.

The Physicalist view will prevent the understanding that there could be a Conscious Mind in Conscious Space, separate from, a Physical Mind (Brain) in Physical Space. This is simply because the Physicalist must always insist that the Conscious Mind IS the Physical Mind. To a Physicalist there could never be a Conscious Mind if there was no Physical Universe. The Physicalist view has been researched and studied for a Hundred years, but Science has Zero Explanation for how Conscious Experiences ARE the Brain. Emphasis on the Zero. Conscious Experiences do not even Seem like they could BE the Brain. It's the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience that have fooled almost everyone, including the best Minds on the planet, into pursuing the Physicalist point of view. We need to start designing Modern Models for the old Dualism. Like it or not Dualism seems to be the most Coherent approach, given the absolute Categorical Differences between any Conscious Experience and any kind of Neural Activity. Conscious Experience refuses to be pushed back into the Neurons. The Experiences just seem to sort of float there in some unknown place outside of what the Neurons are doing. I call this unknown place Conscious Space.

[Consul]

There is only body which is possibly infinitely extended: the corpus mundi, Weltkörper (in German), or world-body, i.e. the world as a whole as one extended material substance. This one possibility makes the concept of a boundaryless body coherent. The concept of a boundaryless elephant is surely incoherent.

That concept is itself incoherent. It is a purely verbal construct, and by construing a disjoint, distributed plurality as a "body," an abuse of that term.

No, I don't think so. If bodies are extended substances, what's incoherent about the idea of an infinitely extended body?

Planets and animals are bodies, but they are composite bodies, ones composed of smaller bodies, and fundamentally of tiny, minimal bodies (corpuscles—Latin "corpusculum" = diminuitive of "corpus").

[Consul]

No, I don't think so. If bodies are extended substances, what's incoherent about the idea of an infinitely extended body?

Of course, if the idea of an actual infinity is incoherent, then the idea of an infinitely extended body is incoherent too.