Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 6:56 am

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 11th, 2022, 1:15 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 10th, 2022, 11:43 pm

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 10th, 2022, 7:44 pm

My idea as to where the line is drawn between physicality and mentality? I think we're the line itself. Or perhaps, what we call "we".

The connectivity?

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

The question here is very strange to me. We are asking "what is the connection?", when surely the connections are many and varied, to the point where implying a single connection is misleading? I think we are supposed to understand this question as a figurative one, but even so...

The connections between body and mind are mechanical and physical, electrical and biological. And that's before we start to consider the more, er, abstract parts of these connections (i.e. where we look at the connections between mind and body, instead of those between the brain and the body). I think the connections between these two are many and multi-faceted, and not a single 'connection' at all. The two are intimately connected, perhaps to the point where it is not useful to consider the two as being separable or distinct in any meaningful sense?

I agree with you, especially with the last sentence.

In that response you've quoted, I was talking about something else. I was more of talking about the mind and body connection in a much more philosophical and solipsist point of view, where complex and multi-faceted chemistry and biology do not come into play, but instead only our experiences and what they signify to us. It was an attempt to connect the solipsist idea with the materialist one, where each major factor behind them does not deal with the laws of physics(as the idea of the laws of physics is only a mere subset to the idea of the materialist world), but instead deals with a simple yet powerful philosophical duality—if our perception of a completely materialistic world that goes on outside of our consciousness exists, then shouldn't this also be considered a solipsist world since it is us who "perceives this material world that is outside of our consciousness" and "believes" that it goes on regardless of our presence? Since it is us who "deems it a world" to begin with?

And vice versa.

A duality this fundamental that it's almost paradoxical, can only be merged through something even more fundamental. One concept fundamental enough to encompass the two. The single concept that the two first diverged from.

In this sense, to offer several different solutions to overcome this duality simply won't work. This is because philosophy does not follow the laws of physics and chemistry—it follows logic, just like the laws of physics or chemistry but in a different way, so to speak.

It's also because complex and multi-faceted solutions can only arise from a system of reality as its product. It does not arise as a system of reality. In this case where I was arguing about the nature of reality (or the nature of everything that we do) itself, one must delve into the system itself rather than its products.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 8:17 am

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 5:57 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 9:18 am

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 11th, 2022, 1:15 am

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

Take a look at this Forum Topic on Connectism:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17727

While not intended, thanks for the reminder. I remembered that I left one of your questions in this thread unanswered, that was, how the attributes of Conscious Mind(Qualia) such as redness could spring from the Physical Mind. I think I have somewhat of a vague answer to this question:

They are essentially “how neurons are affected by the outside world in a specific way due to the specific nature of what they are made out of as well as their inner functions”.

I'll explain further because I don't want to be TOO vague either. Because of the laws of physics, materials are bound to react to some degree from outside impulses. Different materials are bound to react differently to each outside impulses, especially when it comes to cellular objects, they would react with more intensity as they have a lot of inner functions going on, as opposed to metal or wood which are just molecules combined together. Redness is when the specific frequency of the lightwave makes our neurons(out of all objects) react and activate in a certain specific way. To be more specific, it is how the neurons themselves translate that "red" frequency part of light into their own language, something they can describe only using what materials and functions they are made out of & how they are affected by this lightwave.

That is to say, redness can therefore be described as a frequency of light that is solely described by the neurons' own native materials and functions. And so this information of redness is spread throughout the neighboring neurons and is very easily understood by them, as redness is how only the neurons specifically "see" the "red" frequency of the light. How that frequency affects their materials and functions.

In a way, the creation of Qualia is akin to a process of translating a language.

But the question remains: How is this Translation done?

I already told you how it's done. If you want a very very vague summary, then it's done simply through the natural consequences of the laws of physics affecting an object and the object being affected in different ways depending on how it is made.

If you're asking about how the laws of physics make this whole process happen to begin with—There really is no "how" when it comes to the laws of physics. They simply just exist and carry themselves out.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 10th, 2022, 11:43 pm The connectivity?

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 11th, 2022, 1:15 am Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 6:56 am The question here is very strange to me. We are asking "what is the connection?", when surely the connections are many and varied, to the point where implying a single connection is misleading? I think we are supposed to understand this question as a figurative one, but even so...

The connections between body and mind are mechanical and physical, electrical and biological. And that's before we start to consider the more, er, abstract parts of these connections (i.e. where we look at the connections between mind and body, instead of those between the brain and the body). I think the connections between these two are many and multi-faceted, and not a single 'connection' at all. The two are intimately connected, perhaps to the point where it is not useful to consider the two as being separable or distinct in any meaningful sense?

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 8:26 am I agree with you, especially with the last sentence.

In that response you've quoted, I was talking about something else. I was more of talking about the mind and body connection in a much more philosophical and solipsist point of view, where complex and multi-faceted chemistry and biology do not come into play, but instead only our experiences and what they signify to us.

Yes, I think I got that. I did say "I think we are supposed to understand this question as a figurative one, but even so..." I think my point still stands. 'The' connection between mind and body is still a multi-stranded and multi-faceted one, I think. Perhaps it's a bit like 'truth', which at first sight resembles a simple and precisely-defined concept, but proves to be much more complex than the unwary philosopher might initially suspect.

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 8:31 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 8:17 am

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 5:57 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 9:18 am
Take a look at this Forum Topic on Connectism:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17727

While not intended, thanks for the reminder. I remembered that I left one of your questions in this thread unanswered, that was, how the attributes of Conscious Mind(Qualia) such as redness could spring from the Physical Mind. I think I have somewhat of a vague answer to this question:

They are essentially “how neurons are affected by the outside world in a specific way due to the specific nature of what they are made out of as well as their inner functions”.

I'll explain further because I don't want to be TOO vague either. Because of the laws of physics, materials are bound to react to some degree from outside impulses. Different materials are bound to react differently to each outside impulses, especially when it comes to cellular objects, they would react with more intensity as they have a lot of inner functions going on, as opposed to metal or wood which are just molecules combined together. Redness is when the specific frequency of the lightwave makes our neurons(out of all objects) react and activate in a certain specific way. To be more specific, it is how the neurons themselves translate that "red" frequency part of light into their own language, something they can describe only using what materials and functions they are made out of & how they are affected by this lightwave.

That is to say, redness can therefore be described as a frequency of light that is solely described by the neurons' own native materials and functions. And so this information of redness is spread throughout the neighboring neurons and is very easily understood by them, as redness is how only the neurons specifically "see" the "red" frequency of the light. How that frequency affects their materials and functions.

In a way, the creation of Qualia is akin to a process of translating a language.

But the question remains: How is this Translation done?

I already told you how it's done. If you want a very very vague summary, then it's done simply through the natural consequences of the laws of physics affecting an object and the object being affected in different ways depending on how it is made.

If you're asking about how the laws of physics make this whole process happen to begin with—There really is no "how" when it comes to the laws of physics. They simply just exist and carry themselves out.

I suppose this makes you a Physicalist. I am understanding that you think that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons and that is that. No further Explanation is needed. That is the usual Physicalist understanding. A lot of people Believe that. I don't see it that way, so we are at an Impasse.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 10:58 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 10th, 2022, 11:43 pm The connectivity?

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 11th, 2022, 1:15 am Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 6:56 am The question here is very strange to me. We are asking "what is the connection?", when surely the connections are many and varied, to the point where implying a single connection is misleading? I think we are supposed to understand this question as a figurative one, but even so...

The connections between body and mind are mechanical and physical, electrical and biological. And that's before we start to consider the more, er, abstract parts of these connections (i.e. where we look at the connections between mind and body, instead of those between the brain and the body). I think the connections between these two are many and multi-faceted, and not a single 'connection' at all. The two are intimately connected, perhaps to the point where it is not useful to consider the two as being separable or distinct in any meaningful sense?

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 8:26 am I agree with you, especially with the last sentence.

In that response you've quoted, I was talking about something else. I was more of talking about the mind and body connection in a much more philosophical and solipsist point of view, where complex and multi-faceted chemistry and biology do not come into play, but instead only our experiences and what they signify to us.

Yes, I think I got that. I did say "I think we are supposed to understand this question as a figurative one, but even so..." I think my point still stands. 'The' connection between mind and body is still a multi-stranded and multi-faceted one, I think. Perhaps it's a bit like 'truth', which at first sight resembles a simple and precisely-defined concept, but proves to be much more complex than the unwary philosopher might initially suspect.

Mind enlightening this unwary philosopher then, and explain how the precisely-defined concept proves to be much more complex? For all I know, these connections between mind and body in a physical sense ARE multi-stranded and multi-faceted, but the connection I was referring to already encompasses such things, making it whole and single.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 11:56 am

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 8:31 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 8:17 am

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 5:57 pm

While not intended, thanks for the reminder. I remembered that I left one of your questions in this thread unanswered, that was, how the attributes of Conscious Mind(Qualia) such as redness could spring from the Physical Mind. I think I have somewhat of a vague answer to this question:

They are essentially “how neurons are affected by the outside world in a specific way due to the specific nature of what they are made out of as well as their inner functions”.

I'll explain further because I don't want to be TOO vague either. Because of the laws of physics, materials are bound to react to some degree from outside impulses. Different materials are bound to react differently to each outside impulses, especially when it comes to cellular objects, they would react with more intensity as they have a lot of inner functions going on, as opposed to metal or wood which are just molecules combined together. Redness is when the specific frequency of the lightwave makes our neurons(out of all objects) react and activate in a certain specific way. To be more specific, it is how the neurons themselves translate that "red" frequency part of light into their own language, something they can describe only using what materials and functions they are made out of & how they are affected by this lightwave.

That is to say, redness can therefore be described as a frequency of light that is solely described by the neurons' own native materials and functions. And so this information of redness is spread throughout the neighboring neurons and is very easily understood by them, as redness is how only the neurons specifically "see" the "red" frequency of the light. How that frequency affects their materials and functions.

In a way, the creation of Qualia is akin to a process of translating a language.

But the question remains: How is this Translation done?

I already told you how it's done. If you want a very very vague summary, then it's done simply through the natural consequences of the laws of physics affecting an object and the object being affected in different ways depending on how it is made.

If you're asking about how the laws of physics make this whole process happen to begin with—There really is no "how" when it comes to the laws of physics. They simply just exist and carry themselves out.

I suppose this makes you a Physicalist. I am understanding that you think that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons and that is that. No further Explanation is needed. That is the usual Physicalist understanding. A lot of people Believe that. I don't see it that way, so we are at an Impasse.

So you believe that our disagreement cannot be solved via logical arguments? That we can not know which side is right when it comes to consciousness?

Consul

In the light of our chats, I thought this might be of interest to you: https://www.wionews.com/science/even-a- ... ys-a-study

Decisions are hard. (Remember good ol' Hamlet?). From what you'll have for dinner to what you will wear for it, choices abound. And all of this may often lead to an unnecessary headache. But it turns out making a decision is not hard as it is made out to be. A worm with just 302 neurons can do this successfully.

... P pacificus' behaviour with respect to C elegans was studied. C elegans is P pacificus' competitior as well as its prey. It was observed that when confronted with larval C elegans that are easy to overpower, P pacificus bit to devour. But when a fully grown C elegans tried to steal its food, P pacificus bit just to deter it.

The combination of visuals and music has a remarkably profound effect :)

Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 10:20 pm @Consul

In the light of our chats, I thought this might be of interest to you: https://www.wionews.com/science/even-a- ... ys-a-study

Decisions are hard. (Remember good ol' Hamlet?). From what you'll have for dinner to what you will wear for it, choices abound. And all of this may often lead to an unnecessary headache. But it turns out making a decision is not hard as it is made out to be. A worm with just 302 neurons can do this successfully.

... P pacificus' behaviour with respect to C elegans was studied. C elegans is P pacificus' competitior as well as its prey. It was observed that when confronted with larval C elegans that are easy to overpower, P pacificus bit to devour. But when a fully grown C elegans tried to steal its food, P pacificus bit just to deter it.

The combination of visuals and music has a remarkably profound effect

So much for the metaphysical glorification of Free Will !

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 4:27 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 11:56 am

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 8:31 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 8:17 am
But the question remains: How is this Translation done?

I already told you how it's done. If you want a very very vague summary, then it's done simply through the natural consequences of the laws of physics affecting an object and the object being affected in different ways depending on how it is made.

If you're asking about how the laws of physics make this whole process happen to begin with—There really is no "how" when it comes to the laws of physics. They simply just exist and carry themselves out.

I suppose this makes you a Physicalist. I am understanding that you think that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons and that is that. No further Explanation is needed. That is the usual Physicalist understanding. A lot of people Believe that. I don't see it that way, so we are at an Impasse.

So you believe that our disagreement cannot be solved via logical arguments? That we can not know which side is right when it comes to consciousness?

I believe it will be impossible to reason with you because of my many many conversations with other Physicalists over the years. You seem sure you are right. I am not sure of anything, I merely pursue the most Logical path of study. My current path takes me in direct conflict with the Physicalist view. If you are going to convince me of the Physicalist view then you have to do better than saying with regard to Conscious Experience and the laws of Physics that "They simply just exist and carry themselves out". How is it that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons? The answer can not be "Conscious Experience just IS the Neurons". If that would be the thrust of your answer, then that is a non answer.

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 4:26 pm For all I know, these connections between mind and body in a physical sense ARE multi-stranded and multi-faceted, but the connection I was referring to already encompasses such things, making it whole and single.

OK, there is no reason here for a protracted discussion. I think that, if you examine "the connection" you refer to, you will find that it is complex, and not meaningfully singular, but if you perceive it that way, I'm not going to argue any more. I've made the point I intended to make.

Take care.

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 4:26 pmMind enlightening this unwary philosopher then, and explain how the precisely-defined concept proves to be much more complex? For all I know, these connections between mind and body in a physical sense ARE multi-stranded and multi-faceted, but the connection I was referring to already encompasses such things, making it whole and single.

There are no mind-body connections other than the ones between the (central) nervous system and the organism. So-called psychosomatics is nothing over and above neurosomatics.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 10:20 pm @Consul

In the light of our chats, I thought this might be of interest to you: https://www.wionews.com/science/even-a- ... ys-a-study

Decisions are hard. (Remember good ol' Hamlet?). From what you'll have for dinner to what you will wear for it, choices abound. And all of this may often lead to an unnecessary headache. But it turns out making a decision is not hard as it is made out to be. A worm with just 302 neurons can do this successfully.

... P pacificus' behaviour with respect to C elegans was studied. C elegans is P pacificus' competitior as well as its prey. It was observed that when confronted with larval C elegans that are easy to overpower, P pacificus bit to devour. But when a fully grown C elegans tried to steal its food, P pacificus bit just to deter it.

The verb "to decide" is ambiguous between "to come to a resolution in the mind as a result of consideration" and "to make a choice from a number of alternatives" (source). In the first sense, decisions require the capacity for conscious thought, which all worms lack; and in the second sense, they don't, because a nonconscious selective mechanism in an organism can "make a choice" from a number of behavioral alternatives or options. Worms may be capable of "making decisions" in this second sense, but their automatic neurophysiological mechanisms responsible for doing so are totally nonconscious.

Consul wrote: ↑March 14th, 2022, 10:36 am

GrayArea wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 4:26 pmMind enlightening this unwary philosopher then, and explain how the precisely-defined concept proves to be much more complex? For all I know, these connections between mind and body in a physical sense ARE multi-stranded and multi-faceted, but the connection I was referring to already encompasses such things, making it whole and single.

There are no mind-body connections other than the ones between the (central) nervous system and the organism. So-called psychosomatics is nothing over and above neurosomatics.

And all that is what we perceive, using our mind. Is it not?

Consul wrote: ↑March 14th, 2022, 1:10 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 10:20 pm @Consul

In the light of our chats, I thought this might be of interest to you: https://www.wionews.com/science/even-a- ... ys-a-study

Decisions are hard. (Remember good ol' Hamlet?). From what you'll have for dinner to what you will wear for it, choices abound. And all of this may often lead to an unnecessary headache. But it turns out making a decision is not hard as it is made out to be. A worm with just 302 neurons can do this successfully.

... P pacificus' behaviour with respect to C elegans was studied. C elegans is P pacificus' competitior as well as its prey. It was observed that when confronted with larval C elegans that are easy to overpower, P pacificus bit to devour. But when a fully grown C elegans tried to steal its food, P pacificus bit just to deter it.

The verb "to decide" is ambiguous between "to come to a resolution in the mind as a result of consideration" and "to make a choice from a number of alternatives" (source). In the first sense, decisions require the capacity for conscious thought, which all worms lack; and in the second sense, they don't, because a nonconscious selective mechanism in an organism can "make a choice" from a number of behavioral alternatives or options. Worms may be capable of "making decisions" in this second sense, but their automatic neurophysiological mechanisms responsible for doing so are totally nonconscious.

I still think that animals declaring other animals "non-conscious" based on assumptions is problematic.

Humanity has a long and ugly history of treating its own type of consciousness as a yardstick, as if it was typical. In fact, humanlike consciousness is an extreme outlier. Thus, humans are the very worst species to use as the basis of consciousness studies. A significant issue here is the use of post hoc rationalisations to describe human behaviours that are, at heart, no more complex than P. pacificus's discretionary treatment of C. elegans - just reflexes with justifications made after the fact.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 14th, 2022, 7:30 pm

Consul wrote: ↑March 14th, 2022, 1:10 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 13th, 2022, 10:20 pm @Consul

In the light of our chats, I thought this might be of interest to you: https://www.wionews.com/science/even-a- ... ys-a-study

Decisions are hard. (Remember good ol' Hamlet?). From what you'll have for dinner to what you will wear for it, choices abound. And all of this may often lead to an unnecessary headache. But it turns out making a decision is not hard as it is made out to be. A worm with just 302 neurons can do this successfully.

... P pacificus' behaviour with respect to C elegans was studied. C elegans is P pacificus' competitior as well as its prey. It was observed that when confronted with larval C elegans that are easy to overpower, P pacificus bit to devour. But when a fully grown C elegans tried to steal its food, P pacificus bit just to deter it.

The verb "to decide" is ambiguous between "to come to a resolution in the mind as a result of consideration" and "to make a choice from a number of alternatives" (source). In the first sense, decisions require the capacity for conscious thought, which all worms lack; and in the second sense, they don't, because a nonconscious selective mechanism in an organism can "make a choice" from a number of behavioral alternatives or options. Worms may be capable of "making decisions" in this second sense, but their automatic neurophysiological mechanisms responsible for doing so are totally nonconscious.

I still think that animals declaring other animals "non-conscious" based on assumptions is problematic.

Humanity has a long and ugly history of treating its own type of consciousness as a yardstick, as if it was typical. In fact, humanlike consciousness is an extreme outlier. Thus, humans are the very worst species to use as the basis of consciousness studies. A significant issue here is the use of post hoc rationalisations to describe human behaviours that are, at heart, no more complex than P. pacificus's discretionary treatment of C. elegans - just reflexes with justifications made after the fact.

It is the Conscious Experience as a thing in itself that is at issue. Any subsequent Behaviors are irrelevant to the study of the Conscious Sensory Experience if you are trying to understand the Experience itself.