One of my correspondents has pointed out that I have missed a key point in my earlier discussion concerning the Physicalist/Dualist interpretation of the mind/body problem. As you recall, I tried to summarize the two camps as being either Physicalist, wherein consciousness is explained by only involking the electrical and chemical physical activities of the brain and associated neurological components, and the Dualist camp wherein these same proceses occur, but a new Mind substance also exist=s that is not physical. The Dualists have two things going on: "brain things" as pointed out by King Julian in the movie Madagascar, and an additional consciousness thing that is what we call the Mind, in common sense terms.
My correspondent pointed out that I had missed the fact that physical things were actually energy things, not inanimate physical matter only. e=mC2, and all that. Mass and energy are equivalent, so that a physicalist is actually one who may be saying that consciousness arises not from "simple" chemistry and electrical impulses, but by the transfer of energy only. If we look at this at the level of the neuron and synapse, instead of talking about Ca pumps and membrane permeabilities we should really be talking about energy transfers. Mind is energy. Matter is energy. All there is is energy.
There is apparently a school of thought around this idea, which I have not yet discovered or studied. As with many things that are initially counter-intuitive, there is also a grain of truth here, and teasing it out may take some time. I may need to read something about this in order to acquire the ternimology to talk about it with some sense. My university education is 30 years old at this point and is aging. However, this seems less like a problem in education and more a problem with interpretation. How do we interpret the world around us? Yes, atoms make up the world of the physical, and yes, atoms are made up of smaller particles/waves that have dual physical and energy characteristics. Yet, at the HWI (human/world interface) where I live physical objects are real, and non-physical things are different than that. Invoking an energy explanation of Mind seems like a back-door approach, trying to get around the physicalist/dualist dichotomy using trickery rather than argument.
Help me out. Is there an argument here that I haven't seen yet? Help me get the idea of "matter as energy" as an explanation of the existence of Mind in the front door of this discussion, and justify having us pull up a chair at the table for it.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Arete' - An Excellent Discussion
A small group stayed around after the Canvassing activities were done, and discussed the idea that we all need to live our lives in a spirit of Excellence. I noted that Homer has Hector talking about being remembered not so much for being brave, or being a good man, but for having lived a life of excellence, what in Greek is called Arete'. We kicked around the various ways this might be interpreted in today's society, and in our individual lives. People liked the topic and i have been lobbied to continue the discussion when everyone can attend and participate. Perhaps I will.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
March 18 - What topic shall we choose?
The date is set. Last month's topic was Popular Choice, and it seemed to work well. This month we are hosting the annual Canvass Dinner, which will include a short presentation concerning the financial needs of the Fellowship and our individual roles in satisfying that need. I suppose we might pick the tipic: What is Duty? Socrates was fond of this topic, and I am too.
In ZAMM there is a section near the end where Pursig talks about Excellence in Being, as the Greek source of Quality that Phaedrus was seeking. He quotes Homer when a father is talking to the mother of his son, saying his most fervent hope is that he can live his life with honor and excellence, and it can be said of him that he comported himself with dignity. Phedrus interprets this as a statement of personal Quality, and understands the context to be one of Quality applied to daily and lifelong living. I read into this the idea of the Renaissance Man where each of us has the opportunity to become a complete, rounded individual whose knoweldge and interests span the decades and disciplines, and whose lives are lived as a model for our contemporaries.
Certainly a part of this is the idea of Duty; to ourselves, to our families, to our communities, and to our countries. To be a complete man is to be present and contributing to each of these spheres of life, and not just contributing, but to be a leader and an example for others to emulate. Can we do this? How do we do this? What is the best path to tread to live your life in a way to become an example to others, and an example to yourself? This is a Big Question in itself.
I'd love to hear back from readers about how they feel about the idea of using the concept of personal excellence as a basis exemplarily living. Is this a topic that ever crosses your mind? It yes, how do you respond? If not, does it make sense to think of a life lived in a sort of "high quality" way? Please respond with a comment.
In ZAMM there is a section near the end where Pursig talks about Excellence in Being, as the Greek source of Quality that Phaedrus was seeking. He quotes Homer when a father is talking to the mother of his son, saying his most fervent hope is that he can live his life with honor and excellence, and it can be said of him that he comported himself with dignity. Phedrus interprets this as a statement of personal Quality, and understands the context to be one of Quality applied to daily and lifelong living. I read into this the idea of the Renaissance Man where each of us has the opportunity to become a complete, rounded individual whose knoweldge and interests span the decades and disciplines, and whose lives are lived as a model for our contemporaries.
Certainly a part of this is the idea of Duty; to ourselves, to our families, to our communities, and to our countries. To be a complete man is to be present and contributing to each of these spheres of life, and not just contributing, but to be a leader and an example for others to emulate. Can we do this? How do we do this? What is the best path to tread to live your life in a way to become an example to others, and an example to yourself? This is a Big Question in itself.
I'd love to hear back from readers about how they feel about the idea of using the concept of personal excellence as a basis exemplarily living. Is this a topic that ever crosses your mind? It yes, how do you respond? If not, does it make sense to think of a life lived in a sort of "high quality" way? Please respond with a comment.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Socratic Question Format
I thought I would take a moment to set down one of the aspects of Big Questions that new people to the meeting may not be familiar with. This is the format of the question itself. Socrates was fond of the "What is ..." question. What is justice? What is duty? What is honor? That sort of thing. When I suggest topics for specific BQ meetings I intend to use the same sort of format, and hope that the dialectic method of examining these questions will be used by the participants.
In recent meetings where the floor has been thrown open to popular selection of the topic, these are the questions that have been selected: What is friendship? What is marriage? What is love? What is the meaning of life? Perhaps one of these will be selected. Perhaps another. We will have to see.
In recent meetings where the floor has been thrown open to popular selection of the topic, these are the questions that have been selected: What is friendship? What is marriage? What is love? What is the meaning of life? Perhaps one of these will be selected. Perhaps another. We will have to see.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
February 18: Attendee's Choice
There is no official topic tonight. We'll throw the session open to suggestion from the attendees and see where it goes. Come with your favorite question in mind, or go with the flow of conversation.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Mind/Body Dualism Revisited
In a post-meeting discussion last night I tried to explain why "normal" life experiences should be just as amazing as many of the exceptional experiences people seemed to want to use as examples of the mind/body problem. I must have failed to put the topic into proper context, because Pursig and myself both see the the experience of conscious mind inside a physical body as something of a miracle. So let me see if I can't make another run at setting up the problem.
The countertop in front of me is a physical object imbued with what I think most of us would agree to be no conscious event. A bucket of salty water is similarly without self-awareness. However, since humans are more like a bucket of salty water than we often realize, there is something going on inside us that makes consciousness happen. Something is happening that seems to go beyond what we understand physical materials have the capability to do, namely become self aware in the way we attribute human consciousness. How does that happen? Where does that happen? THAT was what I was trying to get us to contemplate.
The answer to this question generally falls into two camps. One we can call Physicalism, where the attribute of awareness is attributed to something like "complexity" of the constitution of the being. There are only physical phenomena happening and only one sort of thing exists, and that is the matter of the universe. From the primeval soup we have come, and of soup only are we. There is nothing more.
The second answer invokes a new substance, Mind, and gives it the attribute of consciousness. Mind is not physical. It does not have weight, shape, or location. It is somehow inside us, but not a part of us. At least not a part of us in the sense we can point to it and say "there it is!" We know that we have thoughts and we think we know our own thoughts intimately. Dualists would say that the thoughts are the stuff of Mind, since thoughts are similarly without mass or form. Dualists acknowledge the physical side, but invoke Mind to fill in the gap that seems to exist when talking about matter being animated and aware.
The problem has always been to reconcile the interaction between the physical and the mental realms. How can one affect the other? The common sense account is that our minds are the basis of our individuality and hold the keys to our personality and memories. The physical side is certainly involved, and is the path for sense experiences. Interaction with the environment comes to us through our senses, and rationality comes to us through our Mind. Dualists have to explain how these very different realms get together to form the whole that we are. Physicalists need to explain how physical phenomena only can lead to things like rational thought, awareness, and mental states. Traditionally they have had a hard time doing that.
In this environment are dreams insightful? Maybe. Dreams are usually thought of as being products of our sub-conscious mind, whatever that is. In an active and stimulated state we are awake and conscious. In an inactive and possibly sleeping state our conscious mind is inactive, but there is still some sort of trickle of activity which we call sub-conscious. Is this where dreams come from? If the answer is yes, then isn't this still just consciousness, in a reduced form? If the answer to that question is yes, then have we really gone anywhere with this line of reasoning?
Does the fact that drugs affect our mental states shed light on this problem? I think it does, and points towards Physicalism.
Are near death experiences relevant? I don't see how exactly since so many things may be happening that impact the physical system when the body is under extreme stress things are bound to be jumbled.
Is phylogeny helpful, since we are surrounded by creatures with different levels of complexity and different apparent amounts of awareness? I think phylogeny can offer hints that we can use to make a case but may not offer proof of anything. If you are Dualist looking at phylogenetic diversity, do you end up invoking some sort of Special Providence to explain why humans seemingly have more Mind than other animals? Would a Physicalist argue that human minds are the most developed, hence have the most awareness? The fossil record seems to show evidence of proto-conscious humanoid forms whose complexity may only have been some fractional part of current human brain development. This sort of phylogenetic thinking is really speculative, however, and does not seem to "prove" anything.
Does ontology provide any insights? I think it does. Human development from the egg to adult is marked with a clear physical development that includes things like development and maturation of the brain, and these developments can be tied to behavioral and cognitive traits that we attribute to consciousness. I think it makes a strong case for Physicalism. Could a Dualist claim that the Mind was present at one point of development and not another? How could that be defended?
We didn't do anything with the data identifying those in the group who tended toward Physicalism, and those towards Dualism. It might be interesting to contemplate this question:
What would it take in your own experience to sway you to the other side?
If you are a Physicalist, what life experience cold convince you that Dualism is the correct view?
If you are a Dualist, how could you be convinced that Physicalism is correct? Is there any way at all?
The countertop in front of me is a physical object imbued with what I think most of us would agree to be no conscious event. A bucket of salty water is similarly without self-awareness. However, since humans are more like a bucket of salty water than we often realize, there is something going on inside us that makes consciousness happen. Something is happening that seems to go beyond what we understand physical materials have the capability to do, namely become self aware in the way we attribute human consciousness. How does that happen? Where does that happen? THAT was what I was trying to get us to contemplate.
The answer to this question generally falls into two camps. One we can call Physicalism, where the attribute of awareness is attributed to something like "complexity" of the constitution of the being. There are only physical phenomena happening and only one sort of thing exists, and that is the matter of the universe. From the primeval soup we have come, and of soup only are we. There is nothing more.
The second answer invokes a new substance, Mind, and gives it the attribute of consciousness. Mind is not physical. It does not have weight, shape, or location. It is somehow inside us, but not a part of us. At least not a part of us in the sense we can point to it and say "there it is!" We know that we have thoughts and we think we know our own thoughts intimately. Dualists would say that the thoughts are the stuff of Mind, since thoughts are similarly without mass or form. Dualists acknowledge the physical side, but invoke Mind to fill in the gap that seems to exist when talking about matter being animated and aware.
The problem has always been to reconcile the interaction between the physical and the mental realms. How can one affect the other? The common sense account is that our minds are the basis of our individuality and hold the keys to our personality and memories. The physical side is certainly involved, and is the path for sense experiences. Interaction with the environment comes to us through our senses, and rationality comes to us through our Mind. Dualists have to explain how these very different realms get together to form the whole that we are. Physicalists need to explain how physical phenomena only can lead to things like rational thought, awareness, and mental states. Traditionally they have had a hard time doing that.
In this environment are dreams insightful? Maybe. Dreams are usually thought of as being products of our sub-conscious mind, whatever that is. In an active and stimulated state we are awake and conscious. In an inactive and possibly sleeping state our conscious mind is inactive, but there is still some sort of trickle of activity which we call sub-conscious. Is this where dreams come from? If the answer is yes, then isn't this still just consciousness, in a reduced form? If the answer to that question is yes, then have we really gone anywhere with this line of reasoning?
Does the fact that drugs affect our mental states shed light on this problem? I think it does, and points towards Physicalism.
Are near death experiences relevant? I don't see how exactly since so many things may be happening that impact the physical system when the body is under extreme stress things are bound to be jumbled.
Is phylogeny helpful, since we are surrounded by creatures with different levels of complexity and different apparent amounts of awareness? I think phylogeny can offer hints that we can use to make a case but may not offer proof of anything. If you are Dualist looking at phylogenetic diversity, do you end up invoking some sort of Special Providence to explain why humans seemingly have more Mind than other animals? Would a Physicalist argue that human minds are the most developed, hence have the most awareness? The fossil record seems to show evidence of proto-conscious humanoid forms whose complexity may only have been some fractional part of current human brain development. This sort of phylogenetic thinking is really speculative, however, and does not seem to "prove" anything.
Does ontology provide any insights? I think it does. Human development from the egg to adult is marked with a clear physical development that includes things like development and maturation of the brain, and these developments can be tied to behavioral and cognitive traits that we attribute to consciousness. I think it makes a strong case for Physicalism. Could a Dualist claim that the Mind was present at one point of development and not another? How could that be defended?
We didn't do anything with the data identifying those in the group who tended toward Physicalism, and those towards Dualism. It might be interesting to contemplate this question:
What would it take in your own experience to sway you to the other side?
If you are a Physicalist, what life experience cold convince you that Dualism is the correct view?
If you are a Dualist, how could you be convinced that Physicalism is correct? Is there any way at all?
Thursday, December 30, 2010
January 21 Topic: Mind/Brain Duality
It is time to pick up one of the topics we've been reading in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZAMM) by Robert Pirsig. There are LOTS to choose from, so let me see if I can find one that can lead into several others.
One that has been popular with philosophers for generations is the problem that exists between what seems to be a physical world around us and what seems to be a non-physical entity inside us, which is our mind. The existence of a non-physical but seemingly real thing like a mind (or consciousness, if you prefer) doesn't seem like a problem, except when you try and explain how a non-physical thing interacts with a physical thing like your body. How does that happen, exactly?
We have absolute knowledge of our minds, right? We think, and we know the contents of those thoughts intimately. We aspire, dream, fear, worry, and have all sorts of innate and internal conversations with ourselves that form our personal space, our personality, and by some accounts, creates the human experience. How can we translate that sort of experience into a description of what is happening inside our bodies? Is this just a complex series of chemical reactions? Does it happen at nerve endings and nerve connections? Is it related to the proteins in our cells? What?
Some have concluded that the essence of our mind is something like a Spirit, or non-physical entity that somehow comes from outside our bodies. Others have suggested that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity, and that sufficiently complex systems will eventually become conscious. This is the basis of the experience of Ewa in the movie Avatar, where the planet is "alive" in a way that is above and beyond the simple fact of being host to plants and animals. The Mother Earth idea writ large, as it were.
It is hard to escape the idea that each of us represents the entirety of what we are; that all we are is composed of what we can see in the bathroom mirror when we step out of the shower. How can there be more than our physical bodies? It is the Identity Theory applied to people: Bob = Bob. How can it be that Bob = Bob + Mind? The Mind part is already implied and included in the idea of Bob.
Mind/Body dualism. A perennially puzzling problem.
One that has been popular with philosophers for generations is the problem that exists between what seems to be a physical world around us and what seems to be a non-physical entity inside us, which is our mind. The existence of a non-physical but seemingly real thing like a mind (or consciousness, if you prefer) doesn't seem like a problem, except when you try and explain how a non-physical thing interacts with a physical thing like your body. How does that happen, exactly?
We have absolute knowledge of our minds, right? We think, and we know the contents of those thoughts intimately. We aspire, dream, fear, worry, and have all sorts of innate and internal conversations with ourselves that form our personal space, our personality, and by some accounts, creates the human experience. How can we translate that sort of experience into a description of what is happening inside our bodies? Is this just a complex series of chemical reactions? Does it happen at nerve endings and nerve connections? Is it related to the proteins in our cells? What?
Some have concluded that the essence of our mind is something like a Spirit, or non-physical entity that somehow comes from outside our bodies. Others have suggested that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity, and that sufficiently complex systems will eventually become conscious. This is the basis of the experience of Ewa in the movie Avatar, where the planet is "alive" in a way that is above and beyond the simple fact of being host to plants and animals. The Mother Earth idea writ large, as it were.
It is hard to escape the idea that each of us represents the entirety of what we are; that all we are is composed of what we can see in the bathroom mirror when we step out of the shower. How can there be more than our physical bodies? It is the Identity Theory applied to people: Bob = Bob. How can it be that Bob = Bob + Mind? The Mind part is already implied and included in the idea of Bob.
Mind/Body dualism. A perennially puzzling problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)