Dualism

[luckyme]

Mind-body dualism sure messes up any parsimonious view. One of the problems I have with dualism is the waste of good meat.

If the mind is doing the thinking in the ether world, why 3 lbs of organic computational structure?

I know there are other issues, just want to hear some thoughts around that aspect.

luckyme

[bunny]

It's not the simplest solution sure but it's what there is. Reality doesnt always oblige by finding the simplest solution (the greek atomic theory is simpler than the modern one, but more wrong too).

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Mind-body dualism sure messes up any parsimonious view. One of the problems I have with dualism is the waste of good meat.

If the mind is doing the thinking in the ether world, why 3 lbs of organic computational structure?

I know there are other issues, just want to hear some thoughts around that aspect.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

The basic problem is that dualists just aren't using their brain.

Thanks for teeing it up for me! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bunny]

And materialists are out of their minds.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
And materialists are out of their minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they're not. Do you see why?

[bunny]

Yes

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the simplest solution sure but it's what there is. Reality doesnt always oblige by finding the simplest solution (the greek atomic theory is simpler than the modern one, but more wrong too).

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't the record show an enlarging human brain? Why? what would it need to do different than when it was digging grubs and running from sauri's?

Also, if it wasn't pretty well the most complex thing we're aware of there could be some shrugging it off, but surely over the last cycle of brain increase when food was an issue, those offspring without this huge energy drain would have a mega edge on the heavy meat heads.

What would drive the evolution, do we think the caveman's pancreas wasn't working well?

luckyme

[vhawk01]

This is actually a pretty cool point. Thanks.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not the simplest solution sure but it's what there is. Reality doesnt always oblige by finding the simplest solution (the greek atomic theory is simpler than the modern one, but more wrong too).

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't the record show an enlarging human brain? Why? what would it need to do different than when it was digging grubs and running from sauri's?

Also, if it wasn't pretty well the most complex thing we're aware of there could be some shrugging it off, but surely over the last cycle of brain increase when food was an issue, those offspring without this huge energy drain would have a mega edge on the heavy meat heads.

What would drive the evolution, do we think the caveman's pancreas wasn't working well?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there is obviously a connection between brain and mind. I would even speculate that the larger (or at least more complicated)brain is necessary for cleverer minds. As is clear from previous discussions, we have different definitions of acceptable evidence. Nonetheless, I maintain that my subjective experience is good enough for me to accept the existence of non-physical mind. I havent seen much progress made by materialists in accounting for the "hard problem" of consciousness (Dennett comes closest in my view by declaring the hard problem non-existent).

I dont have many arguments "for" dualism. I regard it as the default position, since it seems so obviously true. I think the burden of proof is on the materialist. Although they are moving that way, I dont think they have got there yet. We have differing thoughts on the value of beliefs too - but I find myself believing that "mind" is not-physical. What can I do about that?

In my atheist moments, I would prefer to be disabused of this belief. When I'm a theist I guess I'm logically bound to accept dualism.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
This is actually a pretty cool point. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I meant to say that in my above reply.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This is actually a pretty cool point. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

It only applies to those dualists who think the theory of evolution has merit. No problem for the creationists, god is just wasteful, what the heck, he can afford it.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is actually a pretty cool point. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

It only applies to those dualists who think the theory of evolution has merit. No problem for the creationists, god is just wasteful, what the heck, he can afford it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, its still useful to me, since like 90% of materialists are actually dualists, and nearly all of them accept evolution.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont have many arguments "for" dualism. I regard it as the default position, since it seems so obviously true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think topics where the 'obvious' to each side is in 180 degree opposition can be the best.

[ QUOTE ]
I havent seen much progress made by materialists in accounting for the "hard problem" of consciousness (Dennett comes closest in my view by declaring the hard problem non-existent).

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a shelf of consciousness theory and research books, I'm with Dennett ... never mind the 'hard problem' .. what the heck is the problem.

If you have any thoughts on the evolution-dualism issue, I'd sure like to hear them. Seems too pat to be correct.

luckyme

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont have many arguments "for" dualism. I regard it as the default position, since it seems so obviously true. I think the burden of proof is on the materialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I think dualism is one of the most intellectually bankrupt concepts in the history of philosophy and science. I can't fathom how any scientifically inclined person could accept it other than for religious reasons or out of sheer intellectual laziness.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont have many arguments "for" dualism. I regard it as the default position, since it seems so obviously true. I think the burden of proof is on the materialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I think dualism is one of the most intellectually bankrupt concepts in the history of philosophy and science. I can't fathom how any scientifically inclined person could accept it other than for religious reasons or out of sheer intellectual laziness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be lazy, but you really can't disagree that it SEEMS obvious. It sure feels like there is a "Me" making the decisions, and that things happen to "My" body. I use my brain to think things, I use my legs to move me. I'm with you, once you really start to put in the legwork, dualism becomes fatally flawed, but I think I'd have to agree with bunny that it is the default position.

Then again, "The lightning is out to get me" is the default position too.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont have many arguments "for" dualism. I regard it as the default position, since it seems so obviously true. I think the burden of proof is on the materialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I think dualism is one of the most intellectually bankrupt concepts in the history of philosophy and science. I can't fathom how any scientifically inclined person could accept it other than for religious reasons or out of sheer intellectual laziness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because when I look at the world - "happiness", "the number 2" or "my mind" all seem qualitatively different from gravel, my brain or heat. I dont for a moment doubt that materialism may be correct, nor do I deny that a lot of previously non-physical things turn out to be physical. Nonetheless, on the face of it, mental objects seem so different to me from physical objects that I struggle to comprehend how anyone can see them as obviously the same.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be lazy, but you really can't disagree that it SEEMS obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless the railroad tracks are really joining in the distance, I was forced to give up on "seems' as an argument a long time ago.

I'm still prodding for some counters to the evolution problem with dualism.

luckywe

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]

If you have any thoughts on the evolution-dualism issue, I'd sure like to hear them. Seems too pat to be correct.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont have much to add other than to agree (?) that if there is a correct dualist theory it will have to explain why events in our minds are closely related to events in our brains. Have you read The Conscious Mind by Chalmers? His version of dualism is not very satisfying to the mystically inclined but it is more likely to be correct, in my opinion.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
tracks are really joining in the distance, I was forced to give up on "seems' as an argument a long time ago.
luckywe

[/ QUOTE ]
To be clear, I agree that "seems" is a bad argument, but I dont think it's a bad place to start. Materialists havent provided much motivation (other than wishful thinking) to shift my ground.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm still prodding for some counters to the evolution problem with dualism.

luckywe

[/ QUOTE ]
Could it be related to the creationist's "Evolution cant be right because we cant run faster than cheetahs and that would be an evolutionary advantage?" ie "Dualism cant be right because we would evolve to have tiny brains as small is an evolutionary advantage"

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
To be clear, I agree that "seems" is a bad argument, but I dont think it's a bad place to start. Materialists havent provided much motivation (other than wishful thinking) to shift my ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Material things interact with their environment in a lot of different ways. A rock will split by ice, or roll downhill. A sunflower will turn to the direction of the sun, it seems like it knows where the sun is and can feel it's rays. A rock and a sunflower are very different types of material things ( or do you have a dualist view of any of those also?
The fact that the brain/mind is different than a rock or a sunflower ( ok, not very different in the flowers case) hardly demands we create a new 'ether' to encompass it.

I realize every advance in neuroscience detracts from dualism but moving up from rocks and flowers to sponges and sea cucumbers and fruit flies .. at which change in the evolutionary tree did 'mind' show up and take over? Or do chimps or Neanderthals not have minds?
Seems like they do ;-)

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm still prodding for some counters to the evolution problem with dualism.

luckywe

[/ QUOTE ]
Could it be related to the creationist's "Evolution cant be right because we cant run faster than cheetahs and that would be an evolutionary advantage?" ie "Dualism cant be right because we would evolve to have tiny brains as small is an evolutionary advantage"

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting because the flaw in that argument is the same as other creationist thinking. They only can think of one thing at a time.

Small is an advantage unless big is a greater advantage and not necessarily for the same situation. Running is not the only way to contend with cheetahs, and not the most cost effective way for a primate species. The fact that cheetahs try to catch prey by running is their problem, no need to make it ours.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It may be lazy, but you really can't disagree that it SEEMS obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless the railroad tracks are really joining in the distance, I was forced to give up on "seems' as an argument a long time ago.

I'm still prodding for some counters to the evolution problem with dualism.

luckywe

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. But you aren't exactly in the majority on that. And bunny isn't arguing with you, I don't think.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
It sure feels like there is a "Me" making the decisions, and that things happen to "My" body. I use my brain to think things, I use my legs to move me. I'm with you, once you really start to put in the legwork, dualism becomes fatally flawed, but I think I'd have to agree with bunny that it is the default position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being the default position before any real research has been done doesn't mean you can justify holding on to it when almost all the evidence we've collected over the years points in the other direction, even if we haven't conclusively proved anything yet.

I also don't understand this apparent reluctance to accept that this "Me" who makes all the decisions is my brain.

[Philo]

Philosophers distinguish between substance dualism, the variety of dualism that Descartes championed, and property dualism.

According to substance dualism, there are two fundamentally different types of entities in the world, material entities and mental entities. Very few philosophers today are avowed substance dualists.

According to property dualism, on the other hand, there are two different sorts of properties that things can have, viz., material properties and mental properties. I suspect that most philosophers of mind agree with some basic version of property dualism.

There is also such a thing as predicate dualism, which assets that our language contains two basic types of predicates, mental and physical predicates, and that mental predicates are not reducible to physical predicates.

[m_the0ry]

Dualism is a convenience for classification of concepts that can't currently be reduced. This is an inherently flawed model because the two sets are dynamically and overlap greatly. For example a type of psychosis is considered to be a mental disease until the biological mechanisms for it derived.

[Kaj]

hardware vs. software

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the record show an enlarging human brain? Why? what would it need to do different than when it was digging grubs and running from sauri's?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you are getting at. Obviously, bigger-brained animals do more/faster/better computations and thus can be more intelligent. Intelligence is a wonderful survival tool, whether in pre-historic, ancient, or modern eras. So what's the issue?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
...I find myself believing that "mind" is not-physical. What can I do about that?

In my atheist moments, I would prefer to be disabused of this belief. When I'm a theist I guess I'm logically bound to accept dualism.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does dualism have to do with atheism?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...I find myself believing that "mind" is not-physical. What can I do about that?

In my atheist moments, I would prefer to be disabused of this belief. When I'm a theist I guess I'm logically bound to accept dualism.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does dualism have to do with atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not much, but it has a lot to do with theism. My remark was more a personal preference - as an atheist I'd like to be a materialist because it seems neater but that's not much of an argument.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be clear, I agree that "seems" is a bad argument, but I dont think it's a bad place to start. Materialists havent provided much motivation (other than wishful thinking) to shift my ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Material things interact with their environment in a lot of different ways. A rock will split by ice, or roll downhill. A sunflower will turn to the direction of the sun, it seems like it knows where the sun is and can feel it's rays. A rock and a sunflower are very different types of material things ( or do you have a dualist view of any of those also?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you asked that with a certain trepidation, but no I dont. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the brain/mind is different than a rock or a sunflower ( ok, not very different in the flowers case) hardly demands we create a new 'ether' to encompass it.

[/ QUOTE ]
There seems (call me stubborn) something fundamentally and qualitatively different about having a subjective point of view. I think that concept is what enables mind - assuming rocks and sunflowers have no subjective experience of everything that happens to them, why arent humans the same? Why does this experience arise rather than having us wander around physically responding to stimuli according to physical laws "in the dark"?

[ QUOTE ]
I realize every advance in neuroscience detracts from dualism but moving up from rocks and flowers to sponges and sea cucumbers and fruit flies .. at which change in the evolutionary tree did 'mind' show up and take over? Or do chimps or Neanderthals not have minds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally I think it's a gradual thing (like moving from freezing cold to boiling hot without ever making a sudden shift from one to the other, just degrees of warmth). The question of how conscious various things are is no easier to answer from a materialist perspective either though (at least not yet).

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like they do ;-)

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
hah

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm still prodding for some counters to the evolution problem with dualism.

luckywe

[/ QUOTE ]
Could it be related to the creationist's "Evolution cant be right because we cant run faster than cheetahs and that would be an evolutionary advantage?" ie "Dualism cant be right because we would evolve to have tiny brains as small is an evolutionary advantage"

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting because the flaw in that argument is the same as other creationist thinking. They only can think of one thing at a time.

Small is an advantage unless big is a greater advantage and not necessarily for the same situation. Running is not the only way to contend with cheetahs, and not the most cost effective way for a primate species. The fact that cheetahs try to catch prey by running is their problem, no need to make it ours.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps they arent analogous. Do you think that your argument has any effect on the dualist theories which acknowledge the necessity of the brain for mind to exist? I doubt Chalmers would have any problem acknowledging that there was an evolutionary advantage to having a bigger brain as that allowed a more effective mind. I certainly dont deny that the mind depends on the brain - I just havent seen any materialist explanation of why subjective experience arises as it does.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the record show an enlarging human brain? Why? what would it need to do different than when it was digging grubs and running from sauri's?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you are getting at. Obviously, bigger-brained animals do more/faster/better computations and thus can be more intelligent. Intelligence is a wonderful survival tool, whether in pre-historic, ancient, or modern eras. So what's the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]
If our minds and thoughts consist of some other, immaterial substance, there is no reason for our brains to get bigger. Only our minds need to get bigger.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the record show an enlarging human brain? Why? what would it need to do different than when it was digging grubs and running from sauri's?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you are getting at. Obviously, bigger-brained animals do more/faster/better computations and thus can be more intelligent. Intelligence is a wonderful survival tool, whether in pre-historic, ancient, or modern eras. So what's the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]
The issue is why a bigger brain would need to evolve (in fact, why it wouldnt be selected against) if you believe that the thinking and intelligence is all happening "out there" in the ether.

[Matt R.]

Let me give this a shot.

My brain enables "me" to interact with my environment. Similar to how my hands, eyes, legs, etc. enable me to interact with my environment. It is just a different part of the chain.

A bigger brain gives me better tools to interact with said environment. Kinda like how bigger muscles may help me interact with my environment. If we measure these "tools" externally, we measure a greater intelligence. It allows us to combine disparate sensory information into a unified whole, and it often lets us do so in unique ways in new situations (to solve problems).

So, I think we could simply say that thinking and intelligence happens both "out there" in the ether (or wherever) AND "right here" in the physical world. It's not one or the other. The "right here" part (the organic part) determines our ability to problem solve since it integrates our sensory information. The "out there" gives us the subjective experience. The "out there" controls the "right here" by putting all the information together in unique ways. With a lesser organic component, we become less able to put the information together, diminishing our problem solving ability. Kinda like how losing our arm diminishes our ability to play basketball. But neither one would remove the subjective, first-person experience.

Some anecdotal evidence for why I think this viewpoint is compelling. (1) When I am completely wasted drunk, it certainly inhibits my ability to problem solve and communicate my ideas properly. Thus I would probably score lower on any type of standardized test. However, despite my "organic problem solving ability" being messed up, I certainly don't feel like I'm any less "me". (2) There really is no theoretical framework at all to understand why biochemical reactions, neurons, etc. give rise to a first person ontology, so I think a reasonable approach is to say "there must be something else". Whether we can eventually create a new theory or not to make sense of it remains to be seen, but I certainly don't think that the subjective experience is understandable using our current physical theories. The idea that there is a "me" that is more than a cluster of cells that happen to be organized properly seems to me to be nearly axiomatically true (even if we don't understand why yet), and it also seems obvious that this "part" is integrated with our organic selves to obtain sensory information. I think dualism is a very reasonable view given current scientific understanding, and like bunny said, I think it appears to be "the default" until some better explanation comes along.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
For example a type of psychosis is considered to be a mental disease until the biological mechanisms for it derived.

[/ QUOTE ]

Philosophers of mind are keenly aware of the causal basis of mental phenomena in the neuro-physiology of the brain. This causal connection does not mean that mental phenomena are reducible to material pheneomena, and it would be a naive misunderstanding of the irreducibility thesis to think otherwise.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]

Some anecdotal evidence for why I think this viewpoint is compelling. (1) When I am completely wasted drunk, it certainly inhibits my ability to problem solve and communicate my ideas properly. Thus I would probably score lower on any type of standardized test. However, despite my "organic problem solving ability" being messed up, I certainly don't feel like I'm any less "me".

[/ QUOTE ]

You are implying that if materialism were true you then would feel somewhat less "yourself" when drunk.. Materialism doesn't entail that any more than dualism does (perhaps less).

The second reason you give for why you think your viewpont is compelling is that we don't know how materialism could produce our subjective conscious. Well yes, but it doesn't follow that it is reasonable to assume there must be something else. We assume there must be something else OR that materialism is true and we just haven't produced a theoretical framework for it. Further, I don't think that it is true that we haven't produced a materialistic theoretical framework if we are going to allow things like: "I control my brain, and my brain, controls my body", to qualify as dualistic theoretical frameworks.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The second reason you give for why you think your viewpont is compelling is that we don't know how materialism could produce our subjective conscious. Well yes, but it doesn't follow that it is reasonable to assume there must be something else. We assume there must be something else OR that materialism is true and we just haven't produced a theoretical framework for it. Further, I don't think that it is true that we haven't produced a materialistic theoretical framework if we are going to allow things like: "I control my brain, and my brain, controls my body", to qualify as dualistic theoretical frameworks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt dualism is ever going to provide a framework other than "just cos". It's certainly hard to see how you can do science in some kind of non-physical realm. In some of Dennett's earlier writing he commented that dualism amounted to "giving up" on the problem of consciousness which seems a fair charge to me. Nonetheless, it may be the way the world is - there are many materialists who regard it as a given that we will eventually find a scientific, physicalist answer to the mind-body problem, I dont see where they get their optimism.