What's your position on the mind-body problem?

[deranger]

I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on this. I think I'm some kind of emergent mind-body dualist. It seems to me that there is some kind of immaterial mind that probably doesn't operate in strict accord with the laws that govern material existence, but that mind seems to arise from a certain configuration of material components and its functionality is influenced by influences on those components.

I stumbled upon a blog post by Glenn Peoples who makes the argument that a Christian position on the mind-body problem ought to be a materialist position from a strictly scriptural viewpoint, which I thought was interesting: http://www.rightreason.org/2014/dust-n-breath-1/.

[Christianbookworm]

What happens to your mind when you're asleep? Unconscious? Dreaming?

[Christianbookworm]

You do need both. Don't think eternity as disembodied spirits would be correct.

[Volt]

Well, even for the immaterialist there is no evidence of ghosts. Emergent property, i think, might be better understood as the "brain" being more than its parts, which we then call the mind.

No more than "ghost" implies a disembodied mind, and idealists believe that only mind and ideas* exist...

I think materialists can better reject the concept of a ghost because of their conclusion: a physical brain must be present to contain a "mind," whatever it is. Brain exists first, mind after. Idealists aren't bound in the same way; we just happen to know by experience that a brain is related to the function of the mind for humans--it's perfectly feasible to suggest that a mind still exists, dissociated from the body. Mind exists first, brain after. Of course, that's not the same as direct evidence, which I think is what you were specifically referring to?

* "Ideas" being defined here as the singular building block of reality that we know of. Call it whatever you like. Neutral Monism is effectively the same as any other kind of Monism--it just argues over the definition of reality's building blocks.

I think I'm some kind of emergent mind-body dualist. It seems to me that there is some kind of immaterial mind that probably doesn't operate in strict accord with the laws that govern material existence, but that mind seems to arise from a certain configuration of material components and its functionality is influenced by influences on those components.

Interesting summation. By noting that the mind doesn't follow physical laws, you neatly avoid predetermination.

What makes you a dualist, though? If the mind is a product of material components, it's made of the same "stuff," correct? How then can it not follow physical laws?

[Carrikature]

What happens to your mind when you're asleep? Unconscious? Dreaming?

It's still there, working away. It just has different parts active at the time.

[Christianbookworm]

Guess the memory parts turn off. You can sometimes remember dreams if you wake up and try to remember them.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on this. I think I'm some kind of emergent mind-body dualist. It seems to me that there is some kind of immaterial mind that probably doesn't operate in strict accord with the laws that govern material existence, but that mind seems to arise from a certain configuration of material components and its functionality is influenced by influences on those components.

I stumbled upon a blog post by Glenn Peoples who makes the argument that a Christian position on the mind-body problem ought to be a materialist position from a strictly scriptural viewpoint, which I thought was interesting: http://www.rightreason.org/2014/dust-n-breath-1/.

Stunbled on that post some time ago. He did have me convinced that scripture could be interpreted in a physicalist manner. I was a Christian physicalist until I stumbled upon this video

[shunyadragon]

Stunbled on that post some time ago. He did have me convinced that scripture could be interpreted in a physicalist manner. I was a Christian physicalist until I stumbled upon this video

I consider this video rather hypothetical with a number of the statements about QM misleading and in need of a hypothetical reach in meaning from a theistic perspective.

What do we see and know?
when we follow the foot tracks in the snow.
we should in humility know
they are our foot prints in the snow
Here today and gone tomorrow.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I consider this video rather hypothetical with a number of the statements about QM misleading and in need of a hypothetical reach in meaning from a theistic perspective.

What do we see and know?
when we follow the foot tracks in the snow.
we should in humility know
they are our foot prints in the snow
Here today and gone tomorrow.

I did find it compelling at first but I found Raatz's Digital Physics argument better (though I.P.'s one is good to). And unless you hold to non-locality or multiverse, then QM debunks realism (and subsequently, materialism)

[seer]

Stunbled on that post some time ago. He did have me convinced that scripture could be interpreted in a physicalist manner. I was a Christian physicalist until I stumbled upon this video

This video makes no sense. That reality does not exist until we observe it? So the blind man doesn't walk into the wall because he does not observe it?

[Quantum Weirdness]

This video makes no sense. That reality does not exist until we observe it? So the blind man doesn't walk into the wall because he does not observe it?

Neither does Quantum Mechanics. One interpretation supposes that we create a billion times a billion times a billion alternative universes per second. Another supposes that particles can move faster than light unless you measure it in which case, it is always at the speed of light.

Observation (as meant by IP) is knowledge about something, not actually seeing it. You should ask him about it if you are interested and have more objections about QM.

[seer]

Observation (as meant by IP) is knowledge about something, not actually seeing it. You should ask him about it if you are interested and have more objections about QM.

Well the blind man could have zero knowledge of the wall in front of him. I think that would clearly falsify this specific claim - not all of QM of course.

[Volt]

Well the blind man could have zero knowledge of the wall in front of him. I think that would clearly falsify this specific claim - not all of QM of course.

I would think it only falsifies Solipsism.

[Carrikature]

Define knowledge.

[seer]

I would think it only falsifies Solipsism.

No, not according to the You Tube link. Which stated that reality doesn't exist until we observe it. My blind man model defeats that. We all know that the blind man, even if he did not perceive it, would hit the wall - not walk through it. Another real life example - I hike a lot, not that long ago I stepped into a hole - the reason I did is because I did not see it, if I had seen it, I would not have stepped in it. So that reality existed without my perception.