Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Ok, this is strange because it goes to motive. On some level the blind man must have wanted to walk into a wall and hurt himself, just like I wanted to fall into a hole and twist me ankle. That doesn't seem right - why wouldn't the blind man rather walk into a flower garden - our me perceive a level path? Why can't I perceive a million dollars on the table in front of me, why can't you? Here is another test - I reach into my pocket and pull something out - at that moment you do not know what I have - when I open my hand will we both see the same thing? There would literally be dozens of possibilities.
    Just providing a receipt to let you know I read the post. I've no time to properly answer now, but will do so asap.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Volt View Post
      Just providing a receipt to let you know I read the post. I've no time to properly answer now, but will do so asap.
      Ok...
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Ok, this is strange because it goes to motive. On some level the blind man must have wanted to walk into a wall and hurt himself, just like I wanted to fall into a hole and twist me ankle. That doesn't seem right - why wouldn't the blind man rather walk into a flower garden - our me perceive a level path? Why can't I perceive a million dollars on the table in front of me, why can't you? Here is another test - I reach into my pocket and pull something out - at that moment you do not know what I have - when I open my hand will we both see the same thing? There would literally be dozens of possibilities.
        I believe all the questions posed assume that only the blind, or you, or I perceive the thing(s) in question. That's clearly the case for thoughts and lucid dreams, supported by the fact that we wholly control them. If my desire (i.e. motive) is to see a million dollars in my dream, I'm going to perceive it.

        The question becomes: why does reality not follow the same rules as a dream? Or in other words, what's different? Short answer: the perceptions of reality are shared.

        For instance, if the potentiality of what's in your pocket is wholly dependent on you and me (the perceivers), then it's literally going to be a war of wills. I want an apple; you want an orange, and the conflict has to be settled sooner or later. The key is that we already know the result: regardless of your and my desires, what turns out to be in the pocket is a lemon. Neither of our wills did a bit of good. At this point, it's easy to say "Whoops, real objects are completely independent of our mind after all." However, we do have experiences to the contrary. Our bodies. I may not be able to turn the lemon into an apple, but I can turn it into lemonade. There are restrictions, certainly, but I can literally will my body to move.

        So why does my will have such varying restrictions on shared perceptions...we'd need a peek behind the rulebook to figure that one out. With only access to perceptions, the best we can do is ascertain what the rules (i.e. restrictions) are. Hence, physical laws.

        To directly answer your question:

        Reality is differentiated by the fact that it contains shared perceptions. If perception is truly dependent on the mind, this literally means a war of wills. Motive comes into play, as you said. The perceptions do what we want, but only in a very restricted way (e.g. body movement). Everything else is off limits, and the inference is that there must be a stronger will--a stronger mind--out there limiting us all.

        In a nutshell: God made you twist your ankle.
        Last edited by Volt; 02-24-2014, 01:04 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Volt View Post
          To directly answer your question:

          Reality is differentiated by the fact that it contains shared perceptions. If perception is truly dependent on the mind, this literally means a war of wills. Motive comes into play, as you said. The perceptions do what we want, but only in a very restricted way (e.g. body movement). Everything else is off limits, and the inference is that there must be a stronger will--a stronger mind--out there limiting us all.

          In a nutshell: God made you twist your ankle.
          Now I have less of a problem if God is controlling all this, but then His reality with Idealism is dictating what we see as real - it would be real to us. There would be no war of wills since God's perception would automatically win out in all cases. But if this is person dependent then there is a problem. I did not want to fall into the whole, I wasn't even thinking about such a thing - it was a complete surprise.

          For instance, if the potentiality of what's in your pocket is wholly dependent on you and me (the perceivers), then it's literally going to be a war of wills. I want an apple; you want an orange, and the conflict has to be settled sooner or later. The key is that we already know the result: regardless of your and my desires, what turns out to be in the pocket is a lemon. Neither of our wills did a bit of good. At this point, it's easy to say "Whoops, real objects are completely independent of our mind after all." However, we do have experiences to the contrary. Our bodies. I may not be able to turn the lemon into an apple, but I can turn it into lemonade. There are restrictions, certainly, but I can literally will my body to move.
          This person dependent reality is what does not make sense. For the reasons I gave. A God dependent reality would make more sense. I did do an experiment yesterday - I went up to my co-worker and pulled something out of my pocket and asked him what it was - he said, the moment he saw it - a tic tac. I really don't see how his mind could get it right in a person dependent reality.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Now I have less of a problem if God is controlling all this, but then His reality with Idealism is dictating what we see as real - it would be real to us. There would be no war of wills since God's perception would automatically win out in all cases. But if this is person dependent then there is a problem. I did not want to fall into the whole, I wasn't even thinking about such a thing - it was a complete surprise.
            Good point. If God limits every possibility of perception to one, the one he wants, then we're back to absolute predetermination. Just like Materialism.


            But if our will is overridden completely and in every case, and he controls reality, then why can we affect anything in reality, or think whatever we want?


            This person dependent reality is what does not make sense. For the reasons I gave. A God dependent reality would make more sense. I did do an experiment yesterday - I went up to my co-worker and pulled something out of my pocket and asked him what it was - he said, the moment he saw it - a tic tac. I really don't see how his mind could get it right in a person dependent reality.
            I agree, in the case of what we're considering: the existence of the tic tac. Or a hole, or a wall. The possibilities are clearly limited to one since we all perceive the same thing, and if there was more than one possibility before anyone else perceived it, how are we to know?

            I suppose a way to escape the problem is by playing with definitions. Reality is wholly dependent on God, including our minds (i.e. "To be is to be perceived.") Perception is wholly dependent on the perceiver in every way. Shape, color, weight, texture, smell...they're all different from one moment to the next, and literally unique from person to person. You can never share exactly the same perception with another person--just similar ones. A consistency, or rather similarity, from moment to moment. Moreover, these perceptions are wholly dependent on us in the sense that they don't exist as things that have shape, color, weight, etc, until they are perceived. Until then, they only exist as potentiality.

            You could say that God creates and defines the possibilities, and we bring them into existence. The only thing God perceives directly--and therefore independently brings into existence--is our minds.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Volt View Post
              I suppose a way to escape the problem is by playing with definitions. Reality is wholly dependent on God, including our minds (i.e. "To be is to be perceived.") Perception is wholly dependent on the perceiver in every way. Shape, color, weight, texture, smell...they're all different from one moment to the next, and literally unique from person to person. You can never share exactly the same perception with another person--just similar ones. A consistency, or rather similarity, from moment to moment. Moreover, these perceptions are wholly dependent on us in the sense that they don't exist as things that have shape, color, weight, etc, until they are perceived. Until then, they only exist as potentiality.

              You could say that God creates and defines the possibilities, and we bring them into existence. The only thing God perceives directly--and therefore independently brings into existence--is our minds.
              Of course the other way to escape it is to suggest that reality is concrete no matter our personal perceptions. I can try to perceive a beautiful field in from of me, but when I get up and run I hit the wall in my office. Reality is not person dependent.

              Good point. If God limits every possibility of perception to one, the one he wants, then we're back to absolute predetermination. Just like Materialism.

              But if our will is overridden completely and in every case, and he controls reality, then why can we affect anything in reality, or think whatever we want?
              That wouldn't be a problem if reality was concrete - a real world. And we had a high degree of freedom within that world.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Of course the other way to escape it is to suggest that reality is concrete no matter our personal perceptions. I can try to perceive a beautiful field in from of me, but when I get up and run I hit the wall in my office. Reality is not person dependent.

                That wouldn't be a problem if reality was concrete - a real world. And we had a high degree of freedom within that world.
                The bolded statements appear to contradict each other. If reality is completely independent of people (i.e. minds), then how is it possible to have any degree of freedom in affecting it?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Volt View Post
                  The bolded statements appear to contradict each other. If reality is completely independent of people (i.e. minds), then how is it possible to have any degree of freedom in affecting it?
                  Volt that does not follow. Just because I can't create the tree doesn't mean I can't chose to climb the tree.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Volt that does not follow. Just because I can't create the tree doesn't mean I can't chose to climb the tree.
                    It's like watching a movie. Everything you see and hear is pre-recorded independently of you. If that's the case, then why can I climb the tree? It's as odd as saying that I can reach through a movie screen and touch a character in it.

                    It's just an analogy, I'll admit. The point is: how can and does your mind affect reality in any way, if not directly?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Volt View Post
                      It's like watching a movie. Everything you see and hear is pre-recorded independently of you. If that's the case, then why can I climb the tree? It's as odd as saying that I can reach through a movie screen and touch a character in it.

                      It's just an analogy, I'll admit. The point is: how can and does your mind affect reality in any way, if not directly?
                      It is not pre-recorded world Volt. It is a real solid world. And in this world we make real choices. We can move left or right, we can choose to love and help our fellow man or not. You do not effect reality in the sense that you imagine a tree and it is there, but the tree being real can be cut down and used for fuel. And this is what we actually experience in reality.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        It is not pre-recorded world Volt. It is a real solid world. And in this world we make real choices. We can move left or right, we can choose to love and help our fellow man or not. You do not effect reality in the sense that you imagine a tree and it is there, but the tree being real can be cut down and used for fuel. And this is what we actually experience in reality.
                        Let me put it another way: all we have direct (i.e. reflexive) access to is our mind, which includes perceptions and thoughts. If we assume that the mind doesn't directly affect or control reality to some degree like QM suggests, then what is the connection?

                        If our mind has no direct method of controlling or verifying reality, everything we know about that reality isn't known with absolute certainty. We need a connection, verification, and that is what my question targets: "how is it possible to have any degree of freedom in affecting it [reality]?" Moreover, I can say that I choose to do X and not Y, but that in itself is not proof against absolute predetermination. It could effectively be a movie, with our own delusions merely assuming sovereignty.

                        Even Occam's Razor would be in favor of this scenario. What's simpler:

                        1. Our minds are passive, and all reality is just a lightshow, or

                        2. Our minds are active participants, connected indirectly in some way to control our bodies in certain ways (and not others,) that everything around us has a separate, independent existence from all of us, etc and can be affected by us in a multitude of particular ways and not others (i.e. physical laws).

                        TL;DR If our minds don't directly interact with reality, then I need more than what you just said to make The Matrix a less likely scenario.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Volt View Post
                          Let me put it another way: all we have direct (i.e. reflexive) access to is our mind, which includes perceptions and thoughts. If we assume that the mind doesn't directly affect or control reality to some degree like QM suggests, then what is the connection?

                          If our mind has no direct method of controlling or verifying reality, everything we know about that reality isn't known with absolute certainty. We need a connection, verification, and that is what my question targets: "how is it possible to have any degree of freedom in affecting it [reality]?" Moreover, I can say that I choose to do X and not Y, but that in itself is not proof against absolute predetermination. It could effectively be a movie, with our own delusions merely assuming sovereignty.
                          Volt, I'm just not following you. Certainly I would agree that our minds verify reality or can know reality, but again, why would my mind necessarily have to invent the tree to choose to climb the tree. Through my senses I perceive the tree, then I use my freedom of choice to climb the tree.
                          Last edited by seer; 03-06-2014, 01:13 PM.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Volt, I'm just not following you. Certainly I would agree that our minds verify reality or can know reality, but again, why would my mind necessarily have to invent the tree to choose to climb the tree. Through my senses I perceive the tree, then I use my freedom of choice to climb the tree.
                            Let me try to get a handle on the framework of this discussion so far:

                            1. We started by assuming that the mind creates reality from potentiality.

                            2. Your case in point--the blind man and his wall--was an argument directed at the internal consistency of this assumption.

                            From what you've said in the last page, I think there is now a shift? We've moved from internal consistency of the assumption to evidence of the assumption. That is, your new argument is: a mind-independent reality better explains our experiences.

                            That makes it my turn to poke at internal consistency, and the most apparent gap in any form of Dualism I've heard so far is the bridge between mind and an independent reality. Here's the classic argument in a nutshell:

                            1. The mind only has access to perceptions
                            2. Perception is supposedly a mirror image or gestalt of reality.
                            3. The mind doesn't have any way to directly access reality
                            4. The only way to verify that perception = reality is by direct access to both.
                            5. Therefore, we have no way to verify that perception has anything to do with reality.


                            Or in other words, I have no way of knowing I'm in the Matrix until I have some way to "see" past my own perceptions. Catch 22. The only way I could possibly verify my experience has any correlation with an independent reality is via experience!

                            So actually, I don't agree that our minds can verify reality.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Volt View Post
                              1. The mind only has access to perceptions
                              2. Perception is supposedly a mirror image or gestalt of reality.
                              3. The mind doesn't have any way to directly access reality
                              4. The only way to verify that perception = reality is by direct access to both.
                              5. Therefore, we have no way to verify that perception has anything to do with reality.


                              Or in other words, I have no way of knowing I'm in the Matrix until I have some way to "see" past my own perceptions. Catch 22. The only way I could possibly verify my experience has any correlation with an independent reality is via experience!

                              So actually, I don't agree that our minds can verify reality.
                              Volt on premises two and three. Why can't our senses give us an accurate understanding of reality? But I would agree that we can not prove (deductively or empirically) that we are not in a Matrix, or being deceived - Descartes showed that centuries ago. But as a Christian I would word this differently.

                              1. God created an independent reality.
                              2. God created the human being and human mind.
                              3. God causes the human mind to understand reality.
                              4. Therefore we can grasp, understand and interact with this independent reality.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Volt on premises two and three. Why can't our senses give us an accurate understanding of reality? But I would agree that we can not prove (deductively or empirically) that we are not in a Matrix, or being deceived - Descartes showed that centuries ago. But as a Christian I would word this differently.

                                1. God created an independent reality.
                                2. God created the human being and human mind.
                                3. God causes the human mind to understand reality.

                                4. Therefore we can grasp, understand and interact with this independent reality.
                                Descarte took a leap of faith in assuming that there is a demon who wants to trick us, a necessary assumption for his scenario. The only difference here is that where he's a pessimist, you're an optimist. Instead of a demon, it's God who controls the lightshow.

                                That said, the problem remains on two counts:

                                1. How can we trust the connection between mind/perception and reality? If it's indirect, then my previous points still hold true.

                                2. Pre-supposing a being that can mediate this indirect connection (God or demon, take your pick) just moves the problem of trust instead of solving it. Now we have to trust the being in question instead of the connection itself. Moreover, any reason you can have for trusting this being must be derived from experience itself. Another case of experience proving that we can trust experience.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X