If you're not, then you're with me. — Bartricks

Sure but I'm not with you in saying that mind interacts with brain. I've given you an argument for it. You've claimed it begs the question. Where does it beg the question, specifically.

The quote you provided is literally a definition. I do not see how that can be begging the question.

Well, you just stipulated that the laws apply to physical things alone. That's question begging.
If the laws in question govern the totality of what exists, then that includes immaterial souls. And there is no violation involved in mind/body interaction (anymore than there would be if minds were material).

What's your position - are you a materialist or an immaterialist about the mind? Say which, and then we'll go from there. Because either way you're going to have energy being passed to your mind.

Yes, you're confident. But apparently ignorant. For rather than present any kind of challenge to any of the arguments I have made, you have scoffed and said I sound like I am on another planet. Scorn, not refutations is all you have offered. You have much to learn.

Well, you just stipulated that the laws apply to physical things alone. — Bartricks

This is pure unadulterated handwaving.

All of the properties they conserve are ONLY defined for physical things. That is literally what the laws are defined for.... They're PHYSICAL laws. It's not begging the question.

You'd have to propose some new "spiritual conservation laws" to push for what you want. But they are not the same in any way. Whatever this "spiritual energy" is you'd have to point out exactly how it can be translated to kinetic energy.

And if you were to pose those, then you still have the fact that your view requires two violations of the original physical laws. Which are, again, PHYSICAL laws. Therefore are clearly not defined for minds.

Your view requires energy, in the purely physical sense (which is the only sense it was defined for) to disappear and reappear. And energy, again in the purely physical sense, is conserved. Therefore your view contradicts the law of conservation of energy in the purely physical sense (which is just the law of conservation of energy)

I'll repeat again for good measure: Your view requires energy to disappear momentarily. This has never ever been detected. And is a violation of long standing laws.

What's your position - are you a materialist or an immaterialist about the mind? — Bartricks

Minds are immaterial, yes, for like the 4th time.

Scorn, not refutations is all you have offered. You have much to learn. — Bartricks

Precious coming from you :rofl:

Minds are immaterial, yes, for like the 4th time. — khaled

Right. So when I decided - a mental event - to raise my arm, and my arm raised, what happened there?

Your view must be that it was pure coincidence that my decision to raise my arm was followed by my arm raising.

Which is too silly for words.

And when I eat food and feel satisfied, that feeling was just coincidental.

Silly, silly, sillyingtons

Or do you, perhaps, believe there was causal interaction after all?

Now, once more: event A - sensible event - causes B - mental event - which causes C - sensible event.

No new energy coming in. Everything's being nicely conserved. It's just a pipe with an immaterial section.

You're getting it for free. You should be grateful. Free scorn.

Right. So when I decided - a mental event - to raise my arm, and my arm raised, what happened there? — Bartricks

Your brain caused the mental event. And your brain also caused the arm to move.

Your view must be that it was pure coincidence that my decision to raise my arm was followed by my arm raising. — Bartricks

When was that implied? No the brain does it in pairs. The thought, and the action. And also the thought that the thought led to the action. So I guess it does it in threes.

I would be willing to give that whatever the brain does to move the arm also results in the thought. That the thought is necessarily caused alongside the movement. But that's it. Not that it is causing the movement.

And when I eat food and feel satisfied, that feeling was just coincidental. — Bartricks

Nope.

Or do you, perhaps, believe there was causal interaction after all? — Bartricks

False dichotomy. I explained what happens. The brain does it in threes.

No new energy coming in. — Bartricks

False. Energy disappeared in the first step. Then new energy came in.

You cannot say it was the "same energy" as that would be attributing energy to minds. Which makes as little sense as attributing color to minds. That was your whole argument (among others) that the mind is immaterial.

You're getting it for free. — Bartricks

You get what you pay for. Bad scorn and worse ideas.


But regardless, critiquing my position (badly) doesn't make yours any better. Yours requires a violation of the laws of conservation. You have not been able to show this statement to be false.

Your brain caused the mental event. And your brain also caused the arm to move. — khaled

So the brain interacted with the mind. On your view. You think the mind is immaterial. Mental events are events of the mind (in case you didn't know). So, if your brain....material thing....causes a 'mental event'...an 'event of the mind'.......then.......wait for it......wait.......you have a material thing, causally interacting with an immaterial thing.

Which you think doesn't happen.

Only you also think it does.

Must be good being able to do that - being able to just think all these contradictory things at once. I spend ages trying to avoid doing that. What a waste of time!

So, if your brain....material thing....causes a 'mental event'...an 'event of the mind'.......then.......wait for it......wait.......you have a material thing, causally interacting with an immaterial thing.

Which you think doesn't happen. — Bartricks

Yikes.

When did I say that?

I said an immaterial thing cannot cause material movement. The other way is fine.

Must be good being able to do that - being able to just think all these contradictory things at once. I spend ages trying to avoid doing that. — Bartricks

No, it's just that you're mistaken as usual... I explained above.

Must be good being able to do that. Being so sure of yourself despite being wrong so often.

False. Energy disappeared in the first step. Then new energy came in. — khaled

That would be.....Question Begging.

That would be.....Question Begging. — Bartricks

What you call question begging is called "Using technical terms correctly"

But you can replace every instance of "energy" with "energy in the purely physical sense" if you insist on misusing the word energy.

I said an immaterial thing cannot cause material movement. The other way is fine. — khaled

So causal interactions can take place between material and immaterial entities.

If a physical event can cause a non-physical event, why can't a non-physical event cause a physical one? Odd. Seems entirely arbitrary to believe that, given we have equally strong evidence for the latter as for the former.

Anyway, must go to bed now - but how? Doors can only be pushed. They can't be pulled. Dammit. I'm stuck in my study.

So causal interactions can take place between material and immaterial entities. — Bartricks

Not safe to assume both ways.

If a physical event can cause a non-physical event, why can't a non-physical event cause a physical one? — Bartricks

Metaphysically seems possible. Actually was never seen. Despite looking for it. So good reason to think it is impossible.

Seems entirely arbitrary to believe that — Bartricks

Of course it does to you, since you would sooner overthrow centuries of confirmed science because "things don't seem to me that way". Just like a flat earther would.

The reason to believe that is, as just stated: No such interactions have ever been shown. Despite effort looking for them. For centuries. So good reason to assume they are impossible.

On the other hand, physical changes causing mental changes is easy to see.

Sure when you raise your hand it SEEMS like your mind is causing the movement. However, that is consistent with both of our theories. But only one requires overthrowing centuries of science in favor of how things seem to us.

Doors can only be pushed. They can't be pulled. Dammit. I'm stuck in my study. — Bartricks

Some doors CAN only be pushed. And even if it was a 1 way door, you’d still not be stuck....

Even your attempts at analogies are subpar.

Anyway, must go to bed now — Bartricks

Make sure not to move too much. Your mind might fall off the bed since apparently immaterial things are subject to material laws! Maybe it already has... Sweet dreams.

given we have equally strong evidence for the latter as for the former. — Bartricks

"It seems that way to me" is not evidence. Not next to centuries of futile search.

If it didn't have some degree of privacy we could never lie. — Harry Hindu

and...?

No one is denying that some things are private.

I’m curious, what’s your view on all this? Do you think mental events cause physical change? Does the feeling of anger have some real world causal power? Or is it just a byproduct?

Just noticed this. I've had to Do The Things over the last few days, so have been less active. Think that will continue for a while.

Not too sure what "this" is. Do I think mental events cause physical change? Well, obviously; as Searle pointed out, I decide to raise my arm, and the darn thing goes up.

Does the feeling of anger have some real world causal power? It does not seem odd to say that Banno abused Khaled because he was angry. Unpacking that might be a bit more difficult.

Are you familiar with Davidson's descriptions of actions? Curious stuff. Might have to dig up the article if there is interest.

Noticed this:

Not safe to assume both ways. — khaled

Add that one can get drunk to Searle's example, and it is clear that physical events effect mental events and vice versa. This gives the illusion of a bridge between dualisms, bit that strikes me as a poor ontology.

Well, obviously; as Searle pointed out, I decide to raise my arm, and the darn thing goes up. — Banno

But maybe it’s: You brain, in the process of raising the arm, creates the intent that you are raising the arm, and the impression that the intent caused the raising.

Just because A always precedes B doesn’t mean A caused B. In this case A being the intent and B being the arm raising. Maybe it’s more like: X causes A and shortly after B.

physical events effect mental events — Banno

Is clear.

and vice versa — Banno

But how does this work exactly? How does it square with our understanding of physics, such as conservation laws?

Unless you believe in God, spirits, ghosts or other such things (pretty clear I'm an atheist) how could anyone argue that consciousness ISN'T simply an integral aspect of the material brain — GLEN willows

Because consciousness is an integral part of both the material brain and the universe that hosts it/is in symbiosis with it, including the very fabric of space time itself, not to mention any consideration to what existed before the big bang, We do not yet understand gravity at the quantum level for example. We do not truly understand the human brain and it's place "within" the universe.

There does seem to be a lot more atheists in academia in the mored era. Ironically though, we are not really in a golden age of discovery I would argue. Newton wasn't an atheist but an unconventional theist though he disagreed with the divinity of the trinity for example. Einstein believed that God existed, but that he was nebulous, universal, and not comprehensible to the human mind. Marie Curie was agnostic but not outright atheist.

I think there is a tendency in intellectual projection nowadays to attempt to set oneself apart by proclaiming ones atheism. But I would warn that that may not necessarily grant you additional favour, given that so many accomplished scholars greatly respected in the upper echelons of academia today are not atheist and a lot in fact believe in some higher power.

Sure, epiphenomenalism is a possibility. I think it might be a bad description, and so haven't gone into it in much detail. Now, what are the implications of epiphenomenalism for dualism?

How does it square with our understanding of physics, such as conservation laws? — khaled

I've not considered it, but you seem to have something in mind. Do tell.

Well you’re saying that mind affects matter above and beyond matter affecting matter. In other words, the conscious thought to raise my arm is what causes me to raise my arm. If this is the case, we should expect that in the human brain there would be some movement or other that has no detectable cause (since it was caused by the mind, not merely the brain) that results in the arm raising. This goes against conservation of energy.

It’s as weird as throwing an astronaut into space, watching him move at a uniform speed for a while, then watching him suddenly.... stop. For no detectable reason. Then saying “That was his mind doing it”.

In other words, minds affecting brains is nothing short of telekinesis.

↪Banno Well you’re saying that mind affects matter above and beyond matter affecting matter. In other words, the conscious thought to raise my arm is what causes me to raise my arm. If this is the case, we should expect that in the human brain there would be some movement or other that has no detectable cause (since it was caused by the mind, not merely the brain) that results in the arm raising. This goes against conservation of energy. — khaled

Two descriptions:
1. My arms move because I decide to move my arm,
2. Certain neurone fire, causing specific muscle fibres to contract.

One event.

Two descriptions:
1. My arms move because I decide to move my arm,
2. Certain neurone fire, causing specific muscle fibres to contract.

One event. — Banno

Sure that I’ll buy. Though I would say statement 1 is liable to misinterpretation. Makes it sound almost as if the thought is a causal agent.

Bartricks on the other hand for example was claiming telekinesis.

@Bartricks might re-think things.

We might proceed to:
1b. My arms move because certain neurones fired,
2b. I decide to move my arm, causing specific muscle fibres to contract.

No issue so far...? But we are starting to mix the language games together.

But not:

3. I decide to move my arm = certain neurones fired,

...that's the anomalous part of anomalous monism.

2b. I decide to move my arm, causing specific muscle fibres to contract.

No issue so far...? — Banno

Yes issue so far. If you deciding to move your arm causes any physical change, that would be telekinesis. It would be as weird as an astronaut deciding to stop moving suddenly in space using his mind.

Unless by 2b, you're being colloquial and you just mean 1b.

I would say:

1b. My arms move because certain neurons fired
2b. I decide to move my arm because certain neurons fired

3. I decide to move my arm =/= certain neurons fired.

Yes and yes. And it was solved ages ago. Plato. Avicenna. Descartes. Locke. Berkeley. Read them.

You're saying the mind-body problem was solved? What's the solution?

So, just to be clear, you think the mind is immaterial, and that there is causation between material and immaterial - that material events in the brain cause immaterial events in the mind. You just arbitrarily believe that though material events can cause immaterial events, the reverse is not true. You cite conservation of energy. But a) nothing in the idea of material/immaterial causation violates those laws and b) if it did, then your view involves a violation of them as well. For how, exactly, does a material event cause an immaterial event without that involving a transfer of energy? And when you provide an answer to that, that answer should also satisfy you that immaterial events can cause material ones.

First, what do you understand the problem to be, exactly?

What are you on about? Mental events appear to cause sensible events, yes?

I decided - mental event - to raise my arm, and my arm raised - sensible event.

If all the evidence is that my mind is an immaterial thing, then what we have there is evidence that immaterial events can and do cause sensible events.

If you think there's evidence that the mind is a material thing, provide it.