I think that Descartes would probably be rather distraught by all the debate on dualism he started. I think that his own thinking has been stretched out of shape. Strangely the aspect which is not considered much is how he saw the importance connection between the mind and body as involving the pineal gland, which is known to regulate the chemical melatonin, which is important for the regulation of sleep. Perhaps, this is a link because REM dream sleep and dreaming may be an important interface between mind and body.

I suppose in some ways we could ask what is a body or matter exactly? While it can be perceived by the senses and measured, in some ways it could be perceived as something which has an impermanent nature, and while it can be viewed as more 'real' than the mind in some ways, the record and interpretation of the material in memories gives a certain sense of reality over and above matter itself.

To answer your question. The mind/body problem involves both physics and metaphysics. Physics for the material aspects and metaphysics for the mind aspect.

Consider them both as aspects of the combined stuff. Matter on the outside and metaphysical content inside.

Once upon a time, the stuf was one. When animals developed there was a division. The magic essence content part of that stuff became mind and the matter part became matter. Because the both are expressions of the combined potentiallity, the outer physical world are interdependent. The mind expression of that content stuff is still tied to matter and the expression of that matter stuff contains essence. It we eat stuff the mind quality gets expressed in our brain. This causes the matter to become visible. The body is the intermediate and can be considered the real self. Outside you can see the difference and inside you can feel the difference.

I'm afraid I don't follow.

Why would matter (or physical stuff) count as more real than mind? Mind is a configuration of physical stuff. So far as we can tell, all there is, is physical stuff. It suggests than the physical is much, much richer than what we initially suppose.

Of course, my view is naturalistic which claims that everything is a natural processes. If you think there are supernatural phenomena, then we probably won't agree.

Good point. Of course we may be heading into metaphysics when we make the claim that all there is is physicalism. Isn't this a metaphysical position? It's my position too, but is there not something troubling about the somewhat vague nature of physicalism in the light of all reality being quantum waves?

Yes it is. It's essentially Strawson's Real Materialism (minus the panpsychism), the view that everything that exists is physical. But this does not mean that everything is physicSal. It takes consciousness to be the most immediate fact of which we are acquainted with. Thing is, consciousness is a wholly physical phenomena.

It basically ends up saying that EVERYTHING is physical. Which might make the term meaningless. I just take it to mean that physical stuff is baffling.

It takes consciousness to be the most immediate fact of which we are acquainted with. — Manuel

Yes - from a phenomenological perspective I guess we could say we are locked in...

Pretty much.

I guess we could say we are locked in... — Tom Storm

We are not locked in. We are locked in between.

If there is a part of the body that is considered to be where the mind hangs out, then Descartes' distinction challenges all the others, including yours.

If it cannot be relied upon to map out the terrain you wish to travel, is it a distinction without a difference?

:up:

This would explain the experience of phantom limbs after amputations.I — Jack Cummins

People born without limbs also experience phantoms limbs, etc which shows that their brains are hardwired to generate 'phenomenal self models' that constitute 'mind' (awareness of self). Nothing exterior to, or independent of, genetically embodied cognition – not environment, not experience, certainly not "energy fields" – is required, and the phenomenon (and its experimental manipulation by neuroscientists, etc) is well documented.

... energy fields.

Woo-of-the-gaps, my friend. Any "energy" that interacts with physical systems is also physical and therefore scientifically measurable. Which of these physical energy fields are you referring to? Analogizing nonphysical "energy fields" to physical energy fields is as incoherent as p-zombies analogized to sentient persons.

I may be wrong but I do think that many people do see the physical as far more real than mind. Of course, the two are interconnected in a very complex way and I do believe that embodied existence is central. If anything, I just believe that we may be going in a direction in which neuroscientists have all the answers, almost making philosophical thinking an aspect of the past. I believe that we still need to interpret, reflect and think deeply about all of these areas as part of our quest for knowledge and understanding.

I have to admit that I probably need to read Descartes again as he had such insights which probably go far beyond the Cartesian picture that developed after him.

I think that sometimes the focus in philosophy of mind is more upon labels rather than the intricate relationship of mind and body. I am not trying to say that it is simply mysterious, but it probably should not be put into boxes, with clear, neat categories and labels.

I mean, there are people who think consciousness is a kind of illusion. But there's no evidence for this at all besides appealing to the fact that neuroscience will one day show that red is not red or that it only seems we see qualities but we really don't. But that is irrational.

Saying that the physical is more real than the mental is kind of like saying red apples are more real than yellow apples. Or that water vapor is more real than liquid water. It highlights some set of properties other than some other set of properties.

I think it should be obvious that those physical properties we call mental properties are the one's we are directly acquainted with. But this doesn't oppose physical with mental, as mental properties are, again, configurations of physical stuff. Nor is one more real than the other, unless someone can tell me what "real" means in this case.

And thinking about these questions will likely remain with us for a long time.

I think that the question of the metaphysics underlying philosophies of mind is inevitably connected with those about whether consciousness is an illusion. The way of seeing it as an illusion stems from B F Skinner and the philosophy of Dennett. It is also interconnected to the whole question of will and free will, and in the most reductive philosophies human beings are often seen as mere robots. Also, I believe that an underlying rhetoric of such philosophies is a belief that the individual person does not matter, and that we are mere numbers and insignificant. So, on one hand, dualism may support the concerns of the individual ego, but the argument against it can be used to say that we do not have any intrinsic worth at all.

Any "energy" that interacts with physical systems is also physical and therefore scientifically measurable. — 180 Proof

Gauge fields in quantum field theory represent the mediating, pure energy (not grounded in mass) the means of mass interacting. Mass can be seen as emerging from massless sub-quark rishon fields but these are fundamentally different from the massless mediating fields. Their spins differ. 1/2 vs 1. 1/2 for the particle fields, 1 for the energy particle gauge fields. There is a graviton spin 2 gauge field too. The graviton field. The reason why its spin is 2 is a bit more complicated but not important.

It's the question if you can say that gauge fields are measurable. They are the means for measurement.

My comment regarding the physical aspect of the mind was not really germane to the distinction I was making about the Cogitatio. The isolation and immediacy of the thinking "I" is separated from everything it is not. That is not equivalent to separating the "mind" from the "body" in the manner of Aristotle, for example.

The phenomenology that developed from the separation has gone along many different paths following different premises.

In the course of arguing with aspects of Husserl's phenomenology, Ortega y Gasset gives a very cogent view of Descartes in his What is Philosophy. I would quote some but I cannot find a free version online and I lent my copy to someone.

Maybe, it's possible. But I really don't see any reason to believe consciousness is an illusion at all. So although people may debate it, I don't see the point. If someone says it's an illusion, but it seems evident to most other people that it's not, then it's just a question of asserting one thing or the other. I doubt much people will be convinced.

I may be wrong but I do think that many people do see the physical as far more real than mind. — Jack Cummins

The way legs are "far more real" than dancing ... if by real they mean things to the exclusion of events or activities which, of course, makes no sense since events and activities are, in fact, at least as real as things. Btw, the notion of "more real than" seems completely incoherent insofar as it's a binary concept like "pregnant" or "dead": something 'either is or is not' real and not 'more or less' so.

The way of seeing it as an illusion stems from B F Skinner and the philosophy of Dennett. — Jack Cummins

Oh no, it's a waaaaay older notion than that espoused in the late great twentieth. Off the top of my head Buddha, Zhuangzi, Democritus-Epicurus-Lucretius ... Spinoza, Hume, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Zapffe, et al ... thought "consciousness is an illusion" (i.e. folk psychological concepts do not refer to what is actually going on in "subjective experience").

Non sequitur. I studied physics as a engineering undergrad in the early 1980s and fail to see the relevance of your post to anything I've posted or the broader thread discussion.

Non sequitur. I studied physics as a engineering undergrad in the early 1980s and fail to see the relevance of your post to anthing I've posted or the broader thread discussion — 180 Proof

Did I say I have relevance? Thats what YOU make of it.The lack of it that is.

I cant help it that you fail to see the obvious. I like your comment though. Its nice to feel negative feelings once in a while. Thanks!

I definitely don't believe that consciousness is an illusion. Perhaps, I may have created more interest if I had created a thread on whether consciousness is an illusion. We could even ask what is an illusion, throwing the question about what is real. I am certainly not opposed to naturalism, and not looking to the view about abstractions, and I do believe that the idea of the supernatural often gets in the way. I am just looking for the deepest analysis of the mind within philosophy rather than just psychological theories, which draw upon philosophy in some respects.

What does it mean to say consciohsness is an illusion? Im pretty sure that Im conscious.

I bet you're "pretty sure" your eyes 'see things directly as they are' too. :roll:

I bet you're "pretty sure" your eyes 'see things directly as they are' — 180 Proof

Indeed!

I dont see how this comment says why consciousness is an illusion. Mh eyes can deceive and my eyes can tell me the truth. What has consciousness being an illusion gotta do with that?

The whole question of what is 'real' does come into the picture, including the issue of binary logic. In some ways, naturalism comes into play the picture in some ways. Thinking of the matter from an arts based point of view, I have an affinity with the movement of superrealism, which is about magnifying the elements of the real world as an aspect of perception. Translating this into philosophy, it would probably be about a kind of zooming as a way of analysing. I think that that many philosophers, including Shopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spinoza and others probably went down this pathway. Perhaps, the problem is that many of us see philosophy as a sideline pursuit, rather than as a central aspect of human existence.

That's fine. Supernaturalism is hard to even articulate, it seems to me. But there are all kinds of people in the world.

Good luck on that thread. It's going to be a tough semantic battle.

I think that phenomenology is an important way of connecting metaphysics with the philosophy of the mind/body problem. Also, I think that emotions are important because while they lie at the core of psychology, they do represent an important interface between mind and body.

Yes, I have probably created a tough thread question and it will probably be not particularly popular, but I am grateful that I have a few people engaging. I do believe that thinking about the individual problems in philosophy does require some kind of way of viewing them alongside others. I am not saying that I am concerned with building a system or world picture, but, on the other hand, I cannot make much sense of seeing the individual problems of philosophy in isolation, which is why I am trying to connect the mind and body problem with the idea of metaphysics.

:roll: Yeah but panta rhei ... :sweat: