Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what ethics has to do with the belief in other minds, — GLEN willows

It has to do with the belief that other minds have the capacity to experience pain/suffering as you do/have in the past.
As in it woukd be unethical to assume no one else actually experiences pain/suffering, they're only mimicking it/like robots. This is the philosophical zombie argument.
It also links in with some forms of solipsism.

That's all I meant.

Simply put - I have a thought. I have a body. How do they interact? How does my conscious decision to "stand up" turn into actual physical movements? — GLEN willows

They interact in a two way system. Information from the external world (the room, the floor/terrain, even your own body parts with reference to your eyes) is converted into sensory stimuli (electrical impulses) through your sensory organs (eyes, ears, skin, muscles and tendons etc) that your mind can construct into meaningful awareness (where it is, how it is - sitting, what it can observe, what it may be able to do in this situation etc)

In turn the mind can reverse the direction of stimulus flow back to your body by referencing a). What's currently happening (as outlined above) and b). what it knows how to do - stored motor memory/learned skills.

In that way it can dictate control of muscles to make them move in the way it expects based on previous training. In that way you "stand up" because you learned to do it as an infant and ever since the information has been constitutional - valued and maintained, even improved (coordination).

In this sense anatomical structure of the brain behaves like the letters of a word - symbolic of the information stored within them. Just like any coding system does. The specific individual structures don't have to have inherent meaning to any external observer to function, because they have meaning in "self reference": that is to say in reference to electricity constantly cycling, surging and rippling around through the network, changing its structure as it goes (neuroplasticity).

The component that acts as a conduit between the electrical impulses (mind) and the anatomic structures (body) are neurotransmitters. They allow the mind to influence its physical structure and encode its information (memories).

Does this explain how a thought can become an action (standing up).
The concept of "standing up" is memorised, after the neccessary information from different interactions with the environment are integrated toghether into a formula for standing: a pinch of balance, a dash of muscle contraction, a game of marco-polo with your limbs, a Kurt lecture from the eyes that what they see isnt happening as the brain expected, some corrections passed onto the muscles and hey presto: you wobbled to a standing position.

The brain stored that formula for later use. And needs to constantly reformulate and amend it as variables change: your limbs growing longer, your muscle strength changing - maybe due to illness, your bone density changing the weight and feeling and pressure in your joints, addition or subtraction of various weights that you may be holding the next time you try to stand.

Of course all of this processing is incredibly efficient and fast. Most of these formulas have great predictive value and that's why we don't forget them.

So you're saying it's a wholly materialistic activity? Consciousness is within the brain and acts on the body?

The mind is a non-material substance. Your feelings and thoughts are not physical properties.
So how doesn't something immaterial affect the material body?

Aha. So you don't put any stock in panpsychism?

Some points to help you spotting the problem of consciousness:

CONSCIOUSNESS "IS A FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN". This doesn't mean that it can work in an isolated way, in other words the brain is not sufficient but is necessary for consciousness to emerge.Consciousness is a dynamic process that requires a continuous interaction of the brain with the rest of the body and the body with the external world.

MATTER DOES NOT HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS. When panpsychists talk about consciousness being a property of matter they're talking about something different, they're not tackling any issue or adding any value to the explanation of the matter that we're trying to explain: "that thing that awakes in the morning and dies with us".

CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT AN ON/OFF THING BUT HAS GRADESConsciousness is something that has grades. Your brain's consciousness emerges and grows since you're born and starts degrading after certain age as well as your brain does.

THE SELF EMERGES WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS. in order for you to make progress on understanding what consciousness is you need to do 2 things: 1) make clear to you what is NOT consciousness (you computer doesn't have consciousness "yet" :-) but a dog does have it)2) understand as well the difference between consciousness and the SELF. A brain can have consciousness but could not have a self. I invite you to read Vallortigara, Dehaene, Damasio, Dennett and Tononi's theories of consciousness. They will help you to better understand and dissolve some meaningless questions.
You will realize that the interesting problem would not be about consciousness but about the Self. Understanding the self and how the self emerges in a conscious brain is the interesting thing to investigate. The subject in our language, the I, You, He... this is the interesting topic.

ex. I'm a fan of Paul and Patricia Churchland, who are in fact "eliminative materialists" which involves an even more extreme view - that we should reject all folk psychology terminology. I don't personally see the need for that, but I do believe consciousness will be explained scientifically. As you might imagine, that went over very poorly - people had either never heard of the churchlands or just basically guffawed.

A mistake quite a few people here make is that materialists don't claim they KNOW science will explain consciousness, no one knows what consciousness is at the moment. It's all conjecture.

Churchlands are the Way ! :-) :up:
you can add them to my list above :wink:

All right! One for the good guys!

Good stuff, thanks. I'm with Hume as far as self - it's a bundle of perceptions. There is no one self.

So you're saying it's a wholly materialistic activity? Consciousness is within the brain and acts on the body? — GLEN willows

No I'm saying its a dualistic setup. The mind is electrical energy represented as meaning through symbolism - physical representations (anatomic structure).

The mind can be viewed as a process derived from the body in one direction: as a collection of meaning (beliefs, thoughts, feelings, memories) built from physical symbols (matter) that store the information of that meaning and can be viewed as a structural analogy or structural parallel to it.

In the other direction the mind can be viewed as equally influencing the physical structure of the body and propagating/maintaining it. As the mind can destroy the body if it wants (self-harm/suicide).

"healthy body, healthy mind" AND vice versa.
If it wasn't dualism, then the mind body problem exists and is irreconcilable.
But we already know its reconcilable by the simple fact that the mind can control/influence the body (as in standing up, eating, secreting hormones) and body can control/influence the mind (cancers, pain, inflammation, drugs - hallucinogens, psychiatric medications etc).

Two way system. Not one way system. So not absolutely materialistic, and not absolutely panpsychic, but both simultaneously (dualism).

A bit of tangent but taoism already outlined this Duality to things (yin and yang), as well as a universal flow that doesn't have to be strictly forced to flow in one direction (like materialistic thought would suggest)

rather than going back and forth, first let me know if you understand the classic mind-body problem, and Elizabeth of Bohemia's critique of dualism.

There is "no-one self", ok (Metzinger's being no-one), the Self is an illusion ok..... but "it is", there is something we call a self that is being studied and understood via hetero-phenomenology (authors I mention above).
As we can do with consciousness we can manipulate and study the self using technologies like chemical substances, MRI, etc.. and the results are stunning.
Hume could not experience consciousness as we do today, there was not the technology either the conceptual basis to do it.

rather than going back and forth, first let me know if you understand the classic mind-body problem, and Elizabeth of Bohemia's critique of dualism. — GLEN willows

Yes. I do.
Elizabeth of Bohemia stated against descartes dualism that the immaterial soul (which one imagines means consciousness or the mind) cannot have influence on the body as it cannot push or pull, being immaterial.

The classical mind-body problem is a debate about how thought, sensation or the experiential quality of a person can be linked logically with physical processes of the body.

As in where does the "feeling of pain/unpleasantness" come from when on stubs their toe. In essence the hard problem of consciousness.

In other words how can the quantitative (monism) and qualitative (dualism) be linked only using one form of logical reasoning (objective proof/materialism/monism). That whole assumption is just absurd and contradictory (hence the problem right?) How can you measure two distinct forms of information while only using the method of one of those forms. You can't.

I understand fully what question you raised was. And I understand the principles of the problem from a materialistic point of view (monism). I just didn't agree with it. Don't confuse my lack of agreement with my lack of understanding.

Now that we've established that, Elizabeth of Bohemia's "the immaterial cannot influence the material" I suppose did not have access to Einsteins energy-matter equivalence revelation some 300 years later. Energy and matter are fundamentally the same. Energy acts, material is acted upon.

If the immaterial cannot influence the material then we must disregard energy and thermodynamics altogether and start physics all over again. Which is obviously absurd.

Its more sensible to consider perhaps that descartes dualism like all dualisms, had better explanatory power than monisms.

Having 2 explanations is better than having 1 afterall.
If it wasn't, then metaphor, analogy, parable, innuendo and figurative verses literal speech can all be tossed out. That wouldnt do.

I understand panpsychism. So do you believe that when you die, you’re consciousness, as in your perceptions abd experiences, will carry on? — GLEN willows

Not mine. On my view, identity is lost, not consciousness. So I no longer exist. But the functional unities that persist are conscious still, just as they still have mass. I'm a functionalist about identity, but not about consciousness. When I die I lose the functional unity that is bert1 forever. I might also lose it when I am in a deep sleep perhaps, or get knocked out. But it gets rebooted again.

Not mine. On my view, identity is lost, not consciousness. So I no longer exist. But the functional unities that persist are conscious still, just as they still have mass. I'm a functionalist about identity, but not about consciousness. When I die I lose the functional unity that is bert1 forever. I might also lose it when I am in a deep sleep perhaps, or get knocked out. But it gets rebooted again.
9m — bert1

We think alike bert1. A good explanation of the nuances between panspychism and personal conscious awareness. Bravo.

We think alike bert1. A good explanation of the nuances between panspychism and personal conscious awareness. — Benj96

Yes, it's an important distinction to make I think. In a lot of conversations about consciousness, 'losing consciousness' when brain function is disrupted is taken as overwhelming evidence that consciousness is a brain function. Understandably so, if we don't make this distinction between consciousness and identity. It's also understandable that identity is seen to persist when someone 'loses consciousness', because from everybody else's point of view, the living body remains. There still is a sleeping bert1, with legal rights and spatio-temoral location etc, from Benj96's point of view. bert1 seems to still exist. But there is no bert1 from bert1's point of view. The deeply sleeping body has no point of view of its own, temporarily, and it is in that sense that identity is lost.

I see what you're saying.

Its more sensible to consider perhaps that descartes dualism like all dualisms, had better explanatory power than monisms.

Having 2 explanations is better than having 1 afterall. — Benj96

The problem isn't two explanations, the problems is that they have to end up in the same sphere - the material. Again, how does an immaterial thing affect a material thing? You seem to be saying "it just does."

I hope you're right - and that it gets rebooted after death as well :smile:

For that I suppose we'd need an identical body to be recreated, or at least functionally identical perhaps.

you're misusing the concept of identity. I think you're talking the self.
Nevertheless, when you sleep you lose both consciousness and self/identity (except dreaming and lucid dreams, etc)
There is no reboot after death the same way you did not exist before you were born your self ends when you die.

I agree - and bert you're comparing energy and consciousness. But energy can be measured - it's not immaterial in the sense consciousness is. The behaviour of energy can't be compared with the behaviour of consciousness, in my opinion.

I think you're talking the self. — Raul

Maybe I should use that word instead if it's clearer.

so you believe we create reality. Do you believe there is any material world, outside of our perceptions? — GLEN willows

In a trivial, non-New Age way, yes, we create the world. We use our concepts, our reasons, our perceptions and our judgments and apply it to the sense data that hits our nerves, which we re-construct into something intelligible.

And yes, I also think there is an external world, independent of us, but I'd argue both are made of "physical stuff". Our perceptions are the results of physical processes, and the world is made of physical stuff. In order to show that something extra is needed that is not physical, you'd need to point out why thoughts cannot be physical, that does not depend on terminology.

I've yet to see good reasons given to my request.

you'd need to point out why thoughts cannot be physical, — Manuel

My thoughts precisely.

The problem isn't two explanations, the problems is that they have to end up in the same sphere - the material — GLEN willows

Why do they have to end up in the materialistic sphere to be considered valid?

Does everything have to come back to the material? Is it impossible to reason about things that are not material?

Because if so we cannot reason about imagination, concepts or meaning, as none of these things are explicitly material in nature.

If only the material is real we ought to dismiss innovation, lateralised thinking, creativity and invention as these things precipitate into the material world from the "non material sphère- the mind".

To me the immaterial and material both exist and are both reasonable. The material cannot exist in isolation from its opposite - Immaterialism.

For opposites create one another mutually.

You cannot have poverty without wealth, you cannot have light without darkness, and you cannot have material reason (the physical) without immaterial reason (potential/ imagination).

Yes, it's an important distinction to make I think. In a lot of conversations about consciousness, 'losing consciousness' when brain function is disrupted is taken as overwhelming evidence that consciousness is a brain function. Understandably so, if we don't make this distinction between consciousness and identity. It's also understandable that identity is seen to persist when someone 'loses consciousness', because from everybody else's point of view, the living body remains. There still is a sleeping bert1, with legal rights and spatio-temoral location etc, from Benj96's point of view. bert1 seems to still exist. But there is no bert1 from bert1's point of view. The deeply sleeping body has no point of view of its own, temporarily, and it is in that sense that identity is lost. — bert1

I couldn't have put it better myself! Such wisdom is heartening to see. Your logic is very sound to me.

If only the material is real we ought to dismiss innovation, lateralised thinking, creativity and invention as these things precipitate into the material world from the "non material sphère- the mind". — Benj96

Not really, all those things are material, those things (symbols, meanings, etc.) are in our brains within neural-traces that combine always following physical laws (in some case deterministic, others are not, ... physics and biology are very complex).
And as such those things can be manipulated, like we can eliminate or induce ideas, words, concepts in your brains, we can as well see where and how they re located, etc... we can induce and create a "religious" brain since religious thinking is quite understood today (see Ramachandran's studies), and a long etc... And we can manipulate in traditional ways (talking, educating, ...) or in more sophisticated ways (using chemicals, electromagnetic fields, brain-surgery, etc.)...

Not really, all those things are material, those things (symbols, meanings, etc.) are in our brains within neural-traces that combine always following physical laws (in some case deterministic, others are not, ... physics and biology are very complex).
And as such those things can be manipulated, like we can eliminate or induce ideas, words, concepts in your brains, we can as well see where and how they re located, etc... we can induce and create a "religious" brain since religious thinking is quite understood today (see Ramachandran's studies), and a long etc... And we can manipulate in traditional ways (talking, educating, ...) or in more sophisticated ways (using chemicals, electromagnetic fields, brain-surgery, etc.)... — Raul

Yes, you can manipulate others beliefs and thoughts, for sure, it's easier than imagined, either through discourse or physically (by administering psychotropic drugs, surgeries etc as you explained).

Key Question: But should you? Is it ethical to instill in someone your ideas/notions of what is correct. And deny them their autonomy to believe what they wish?

In other words are you prepared to assert what you believe as ultimately correct/right for all people thus justifying your manipulation of their mind?

Or is it better to have a diversity of opinion just in case? To allow for review, consideration and adaption of your own beliefs in relation to their needs?

In essence of your were a God, would you prefer to manipulate others beliefs to be in alignement with your own (autocracy), or would you rather discourse, where people are allowed to object and explain the grounds for doing so? (democracy).

As I already said, a materialistic view by itself is dangerous. Because it doesn't allow for other ideas (anything outside the realm of what is considered real (material).)

In essence of your were a God, would you prefer to manipulate others beliefs to be in alignement with your own (autocracy), or would you rather discourse, where people are allowed to object and explain the grounds for doing so? (democracy). — Benj96

God is a naif intuition of mortal humans... but my asnwer is that, as everything in life, IT DEPENDS. We have situations where we, ourselves ask for certain traumas to get fixed because are painful and need manipulation. In other cases it is not justified.
Technology gives us power to cure and so far has helped to improve the quality of life, at least in western countries. But we always have to be vigilant to the risks that it brings as well.

But back to the original statement, thoughts are biologically based. No biology, no thoughts!
Spiritual or inmaterial theory or system of believes have a social purpose (important but just that) to calm and govern our sufferings and fears (see role of religion and spiritual systems of believes in past and present wars) not understanding what we're.

Nope.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/526924