Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot possibly be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes. — Edward Feser
Some Brief Arguments for Dualism — Wayfarer
Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning. — Edward Feser
Ideas trigger similar, or related, ideas in my head. So my ideas are causally influenced by some other idea, and it's not the same for everyone, as it is based on experience.It seems to me that it is hard to apply determinism to mental states for various reasons.The main reason for this is the conceptual or representational content of mental states.
Facts or propositions that the mind deals with depend either on the nature of the external the word or logical relations. So for example Paris is the capital of France and 2 + 2 = 4 are facts regardless of which state the brain is in.
A brain state could be something like "neuron A and B caused Neuron C to fire"
Now if Neuron "A" represented "Paris" and Neuron "B" represented "Capital" and Neuron "C" represented "England" you can see how the firing of neurons here would not preserve a factual state of affairs.
So the one issue is that facts of the world are independent of brain states. The other issue is that it is hard to imagine how neuronal firings could preserve conceptual relationships.
Another issue concerns how we could challenge our beliefs if neuronal firings just forced us into particular mental states.
Also there is the problem of how beliefs cause other beliefs. Believing that Paris the Capital of France doesn't cause any other beliefs. I can't immediately see what would conceptually link mental states or brain states and beliefs together or to make one cause another. — Andrew4Handel
Ideas trigger similar, or related, ideas in my head. So my ideas are causally influenced by some other idea, and it's not the same for everyone, as it is based on experience. — Harry Hindu
What are the physical processes in the brain for? — bahman
It is of course not the firing of an individual neuron but the firing of patterns of neurons. It can shown with active brain scans (PET and the like) that fear or other emotions consistently cause activation of the same regions of the brain. So there is consistent relationship between certain patterns of neuronal activation and emotional states. Language or speech activates certain brain regions as does music. We are yet down to the point of resolution of individual neurons within these patterns but one should not bet against that level of detail in the future. How these patterns give rise to “feeling” is another subject. A clue as to my preference is the notion that the physical is always accompanied by some degree of the psychic (mind). Unconscious experience (affect or feeling if you prefer) is a universal feature of nature although such experience is mostly, weak, unconscious and habitual.So the one issue is that facts of the world are independent of brain states. The other issue is that it is hard to imagine how neuronal firings could preserve conceptual relationships. — Andrew4Handel
And yet we never see human thoughts or consciousness separated from brain processes or brain activity? — prothero
It caused you to type those words on your keyboard and click send so that we could read it. Speaking and writing are both physical behaviors triggered by thought. You could say that speaking and writing involve semantics as you convert your thoughts into sounds and scribbles to communicate your thoughts to others. Every post on this forum is a physical effect, and therefore a representation, of mental causes.I don't see how semantic content is causal like say neuronal firings. Ideas are conceptually related but that does not equal causal relations. Thinking "Paris is the Capital of France" doesn't cause any more behaviour or thought in me or any determined next content (such as I rush to the shop to by garlic bread). — Andrew4Handel
I don't understand your problem. What truth?I am also concerned with a proposed linkage of mental states to brain states and how mental content could be determined this way and preserve coherence.
The behaviourist model is that idea that constant co-firing of neurons makes one idea trigger another through constant conjunction like Pavlov's dog's saliva and bells. However salivation was an inappropriate response to a bell because bells do not always signal food (nor do they "mean" food) and that type of learning makes lots of errors that we don't.
The main problem I was highlighting though is that if thoughts are determined then we can't evaluate them for truth. Like the dogs couldn't control salivating. — Andrew4Handel
It caused you to type those words on your keyboard and click send so that we could read it. Speaking and writing are both physical behaviors triggered by thought. You could say that speaking and writing involve semantics as you convert your thoughts into sounds and scribbles to communicate your thoughts to others. Every post on this forum is a physical effect, and therefore a representation, of mental causes. — Harry Hindu
I don't understand your problem. What truth?
Are you taking into account some form of indirect realism where the brains (and the neurons they are made of) that we see are just mental models of what is in the real world? — Harry Hindu
Your not thinking honestly about your own mental processes. Think about thinking. What is the causal sequence in your mind that made you read this post and respond to it? You have a goal, which isn't "physical", and your goal guides your behavior. Your goal, you say, is to have a discussion, and that is why you are typing on a keyboard - "physical" behavior.This is a misrepresentation. I selected the example here "Paris is the capital of France" as opposed to those words causing me to type anything. Usually the vast majority of my thought don't cause me to type anything. I don't think you could give a convincing causal explanation as to which thoughts specifically causally determined me to type something. The main thing that is making me type here is the necessity to do so in order to have a discussion. — Andrew4Handel
That's because the same thought in different circumstances can have different results. Your thought isn't the only cause. If anything, this shows the causal relationship between mind and the world even more. When both causes work together to produce results that one alone couldn't achieve. Think of it as a feedback loop between world and mind. This is how we learn as well. We take input, process it, produce output, and then use our own output as the new input to observe how close we get to the perfect result.The same exact thought can have different causal relationships on different days. There is no causal law or regularity that entails that if I think "Paris is the capital of France" then I am compelled to exhibit behavior X. And it is hard to imagine what that causal law would be. It would be inconvenient if every time I thought X it determined the same behavior. the value of thought is that you can reflect without action. Physical causes don't have this luxury. — Andrew4Handel
Correction. Mental States and Determinism.By the way this thread is about determinism and not the nature of thoughts. — Andrew4Handel
I'm not quite sure that is true. Mathematics is a model of the world. Distinctions could be illusory. When looking closer at the world, everything seems to be interconnected - causally - deterministic. 2+2=4 could only be true for minds that have a perspective of space and time like we do.The issue for me is that facts are more important than the patterns of neurons firing.
As I said in the opening post 2+2=4 is true regardless of which neuronal firing patterns correlated with having that thought. — Andrew4Handel
And the word, "Hello" in the sand can cause other minds that read it to think about who wrote that and why. My point is that what if it isn't top-down, or bottom-up, at all? Everything is interconnected in time - causally. "Top-down" and "bottom-up" are illusory concepts stemming from the false dichotomy of dualism.To me it is not determinism if the truth of a proposition determines the neuronal activity because that is top down causation. For example if I write Hello" in some sand. My intent to write hello determines the physical movement of the sand. If thoughts determine brain states then that is the definition of free will.
However if thoughts were created by brain states that would main the brain state would determine thought regardless of the validity of the content. The Pavlov Dog's paradigm showed how two conceptually unrelated can be come triggered due to constant conjunction. It is not clear how being repeatedly exposed to stimuli would crate valid concepts about them. There is an extra step from having vivid perceptions to creating a semantic concept. Once again top down influence is posited in perception which is not compatible with strong determinism really. — Andrew4Handel
That's because the same thought in different circumstances can have different results. — Harry Hindu
Facts or propositions that the mind deals with depend either on the nature of the external the word or logical relations. So for example Paris is the capital of France and 2 + 2 = 4 are facts regardless of which state the brain is in. — Andrew4Handel
I'm puzzled by this. Do you think these are facts if there were no human brains at all?
~If so how? — charleton
No. I'm arguing that mental activity is part of many causal relationships. Calling it "physical" doesn't help and isn't what I'm saying.But are you arguing that all mental activity causes some physical behaviour? — Andrew4Handel
Why? Do you need to isolate a causal bridge between a ball striking a window and the window breaking? Isn't that just a transfer of energy? Doesn't it take willpower/energy to move your body?I think to make a strictly determinism account of a thought you would have to isolate a causal bridge concerning what caused I thought and what it caused and then a mechanism. — Andrew4Handel
Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect - ALL cause and effect relationships.It is not clear to me what spatial-temporal-material features semantics could have to create a causal narrative with. — Andrew4Handel
Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect - ALL cause and effect relationships. — Harry Hindu
I am not sure how a determinist could claim that we were free to believe what we believe and free to reach the conclusions we reached. — Andrew4Handel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.