Are informational objects causally related in the same sense that physical objects are? If so, how. I not how so? — I like sushi

I think the thread is about 'mental causation' - can mind, if it is non-physical, cause physical effects? It seems obvious that it does, but it's a question of great controversy in academic philosophy, because of its commitment to metaphysical naturalism. And naturalism generally assumes a physicalist outlook. 'Non-reductive physicalism' is now popular - it posits that while everything is physical, not all physical phenomena can be reduced to or explained by basic physical laws and properties. It accepts that the world is fundamentally physical but denies that higher-level phenomena, like mental states or biological processes, are merely identical to or fully explained by the fundamental physical level. Donald Davidson who has been mentioned and about whom Banno knows a lot, is an example of non-reductive physicalism.

The alternative seems to be dualism - that mind is one kind of substance and matter another. That is the implication of Descartes' dualism, but it's not much accepted nowadays. Or idealism - that mind is somehow fundamental, which is hardly accepted by academic philosophy at all. But in any case it's a more complicated problem than it seems.

As for mental causation, what if I were to write something that caused you to become agitated? Would that not constitute an example of mental causation that has physical consequences such as increasing your pulse? — Wayfarer

Then I would say that's not causation at all. Offensive gestures do not result in causation, but in deliberation in which a moral agent can think through the situation and decide to ignore the offenses.

Or idealism - that mind is somehow fundamental, which is hardly accepted by academic philosophy at all. But in any case it's a more complicated problem than it seems. — Wayfarer

There's no causation in any principle of idealism.

Are informational objects causally related in the same sense that physical objects are? If so, how. I not how so? — I like sushi

Yes, you can look to life as the best example. Genetic code influences other generic code, messenger molecules, large and small scale structure, really the entire informational and physical reality of all life.

I created this thread to talk about the different perspectives regarding Physical and Mental Acts and how I believe there is a problem when using Causation at a micro and macro level as well as between nomological and metaphysical positions. — I like sushi

Ha ha! Then I have no idea how we got here.

What are your thoughts regarding Mental Actions as Causal Actions? — I like sushi

Mental causes are really physical causes so I see no real difference in them than any other cause. Causation is contextual based on identification and limits. As a basic example, asking "What caused X 1 second ago can be broken down into an infinite number of contexts. .99 seconds ago. .98. Are you at the quantum, atomic, or large planetary scale? What variables do we include and exclude? And so on.

Causation is simply taking in a set of factors that preceded an outcome, but necessarily lead to that outcome.

I explore cause a big in depth here if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

When it comes to then trying to establish a Physical to Mental or Mental to Physical causal route a much bigger problem emerges as we have no grounding for what constitutes a Mental Act — I like sushi

Which is why its much simpler when you realize its just a physical act.

Even within the world of physics causation is a quite difficult item to deal with at the extreme ends of the micro and macro scales. — I like sushi

Of course, this is because you introduce more variables. At the macro level, there is so much to consider. At the micro level the precision level can get to the absurd where you break a second into pico seconds and generate nothing meaningful after its all said and done. My apologies for hijacking your thread, it was not my intention and I hope this leads back to the points you wanted to address.

Non-reductive physicalism
...........
The alternative seems to be dualism - that mind is one kind of substance and matter another.
............
Or idealism - that mind is somehow fundamental, which is hardly accepted by academic philosophy at all. — Wayfarer

Don't forget about property dualism. :grin: Matter has a non-physical property.

Mental causes are really physical causes so I see no real difference in them than any other cause. — Philosophim

Is there any need for the word "mental"?

Are you claiming that if we got rid of all of these physical things that the information of music would be floating out in space somewhere?
— Philosophim

Certainly not floating in space, but existing in a similar sense that numbers exist. There is no 1, 2, 3, floating in space, these numbers must be instantiated physically to "exist", in your sense. — hypericin

Ok, we're in agreement here.

Yet we routinely think of them independently from any particular instantiation, math wouldn't exist if we didn't do this. — hypericin

Just because we say they exist independently from instantiation, doesn't mean they do. People say and do a lot to organize categories into easily managed and summarized information. That doesn't mean this simplification or summarization changes the underlying reality.

Math is simply the logic of identities, specifically to quantities. Math could of course apply to 'non-physical' quantities, but I would first need a clear definition of what non-physical is as mentioned before.

The physical notes I write on a page. The physical intstrument I play it with. The physical ears that hear it.
— Philosophim

Here, we only identify the notes as information. The instrument is a tool to convert the information contained on the sheet into audible music, and the ears interpret this. — hypericin

You defining it as a category does not make it non-physical. To prove it is non-physical, you must give a clear example of what non-physical is, proof that it exists, then demonstrate that information can exist as this non-physical definition. All I see are physical notes in the page, physical instruments playing, and physical brains processing. DNA is information correct? Is that non-physical, or physical?

A song on a vinyl LP that is the same as the song you hear on Spotify. If you grant that it is the same song, this song cannot be physical, as their physical instantiation could not be more different. — hypericin

No, that is a category summation to process information. It is NOT the same song. One is the song you hear on a record interacting with a record player, the other is a song you hear though the electronics being stimulated correctly by electricity and modern day acoustics. If I play the song on my iphone, and you play the song on your android at the same time, don't they both exist physically as separate songs? Being similar does not mean being identical. Being able to categorize like things together as, 'That song" does not dismiss the underlying specific reality that they are all different physical expressions of a similar song. If all physical ways of expressing that song vanished, 'that song' as the summarative category of all like expressions, would also vanish. It does not exist independently of physical reality.

Mental causes are really physical causes so I see no real difference in them than any other cause.
— Philosophim
Is there any need for the word "mental"? — Patterner

Absolutely. We can't go around calling everything 'physical' all the time in normal conversation. It is a great way to compartmentalize a certain set of physical existence and processes that are different from other physical sets and processes. We need some type of categorization, and we're not going to change the use of the word anytime soon. The issue is that mental processes are still physical processes. As long as you realize that, talking about mental processes is fine. Its when you start to think they exist apart from physical processes as some independent entities that you run into trouble.

A computer does not have a mind's eye, cannot imagine, and cannot experience anything. — RogueAI

Can you prove that? Can you prove a bug has a mind's eye, can imagine, and can experience anything? Isn't a fruitfly just an organic mechanical object? You do not know what you've claimed, you believe what you've claimed. I already noted that some AIs demonstrate low level objective consciousness. We can't even know what its like for another human being to subjectively experience, much less if a robot has one or not.

When I imagine a sunset, I'm experiencing the colors. I'm seeing red. You're saying the redness isn't really there, it's just brain activity, — RogueAI

No, you are not experiencing the colors of the sunset when you imagine it. Your brain is giving you a memory or using the image framework it uses to process light and redo it for you as an image. You are not streaming light through your eyes, therefore you are literally not seeing red. This is a rare open shut case of objective truth.

but that is easily contradicted by imagining something, hallucinating, or dreaming. — RogueAI

All of this is also brain activity and not seeing colors, as to see colors you have to stream light through your eyes.

All right, let's talk about that. What is it about the brain that makes experience happen? What's it doing that my heart or gut biome isn't doing? Information processing? — RogueAI

Neuroscience is a fairly broad field, and you've asked a fairly broad question. At a very basic level, your brain matter and heart matter are two completely different cell structures. I don't think its a stretch to understand that different cell structures of the body do different things.

Start with the basics, a fruit fly. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-unveil-the-first-ever-complete-map-of-an-adult-fruit-flys-brain-captured-in-stunning-detail-180985191/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03190-y

Here all 120,000 neurons have been mapped. "Previously, researchers had mapped parts of the much smaller brains of a larval marine worm (78 neurons), a larval sea squirt (177 neurons) and an adult roundworm (302 neurons). In a breakthrough last year, scientists published the first complete connectome of a larval fruit fly, featuring 3,000 neurons.

An adult fruit fly’s brain is much more complex, however—and most importantly, the small insects share 60 percent of human DNA, as well 75 percent of the genes that cause genetic diseases, per a statement. As such, understanding the fly’s brain in such detail could hold implications for connections in human brains—and the neural pathways that lead to certain behaviors. Fruit flies, like humans, can get drunk, sing and be kept awake with coffee, suggesting similarities in our brains."

Read up on basic neuron activity. How they communicate, function, grow, etc.

Don't forget about property dualism. :grin: Matter has a non-physical property. — Patterner

Which nobody can specify.

Its when you start to think they (mental processes) exist apart from physical processes as some independent entities that you run into trouble. — Philosophim

They're still physical, but are designated 'mental'. How can that be distinguished from straight-ahead physicalism?

A melody can be represented in musical notation or binary code. It can be engraved in metal or copied on to paper. Then it can be played back on different instruments or through digital reproduction. In every case the physical medium is different but the melody is the same. So how then can the melody be described as physical? — Wayfarer

No, the melody is not the same. It is similar, which is a very distinct difference. If I play the song in two different places at the same time, they are not the same. The physical composition of the instrument, the physical composition and actions of the player, and the very air and accoustics the song travels two are different. We summarize them as 'the same song' for convenience and summary in communication. But when we break it down and need to look at it in detail, our summary is not representative of some 'form' that exists outside of physical reality.

When I say a person 'kicked the bucket' in the right context it means, "They died", not that they literally kicked a bucket.

I clearly told you I don't associate with the physicalist position.
— Philosophim

Every post of yours that I’ve read assumes physicalism. — Wayfarer

No, you assume in every post of mine that I'm claiming physicalism.

Maybe because you assume that everything is physical — Wayfarer

I don't. I've said that almost every time this has come up in conversations with you. :)

and don’t understand how anything can described in other terms — Wayfarer

I am very open to the existence of something non-physical. I am open to a God existing. A magical unicorn. I am not being sarcastic or intending to insult. I LOVE thinking of wonderful things. I want there to be wonderful things Wayfarer. If I say I don't understand what a person means by 'non-physical' it is because they won't clearly define what the term means, nor point to something that objectively exists and fits this term.

I mentioned in an earlier post there are a few things that might be non-physical, they've just never come up. And by this I mean something that cannot be explained at all with physical reality, yet appear to exist. Maybe one day the subject will come up. For now, I want to see an actual definition of what non-physical is, and evidence of its existence that isn't merely a category error of something that is physical.

An adult fruit fly’s brain is much more complex, however—and most importantly, the small insects share 60 percent of human DNA, as well 75 percent of the genes that cause genetic diseases, per a statement. As such, understanding the fly’s brain in such detail could hold implications for connections in human brains—and the neural pathways that lead to certain behaviors. Fruit flies, like humans, can get drunk, sing and be kept awake with coffee, suggesting similarities in our brains." — Philosophim

I've abandoned the word 'complex' a long time ago because I could not make any of my argument stick just by attaching this word. Similarly, I have avoided using percentages of human DNA to strengthen my argument.
If flies cannot evolve and adapt, then they will remain a fly.

No, the melody is not the same. It is similar, which is a very distinct difference. If I play the song in two different places at the same time, they are not the same. The physical composition of the instrument, the physical composition and actions of the player, and the very air and accoustics the song travels two are different. We summarize them as 'the same song' for convenience and summary in communication. But when we break it down and need to look at it in detail, our summary is not representative of some 'form' that exists outside of physical reality. — Philosophim

Incorrect. The melody IS the same. RIght now, my 10-month-old grand-child is playing with an electronic toy which is playing the song My World is Blue. It is the same melody. There are many arrangements of this song on Spotify and Apple Music which are the same melody but arranged with different instruments and vocalists. If I tried to put out a song with that melody, I would rightly be sued for copyright infringement. This happens frequently, and quite often the similarity is not even obvious.

I am very open to the existence of something non-physical. I am open to a God existing. A magical unicorn. I am not being sarcastic or intending to insult. I LOVE thinking of wonderful things. — Philosophim

The problem is, that is not at all what philosophy of mind believes by the immaterial or non-physical. The fact you can only conceive of alternatives to the physical in terms of magical unicorns indicates a misunderstanding of the subject.

Incorrect. The melody IS the same. RIght now, my 10-month-old grand-child is playing with an electronic toy which is playing the song My World is Blue. — Wayfarer

No, by fact it is not the same Wayfarer. Same being identical. Are a pair of twins the same? Similar, but not identical. Again, lumping things into a category is not the same as saying that all the things in that category are identical in reality. I can define sheep, but there is no one sheep that is identical to any other sheep.

The problem is, that is not at all what philosophy of mind believes by the immaterial or non-physical. — Wayfarer

I am not discussing with the philosophy of mind. I'm discussing with you and others. And I'm merely asking for a clear definition of something non-physical that is not a category error of something physical, that can clearly be shown to exist.

The fact you can only conceive of alternatives to the physical in terms of magical unicorns indicates a misunderstanding of the subject. — Wayfarer

No, that indicates either of us having a misunderstanding in answering your question. I was answering your point about me assuming everything is physical and I don't understand how anything can be described in other terms. My point was, I can. I have an imagination and believe that we can discover something that is not physical. But, it needs to be reasonable, not a misunderstanding of physical things.

No, by fact it is not the same Wayfarer. Same being identical. Are a pair of twins the same? Similar, but not identical. Again, lumping things into a category is not the same as saying that all the things in that category are identical in reality. I can define sheep, but there is no one sheep that is identical to any other sheep. — Philosophim

If your philosophy cannot allow for the existence of a song, and copywright to it, then all I can say is that it has a serious deficiency.

there is no one sheep that is identical to any other sheep. — Philosophim

Regardless, it's different from everything except another sheep. It's not a camel, or a llama.

I'm merely asking for a clear definition of something non-physical — Philosophim

Melodies, as discussed. Numbers, laws, conventions, chess. There are thousands of these general kinds of things that are grasped by the mind (but not by 'neural activity').

I think I am getting lost in the meaning of what is physical, for example if I start flying it would be physical? Even if it does not follow rules of nature?

I would say there are three terms, not two. Substrate, encoding, and content. — hypericin

Good. So the substrate of a numeral would be, e.g., ink on paper.

If your philosophy cannot allow for the existence of a song, and copywright to it, then all I can say is that it has a serious deficiency. — Wayfarer

Where did I say that? You create a definition of a song that follows a general pattern of tone and melody. A copyright, is literally the right to copy a work. A copy, like a twin, is a unique but similar emulation of something else. A 'song' is a category of different similar physical expressions of melody. How similar these physical expressions have to be is what society decides by law. So in one country it could be that a song which is 90% similar in melody is considered the same, while in another country its only 90% similar in tempo.

Melodies, as discussed. Numbers, laws, conventions, chess. There are thousands of these general kinds of things that are grasped by the mind (but not by 'neural activity'). — Wayfarer

Ok, the examples are good. But where's the clear definition of 'non-physical'? Is it just concepts? Definitions the human brain constructs?

↪Philosophim I think I am getting lost in the meaning of what is physical, for example if I start flying it would be physical? — Danileo

What is physical shouldn't be confusing. What you're confused about is what is 'non-physical'. What is your clear definition of 'non-physical'? Then we can ask your flying question.

I just got obfuscation. If you start to pin him down he will miraculously agree with you.

I mentioned in an earlier post there are a few things that might be non-physical, they've just never come up.

Care to elaborate?

What is behind physical and non-physical are the principles, as for example a well known principle in physics is the law of conservation of energy.

Therefore non-physical principles should be different principles from those who are physical, for example I could came up with a law that is claiming that the energy is limited or being generated randomly etc.

One argument for the presence of non-physical principle is why people can end up believing in those principles and transcending them to earth.

I mentioned in an earlier post there are a few things that might be non-physical, they've just never come up.
Care to elaborate? — Punshhh

Certainly. How I define non-physical is, 'That which is not comprised of something physical.' For me there is a strange notion in science that has not been answered yet. It very well could be that this is an opportunity for something non-physical, but then again it can also be a placeholder until we figure out more.

For me it is 'attraction'. And I don't mean the love kind. Weak force, strong force, gravity...there is something so counter to the idea of what is physical in this. Let me explain.

When two things collide, there is an equal and opposite force against one or both of the objects. So you can apply force to move an object forward and force to slow an object down. But attraction seems to pull an object to another. Yes, these forces do seem like properties of physical objects, so maybe they are a physical force as well. But...there's something so off on this. The best I've ever heard for the reason of attractive forces is that there are smaller particles inbetween causing this interchange. But that seems counter to the idea of equal and opposite force.

In the physical realm force is applied. But attraction seems to be an application of negative force. Maybe its a simple misunderstanding and there is something out there unknown which is actually pushing matter towards other matter and we've misattributed it to pull. I don't know. Its a mystery of science to me that still has the possibility of discovering something completely knew as we continue to learn about reality.

Another is an uncaused reality, and this one I'm much more certain on. This is mostly attributed to a god, but I mean the reality that the universe ultimately, must be uncaused. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1 Here for more details if you wish. Something uncaused by definition, has no prior reason for its existence. While something physical could form uncaused, nothing physical caused it to exist. Therefore it meets the definition of non-physical.

I just got obfuscation. If you start to pin him down he will miraculously agree with you. — Punshhh

A little ironic considering I've been asking for a clear definition of non-physical and an example of its existence that does not entail the physical. I'm not arguing to just argue, I'm discussing with you and will happily agree if what is being said is clear and logical.

Therefore non-physical principles should be different principles from those who are physical, for example I could came up with a law that is claiming that the energy is limited or being generated randomly etc. — Danileo

Thank you, this clarifies the stance you're taking. Energy being limited seems to be a physical property, though maybe you mean something else here. Something unlimited would seem a better example of something non-physical. I also agree that true randomness, not inductively concluded randomness, would also be a non-physical property.

One argument for the presence of non-physical principle is why people can end up believing in those principles and transcending them to earth. — Danileo

But we know from neuroscience that this is all an action of the brain. The brain is not truly random nor unlimited. Consciousness is not truly random or unlimited. Thus I'm not seeing how we can attribute this to a non-physical property.

Don't forget about property dualism. :grin: Matter has a non-physical property.
— Patterner

Which nobody can specify. — Wayfarer

I don't know how you mean by this. In what way can anyone specify what they think is the answer to the HPoC? Surely proto-consciousness is not far less specified that it shouldn't be mentioned with the other guesses.

Also, as Brian Greene writes in Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe, Brian Greene writes:

If you’re wondering what proto-consciousness really is or how it’s infused into a particle, your curiosity is laudable, but your questions are beyond what Chalmers or anyone else can answer. Despite that, it is helpful to see these questions in context. If you asked me similar questions about mass or electric charge, you would likely go away just as unsatisfied. I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do. In the same vein, perhaps researchers will be unable to delineate what proto-consciousness is and yet be successful in developing a theory of what it does—how it produces and responds to consciousness. For gravitational and electromagnetic influences, any concern that substituting action and response for an intrinsic definition amounts to an intellectual sleight of hand is, for most researchers, alleviated by the spectacularly accurate predictions we can extract from our mathematical theories of these two forces. Perhaps we will one day have a mathematical theory of proto-consciousness that can make similarly successful predictions. For now, we don’t.

I italicized the two instances of "I don't know" because Greene emphasizes them in his reading of the book. So if a fairly competent physicist doesn't know what a couple of important physical properties are - properties that we know certainly exist because of the effects they have on things, effects that we have measured with incredible precision - then I'm not going to worry that we can't do more for a non-physical property.

Mental causes are really physical causes so I see no real difference in them than any other cause.
— Philosophim
Is there any need for the word "mental"?
— Patterner

Absolutely. We can't go around calling everything 'physical' all the time in normal conversation. It is a great way to compartmentalize a certain set of physical existence and processes that are different from other physical sets and processes. We need some type of categorization, and we're not going to change the use of the word anytime soon. The issue is that mental processes are still physical processes. As long as you realize that, talking about mental processes is fine. Its when you start to think they exist apart from physical processes as some independent entities that you run into trouble. — Philosophim

I gotcha. And I agree, although I don't suspect you would agree with the reason I agree. I think consciousness and thinking/mental are entirely different things. I think consciousness is simply subjective experience, and thinking/mental is something humans are conscious of. So we can talk about mental being a physical process without touching on consciousness.

I mean that energy transforms constantly and does not disappear. Energy disappearing would be the non physical.
Then if I dream I am flying? How can I dream of something that is not physical if the dreams are a physical product

I think consciousness is simply subjective experience, and thinking/mental is something humans are conscious of. So we can talk about mental being a physical process without touching on consciousness. — Patterner

I don't think we're all that separate from one another. I just view subjective experience as the experience of being physical being over time. In other words, its simply an aspect of the physical, not something separate.

I am curious in terms of motivation, what is the push to make consciousness something non-physical? Lets say for example that consciousness was something non-physical, but it could never be separated from the body and would cease to be forever when your brain dies. Would you accept that? Or would there be an insistence that consciousness had some other aspect that made it last beyond bodily death?

I mean that energy transforms constantly and does not disappear. Energy disappearing would be the non physical. — Danileo

I see. Basically a violation of the conservation of mass and energy would be something non-physical. I can also get behind that.

Then if I dream I am flying? How can I dream of something that is not physical if the dreams are a physical product — Danileo

Dreams are a physical process. Does a dead brain dream? No. I think the real problem is that many people have a hard time understanding that yes, you are a physical being, your thoughts, feelings, dreams, etc. are all physical things. I strongly suspect this is because there is a living desire to never die, and this desire is a primary process of the brain. Actually accepting that you can die and cease to be sets off alarm bells up there, so your brain tries to find a way around it. Even in the face of obvious death people will do irrational things to prolong their existence if there's even the slightest hope it can.

Neuroscience allows no other conclusion at this point in study. Take a screwdriver and swirl it around in your brain, you will not be the same 'soul'. Get brain damage in certain areas and you could lose or permanently damage one of your five senses forever. Even your feelings and thought processes can be altered by messing around up there. You are your brain. Either people are ignorant of the scientific advances made, or this is simply screaming in the face of inevitable death where it worms around the known and obvious to clutch at the subjective and unknown.

maybe even the brain could have something non-physical?
Otherwise how do you explain dreaming about flying?
Why does a physical determinant brain produce non-physical products.
The only explanation could be that the mind is independent of the world.