Paraphrased...

Being is an immanence that cannot realize itself, an affirmation beyond affirming, an activity that cannot act, because it is glued to itself. (Sartre)

An object is anything, including a field. — litewave

I think that is a reification. A field is ‘a region in which each point is affected by a force’. It occupies space and contains energy. But I don’t believe it is correct to characterise fields as ‘objects’.

If the soul is made up of qualities, it also has a mathematical structure, just as the world of which the soul is a part. Science deals with the description of the structure of the world. — litewave

One major consequence of modern scientific method is to exclude the qualitative - exactly because it CAN’T be quantified or objectively assessed.

The modern mind-body problem arose out of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, as a direct result of the concept of objective physical reality that drove that revolution. Galileo and Descartes made the crucial conceptual division by proposing that physical science should provide a mathematically precise quantitative description of an external reality extended in space and time, a description limited to spatiotemporal primary qualities such as shape, size, and motion, and to laws governing the relations among them. Subjective appearances, on the other hand -- how this physical world appears to human perception -- were assigned to the mind, and the secondary qualities like color, sound, and smell were to be analyzed relationally, in terms of the power of physical things, acting on the senses, to produce those appearances in the minds of observers. It was essential to leave out or subtract subjective appearances and the human mind -- as well as human intentions and purposes -- from the physical world in order to permit this powerful but austere spatiotemporal conception of objective physical reality to develop. — Thomas Nagel

(Mind and Cosmos, pp. 35-36)

Whereas, the mind, in the sense of first-person awareness, is never among the objects of perception at all, but is that to which the quantitative data appears. This is something that was analysed at length by the philosopher Edmund Husserl.

Insightful quote.

I think that is a reification. A field is ‘a region in which each point is affected by a force’. It occupies space and contains energy. But I don’t believe it is correct to characterise fields as ‘objects’. — Wayfarer

Well, I don't know what the word "object" means for you but I use it simply as a synonym for "something", as opposed to nothing. So in this sense, unless a field is nothing, it is something, an object, an entity. And it exists in the way it is defined.

One major consequence of modern scientific method is to exclude the qualitative - exactly because it CAN’T be quantified or objectively assessed. — Wayfarer

I agree that a quality cannot be quantified but it cannot exist without quantitative/mathematical relations to other qualities. For example, any two qualities constitute a set with cardinality 2. Qualities thereby necessarily constitute relational structures that can be mathematically described. Causal relations are a type of quantitative/mathematical relations among qualities too.

Whereas, the mind, in the sense of first-person awareness, is never among the objects of perception at all, but is that to which the quantitative data appears. — Wayfarer

Does the mind not perceive itself? Is it not conscious of itself?

Which lands you smack bang in old school materialism again, — Wayfarer

I don't agree. Descartes split asunder that which is one. Choosing between materialism and idealism inherently involves accepting that split and taking one side; reject the false dichotomy.

How do you handle that? Put them both in a blender and press puree?

You assume the existence of consistent, external entities. You don't call them mind or matter because it frankly doesn't matter (pun intended) what you call them as long as they are consistent and external to your experience

o shit I found a friend. Someone else who thinks the whole materialism vs idealism thing is unnecessary

What is it that's supposed to be super-experiential?

:wink:

When I said external I meant "not you" that's it. As in "there exists something that is not under your conscious control". Whether you call that thing material or other minds I do not care because either way, you are referring to the same thing. An external entity that is consistent. In other words, whether you say "that table exists" or "that table is a reflection of God's mind" you are saying the same thing. To demonstrate, try to define "material" and "mind" (not your own) differently

Material is not-mind. Mind is not-material. As Banno pointed out, to choose one side is to declare the other side illusory. That's problematic although I'd welcome someone to set out why (better than I can).

So would you say you're a neutral monist?

Everything, the whole of existence is composed of the same fundamental medium or 'substance' or 'material'. The rest is just mode of interaction. The mind may be immaterial to sensation which depends upon some form of contact with the body; while the body may be too material in contrast to the abstract nature of mind. What is not in dispute is that our lives make utility of both.

HOW are they different? HOW is mind not matter and matter not mind? Every time I try to define them differently I fail. I'd like you to try

Matter: An external object that exists consistently and has certain effects on materials.
Mind: An external entity that exists consistently and has certain effects on minds.

See the problem here?

I guess you could say neutral

Choosing between materialism and idealism inherently involves accepting that split and taking one side; reject the false dichotomy.
2 days ago — Banno

So what are some schools or authors that avoid dualism, that are not explicitly or implicitly materialist? What kinds of current philosophy accomodate the kind of holistic view that this hints at?

HOW are they different? HOW is mind not matter and matter not mind? Every time I try to define them differently I fail. I'd like you to try — khaled

"Defining" might be very difficult, but there's an obvious difference between a conscious living subject and a dead body. Part of that difference is that a conscious living subject is capable of thought and language, but a body is not. Furthermore only h. sapiens appears capable of fully-formed language and rational thought; animals don't exhibit those abilities. So both those are indications of ontological distinctions between body and mind, and between animals and humans.

HOW are they different? HOW is mind not matter and matter not mind? Every time I try to define them differently I fail. I'd like you to try — khaled

Ultimately, the immaterial is that which is not material. Mind could be a species of the immaterial or it could be synonymous with immaterial. Depends on the culture we're talking about.

Material is ultimately that which is not immaterial.

It's kind of like: ultimately, up is that which is not down. They're defined with relation to one another.

Oh really? Would you mind highlighting that difference between a dead body and a conscious being? That is literally impossible since you cannot confirm the consciousness of anything other than yourself. Is sufficiently complex AI conscious? Are animals conscious? Is anyone other than me conscious? It seems odd to me to claim an ontological difference when none of these questions has been answered

Yes but in physics you never use "up" or "down" you use "vector". You don't NEED to define up or down. All you need to define is direction and you don't need up or down to do it. Up and down are not different things they're both DIRECTIONS. Similarly, mind and matter are not different things they're both EXTERNAL CONSISTENCIES. I don't see the need for a debate

don't see the need for a debate — khaled

:up:

Hi, you've mentioned 'external consistencies' with reference to mind and matter, but I'm curious, what would an 'internal consistency' be, if there's such?

an external consistency exists regardless of my interpretation of it. A table exists whether or not I'm not looking at it. Whether or not the table is a material object or a "reflection in the mind of God" or an interaction between conscious agents, etc I don't care because it's all the same thing. When you try to define mind and matter you end up with the same definition

Physicist Victor Stenger used to define matter informally as the stuff that kicks back when you kick it. In other words, matter is whatever we can interact with. Was he a materialist? I guess it doesn't matter.

how does this soul interact with the physical body while eluding the observation of physicists — litewave

The simple answer is that I don't know. But I offer the observation that what you say about the soul could easily be said of the conscious mind. It also eludes the observation of physicists. I'm sure there are other examples too.

This is a difficult question to consider properly, perhaps because "properly", in this context, is itself vague and ill-defined? :chin:

So I have searched for a different possible mechanism of interaction between the body and the soul and have come up with a combination of weak force and resonance: the soul might interact with matter via a very weak force and that's why it has not been detected even in precise observations in particle accelerators, but it would be able to influence the brain in a significant way via resonance. — litewave

Your theory might be possible. There are other theories that might be possible too. How shall we choose between them? I see no obvious criteria that we could usefully use. Can anyone else? :chin:

But I offer the observation that what you say about the soul could easily be said of the conscious mind. It also eludes the observation of physicists. — Pattern-chaser

You can only observe something other than you by the effects of its interaction with you. By observing the soul I mean observing the effects of the soul's interaction with physical particles and thus ultimately with physicists (who interact with the physical particles by observing them). The problem is that if the soul can survive the death of the physical body, it must be something else than familiar physical particles, because familiar physical particles constitute the physical body that stops working and cannot hold consciousness anymore after its death. But physicists have not observed the effects of anything else than of familiar physical particles.

Your theory might be possible. There are other theories that might be possible too. How shall we choose between them? I see no obvious criteria that we could usefully use. Can anyone else? — Pattern-chaser

What other theories? The theory should be consistent with known physics and explain how the soul can interact with the physical body without being detected by physicists.

By observing the soul I mean observing the effects of the soul's interaction with physical particles and thus ultimately with physicists (who interact with the physical particles by observing them). — litewave

I realise that. But the arguments you present concerning the soul also seem to apply to the conscious mind. Physicists can't find them either. :chin:

Your theory might be possible. There are other theories that might be possible too. How shall we choose between them? I see no obvious criteria that we could usefully use. Can anyone else? — Pattern-chaser


What other theories? The theory should be consistent with known physics and explain how the soul can interact with the physical body without being detected by physicists. — litewave

I imagine most such theories would be constructed on the basis of currently-unknown particles, forces, or something similar. To create a theory that might be possible is easy. To show that it is likely, or even correct, is more difficult, as (I know) you are well aware. :wink: So how do we choose between them? Or how do we evaluate them individually? :chin:

All you have offered so far is the observation that physicists can't detect souls, with which we all surely agree. :chin:

I realise that. But the arguments you present concerning the soul also seem to apply to the conscious mind. Physicists can't find them either. — Pattern-chaser

If the conscious mind is just familiar physical particles then physicists have detected it - they have detected the particles, the effects of the particles on their measuring instruments. But such a mind wouldn't survive the death of the physical body.

I imagine most such theories would be constructed on the basis of currently-unknown particles, forces, or something similar. To create a theory that might be possible is easy. To show that it is likely, or even correct, is more difficult, as (I know) you are well aware. :wink: So how do we choose between them? Or how do we evaluate them individually? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

The theory also needs to explain why those unknown particles or forces have not been detected by physicists. I have suggested that they have not been detected because they interact very weakly with familiar physical particles but they can have a significant impact on the brain by interacting with it quite strongly via resonance, which is however difficult to detect too because such an influence is difficult to distinguish from myriads of other influences from familiar physical particles inside and outside the brain.

This theory needs to be further specified and I am not aware that anyone has done it.

If the conscious mind is just familiar physical particles then physicists have detected it... — litewave

So you offer the possibility that the conscious mind has been unknowingly detected, more or less by coincidence, and this is your answer to why physicists can't seem to find the conscious mind, just as they can't seem to find souls? :chin:

But such a mind wouldn't survive the death of the physical body. — litewave

No, perhaps not. I do not claim that the soul and the conscious mind have anything more in common with one another than the simple observation I made: just like souls, physicists can't detect conscious minds either. I think there are other things too, that physicists can't detect. In some cases, that will surely be because these things don't exist. But in all cases? It seems unlikely....

So you offer the possibility that the conscious mind has been unknowingly detected, more or less by coincidence, and this is your answer to why physicists can't seem to find the conscious mind, just as they can't seem to find souls? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

At this point I can't rule out that the conscious mind is wholly constituted by familiar physical particles and there is no soul that survives the death of the physical body. I am just considering the possibility that there actually is such a soul and how it would work.

So what are some schools or authors that avoid dualism, that are not explicitly or implicitly materialist? — Wayfarer

Wittgenstein, Davidson...

RIght. Well, thanks for clearing that up.