• Francis
    41
    Hello everybody wanted to run some ideas across you guys that I have been thinking about for some time. This is a long post but I believe it is a good one and would love your feedback.

    Firstly, this is going to be aimed at people who believe in the causal relevance of the mind in relation to the matter in the brain. So this post would not really apply to someone who say, subscribed to epiphenomenalism, but they still might find it interesting. More specifically, I am going to be assuming the position known as interactionism. A definition for interactionism is given by Stanford Phil. Dictionary: Interactionism is the view that mind and body—or mental events and physical events—causally influence each other.

    The rest of this is going to be mostly from an article on my blog but I will be responding to questions and comments here.

    Before we examine the evolution of consciousness, I want to establish four important ideas that I am going to be referencing, and they are basically things that follow from our assumed position of Property Dualist Interactionism (see above post).



    1. The first is the acknowledgement of the existence of what are called the Neural Correlates of Consciousness.

    The Neural Correlates of Consciousness are defined to be: “the minimum neuronal mechanisms jointly sufficient for any one specific conscious experience”

    Science has made progress in linking some brain processes to certain states of consciousness; however I will only focus here on the fact there are brain processes that are neural correlates of consciousness and there are possible brain processes that are not neural correlates of consciousness. Notice that this definition is only talking about the brain processes that correlate with the existence of certain states of consciousness – it does not talk about the effect of the mind on the material brain.

    2. Behavior of matter in the brain is changed from what it would have been if governed completely by the understood rules of physics and chemistry. This is essentially the basis of interactionism.

    3. It is a multitude of physical objects in the brain which give rise to and change behavior due to consciousness and not simply one or two. I believe this is an incredibly important part of the mind/body problem that does not get enough attention. It's important that you understand what is being said here, and what would be true if the contrary were true and all of our mind was created and reacted to by one or two electrons (or what ever other objects are involved in creating the mind).

    4. The fourth is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Only a basic understanding of the fact organisms reproduce (replicate their genetic codes), and there are mutations that occur within the offspring. Mutations' effects can be beneficial, negative or have very little effect at all. Organisms who their mutations cause benefit will survive better and reproduce in greater numbers thus spreading their genetic code with that mutation included. I recommend if you are not familiar with evolution to get an introductory view before continuing.

    Let us look back to our nearest common ancestor with chimpanzees for an example. This organism had some form of subjective experience. It experienced pain and pleasure, and most likely had some primitive reasoning abilities, probably more so nearer to a chimps than a human. One might ask how we arrived at the consciousness humans have today from that of said ancestor?

    There were mutations that happened when these organisms reproduced. One place these mutations happened was in the brain. Some of these mutations would have changed the Neural Correlates of Consciousness for that creature in some way. Some of these changes would have been harmful - perhaps rendering the creature mentally unstable. Others of these changes, though, would have been beneficial – possibly making the creature more creative somehow. These organisms who gained evolutionary benefit would have outcompeted their rivals and passed these genes onto the next generation.

    This process happened repeatedly; a mutation leading to a change in the Neural Correlates for that creature (when compared to its parent), a change in behavior of matter in the brain, and the changes that lead to evolutionary benefit being carried over, until we arrive at humans today. This follows if we accept both an interactionist perspective as well as accept the evolutionary model of the development of life.


    This process is very similar to the evolutionary process for the development of any feature of an organism, so what is the difference? Again I will have to remind my reader that I assuming an interactionist point of view, and we will see the difference between evolution of the consciousness and evolution of other features of an organism depend on the acceptance of this premise.

    In the interactionist perspective, there are two key differences between evolution of the mind and evolution of purely physical attributes. Note when we talk of evolution of the mind we do not necessarily mean evolution of the brain. There could certainly be evolution regarding structures in the brain that do not involve the mind; but changes in the mind are results of changes within the brain.

    The first major differences is the mind makes a change in behavior of matter from that which would be assumed if its behavior were governed purely by the rules of chemistry and physics as understood. When creatures evolve most features such as horns, teeth, muscles, bones; the behavior of the matter involved behaves according to the rules of physics and chemistry.

    The second major difference between evolution of the mind and evolution of purely physical features of an organism is the mind itself. Not only is there a change in the structure of the matter in the body – as would happen in the evolution of any new feature – there is another aspect of reality that is altered along with the structure of the matter in the organism. In the Property-Dualist Interactionist model which I subscribe to we call this other aspect of reality a non-physical property.

    But notice in both, evolutionary benefit as a product of the mutation is important for it to be passed down to future generations.


    Following an interactionist perspective, we can see in the evolution of consciousness of creatures on earth there is a process where the behavior of matter is being continually altered within the brain from generation to generation. Life has not always existed so this has to have been a finite process with a beginning. A first change in behavior of matter from what would be expected purely from the predictions of physics and chemistry. For convenience I will refer to this moment in evolution as the initial alteration.

    I believe the initial alteration is an extremely important possibility regarding the mind-body problem for various reasons. If people here seem interested I will go into it more deeply including the possibility that the initial alteration was due to some other unknown property other than consciousness.

    What I would like to know from you guys: if my assumptions of interactionism and evolution is true, do you believe my conclusion of the 'initial alteration' is also true? And what do you think about the 'four important ideas' surrounding the interactionist view that I laid out. Thanks for your input.
  • NnOAhH
    1
    From a single cell / mind and space through the evolution initiative processes that causes reasoning vibrations that inbounds / intention and creates birth of a thought, in-return to the composing matter configuration at the age of change of mind over matter.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    the causal relevance of the mind in relation to the matter in the brainFrancis
    The Mind, in the sense of Beliefs & Emotions, definitely has causal effects (psychosomatic) on human behavior. And in order to influence behavior, those immaterial feelings & beliefs must somehow cause physical changes in the brain & body, including angry outbursts and physical illness. But exactly how that works is only understood sketchily. I assume you have a layman's theory to explain that two-way causation.

    I have my own layman's theory (Enformationism) of how & why Life & Consciousness emerged from lifeless & mindless matter. But, it doesn't go into detail about how Mind influences Brain. So, I'd like to see where you are coming from with your theory. :nerd:

    I am going to be assuming the position known as interactionism.Francis
    I wasn't familiar with the concept of "Interactionism", so I looked it up. In Sociology it's a hypothetical perspective (not yet an accepted theory) on how the social environment affects individuals, and vice-versa. But neither the sociological nor psychological applications seem to be mainstream theories at this moment. In Psychology, Interactionism appears to be an update of Cartesian Dualism : " He held that mind was distinct from matter, but could influence matter."

    Interactionism :
    Sociology -- "This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactionism
    Psychology -- "Psychologically, interactionism refers to the theory that the mind is composed of two separate entities, mind and body, each of which affects the other."
    https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Interactionism

    Behavior of matter in the brain is changed from what it would have been if governed completely by the understood rules of physics and chemistry.Francis
    So this theory postulates non-physical (metaphysical) rules? What are those rules, and how do we discover them in brain studies? Are there scientific papers in which they infer those metaphysical laws?

    It is a multitude of physical objects in the brainFrancis
    Is this based on the Modular Mind hypothesis of how the various specialized brain areas work together to produce coordinated thoughts & behaviors?

    Modular Mind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_of_mind

    Organisms who their mutations cause benefit will survive better and reproduce in greater numbersFrancis
    The concept of "evolutionary benefit" sounds like either Lamarkism or NDE. Darwinian evolution doesn't assert “benefits” but only “differences” that are selected by the filter of circumstances. "Beneficial" effects assume "intentional" purposes. Again, that's not a mainstream scientific position, but I too see some signs of Intention behind Evolution.

    Non-Darwinian Evolution : http://www.biologyaspoetry.com/terms/non_Darwinian_evolution.html
    https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.bsmsp/1200514590
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037663571730339X

    In the Property-Dualist Interactionist model which I subscribe to we call this other aspect of reality a non-physical property.Francis
    A "non-physical" Property of a physical object is what scientists call a "Quality" or a "Function" of the object. Causation does indeed result in new properties that were not apparent in the original parts of the system. But you seem to be implying a Metaphysical cause of some kind. I have also postulated a Metaphysical form of causation, which I call "Enformy".

    Enformy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    A first change in behavior of matter from what would be expected purely from the predictions of physics and chemistry. For convenience I will refer to this moment in evolution as the initial alteration.Francis
    In Physics a sudden "change in behavior of matter" is called a "Phase Transition". And the sudden emergence of new properties is assumed to be mysterious only because the intermediate steps happen so quickly that we can't discern the intermediate cause & effect stages. Do you have a more fine-grained explanation for something as common as liquid Water instantly becoming solid Ice, with completely different characteristics?

    Phase Change : Mind as a causal force
    http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

    the possibility that the initial alteration was due to some other unknown property other than consciousness.Francis
    A Spiritual property (Soul)? Supernatural intervention?
  • jgill
    3.9k
    2. Behavior of matter in the brain is changed from what it would have been if governed completely by . . .Francis

    Sorry. Nit-picking here. But how can something change from what it would have been? :chin:
  • Francis
    41




    "The Mind, in the sense of Beliefs & Emotions, definitely has causal effects (psychosomatic) on human behavior. And in order to influence behavior, those immaterial feelings & beliefs must somehow cause physical changes in the brain & body, including angry outbursts and physical illness. But exactly how that works is only understood sketchily. I assume you have a layman's theory to explain that two-way causation"

    Yes. What I am addressing here is that if there is a change in the behavior of brain matter caused by immaterial feelings, this must differ from the behavior these objects would have taken if those immaterial feelings never existed.

    Evolutionarily, the implication of this is there must have been a first instance of such a thing happening.
    You are completely correct about the interaction between mind and matter being crudely understood, and that is what I hope this ‘initial alteration’ can help bring to light. The idea is that it was be much easier to understand the physical changes going on around that scale and work up than it would be analyzing to billions of neurons in the humans brain.

    The sociological definition of interactionism is completely irrelevant to what I’m talking about. The psychological definition is close. The definition I was using is from the Stanford Philosophical Dictionary. It is a form of Dualism but I specifically adhere to what is called Property Dualism where mind is a non-physical property of brain matter.

    I do not take Modular mind theory into account when saying multiple objects in the mind create and react to consciousness, I base it on examining the possibilities regarding how many objects in the mind create and react to consciousness. While it is possible that our whole minds could be produced by and reacted to by one or two particles or neurons seems to be nearly inconceivable to me.

    "So this theory postulates non-physical (metaphysical) rules? What are those rules, and how do we discover them in brain studies? Are there scientific papers in which they infer those metaphysical laws?"

    Yes. I certainly do not understand the rules that govern the causal relations between matter and mind except the basic implications I draw from the position of interactionism that I subscribe to which can be found in my post. One reason why I am pointing out and focusing on the initial change of behavior in matter in our evolutionary past is because I think it may be easier for us to understand than the reactions going on in the brain. Its also something that can be verified or debunked scientifically. Currently, no scientific study of the brain of humans (or of smaller animals and insects which I believe may have smaller-scale and easier to understand forms of non-physical causation happening in their brains) has confirmed such a thing – but there is still a lot we don’t yet understand about the brains of organisms on earth so I don’t believe its been fully ruled out either.

    "The concept of "evolutionary benefit" sounds like either Lamarkism or NDE. Darwinian evolution doesn't assert “benefits” but only “differences” that are selected by the filter of circumstances. "Beneficial" effects assume "intentional" purposes. Again, that's not a mainstream scientific position, but I too see some signs of Intention behind Evolution."

    Yes, when I speak of evolutionary benefit I’m speaking metaphorically about mutations which cause said organisms to survive or reproduce is greater numbers relative to others.

    "In Physics a sudden "change in behavior of matter" is called a "Phase Transition". And the sudden emergence of new properties is assumed to be mysterious only because the intermediate steps happen so quickly that we can't discern the intermediate cause & effect stages. Do you have a more fine-grained explanation for something as common as liquid Water instantly becoming solid Ice, with completely different characteristics?"

    This is why I specified a change from that has been observed and understand by the conventions of physics and chemistry. Matter behaves differently when you add kinetic energy (such as your water to ice example), but it does so in a way that is understood and predicated accurately by equations of physics and chemistry.

    "A Spiritual property (Soul)? Supernatural intervention?"

    No, not a spiritual property or supernatural intervention, but a simpler phenomenon that was a far-back predecessor to properties which maybe could be called spiritual like consciousness yet itself may only appear slightly different from the original properties of that matter.

    My viewpoint on consciousness in relation to matter is somewhat metaphysical. I believe there are two fundamental types of exist in our universe. That of objects with shape and location such as quarks and of properties of these objects which is not their shape/location that govern their behavior in relation to other objects. I believe this is the most general category you can fit consciousness and qualia into the universe.

    I will check out the term you created.
  • EnPassant
    669
    The second major difference between evolution of the mind and evolution of purely physical features of an organism is the mind itself. Not only is there a change in the structure of the matter in the body – as would happen in the evolution of any new feature – there is another aspect of reality that is altered along with the structure of the matter in the organism. In the Property-Dualist Interactionist model which I subscribe to we call this other aspect of reality a non-physical property.Francis

    Consciousness is of the mind (the five senses are a physical imitation of the mind's consciousness). Brain development allows more of the mind to participate in physical reality. As the brain evolves it enables more of the mind to become manifest in a physical context.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    As the brain evolves it enables more of the mind to become manifest in a physical context.EnPassant

    :up:
  • EnPassant
    669
    I believe there are two fundamental types of exist in our universe. That of objects with shape and location such as quarks and of properties of these objects which is not their shape/location that govern their behavior in relation to other objects.Francis

    The properties of a sub atomic particle are the particle; they are its nature. The distinction is artificial.

    Mind-brain (or mind-body) is a feedback loop. One affects the other.
  • Francis
    41
    Yeah but that isn't too different than what I'm saying. Perhaps it would be better to say there are objects with properties such as their shape, and their non-shape aspects which govern their behavior.
  • David Thomas Roberts
    13
    A problem in our examination of "mind" (I prefer to use the term "awareness") is our limited perception based on our physical aggregates. We are locked into a view determined by our sense organs.
    Only by cutting away the aggregates and sense organ limitations in deep meditation may we free our mind / awareness to be clear of the distractions preventing an experience of the infinite awareness that connects all of existence.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.