Dualism And Acting One's Age

TheMadFool

This thread branches off from Is Old Age A Desirable Condition? but before the moderators try to merge my thread with it, I'd like to point out that my thread deserves an independent existence for it's central thesis is mind-body dualism, a separate issue from old age.

That out of the way, let's dive in.

Firstly, we all know that the body ages, and the aging process begins right from birth and ends in death. No issues there. For reference, physical age is usually presented as stages the body expereiences like so: 1. Infant, 2. Child, 3. Adolescence, 4. Adult, 5. Elderly. For those of you not aware, there are real physical changes that distinguish these stages from one another - biochemical, physiological, dermatological, skeletal, and so on.

Secondly, when it comes to the mind, there are no comparable stages. Save for alzheimers, which is an illness, the stages of mind are, simply put: 1. Infant, 2. Child and 3. Adult. In other words, a 70 year old man's and a 30 year old's minds fall into a single category viz. the adult mind..

What this means is that while an infant's mind is different from a child's and a child's different from an adolescent's and an adolescent's different from an adult's, there's, to my surprise, no difference between the minds of a 40 year old adult and a 70 year old adult i.e. the mind doesn't, is believed not to, age after reaching adulthood. Doesn't this imply, because of the fact that the mind doesn't age from a certain point even while the body does, that mind and body are two separate things? Dualism?

I'm aware of senile dementia as a medical phenomenon but the point is, under normal situations, there's a long stretch of time between roughly the mid-20's to about the mid-80's in which the mind doesn't age like the body does.

Another phenomenon worth mentioning is the precocious child, the young who are wise beyond their years. Such individuals have a mental age that is, sometimes, many times older than the age of their bodies.

The takeaway is this: mental age and bodily age needn't match. Is there an opportunity here to make a case for dualism?

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadFool

I am not sure that the fact that bodily age and mental age do not match is an argument in favour of dualism. This is because it only suggests that the brain is not always affected by bodily aging, This could equally be applied to other aspects of developmental aging. For example, while many people develop high blood pressure in later life not everyone does.

Dementia is more of an illustration against dualism because in this condition there are clear signs of brain abnormalities which can be observed on CT scans. In the case of precocious developers it may that certain areas are activated by certain neurotransmitters. Of course, there is one strange conditions, like people who can do identify what day of the week someone was born at an instant, after being told their date of birth. I even met someone who could do this. However, unusual abilities or disabilities simply point to complexities of the way in which the brain translates into consciousness.

Even if you say that the mind does not age while the body does, while a human being is alive the mind and body are still connected through the brain rather than separate. So the only way to know that they can be independent would be after all bodily functions have ceased entirely

BitconnectCarlos

↪TheMadFool

What this means is that while an infant's mind is different from a child's and a child's different from an adolescent's and an adolescent's different from an adult's, there's, to my surprise, no difference between the minds of a 40 year old adult and a 70 year old adult i.e. the mind doesn't, is believed not to, age after reaching adulthood. — TheMadFool

I'd question this. I'm not a neuroscientist or anything, but I'd wager that there are differences between, say a 30 year olds brain and a 70 year olds. For instance, if you look at top chess players they tend to reach their peak at around 30ish. You can still have strong chess players who are older, but especially after 80 that decline is sharp. I'll link the chart below.

https://imgur.com/X7Ijsyl

Obviously chess isn't the end-all-be-all of intelligence, it's just one mental activity, and older people will have life experiences and lessons that the younger just don't have. Brains do age, it seems to me that you get better at some mental activities and perhaps worse at others with age.

Mayor of Simpleton

Just a question...

The 'acting one's age'...

What are the determining factors for this 'notion'? (not sure 'notion' is the best choice of words here)

I'm a bit less interested in the exceptions here (dementia or preciousness in children), but more so in the normal situations.

TheMadFool

I am not sure that the fact that bodily age and mental age do not match is an argument in favour of dualism. This is because it only suggests that the brain is not always affected by bodily aging, This could equally be applied to other aspects of developmental aging. For example, while many people develop high blood pressure in later life not everyone does.

Dementia is more of an illustration against dualism because in this condition there are clear signs of brain abnormalities which can be observed on CT scans. In the case of precocious developers it may that certain areas are activated by certain neurotransmitters. Of course, there is one strange conditions, like people who can do identify what day of the week someone was born at an instant, after being told their date of birth. I even met someone who could do this. However, unusual abilities or disabilities simply point to complexities of the way in which the brain translates into consciousness.

Even if you say that the mind does not age while the body does, while a human being is alive the mind and body are still connected through the brain rather than separate. So the only way to know that they can be independent would be after all bodily functions have ceased entirely — Jack Cummins

I'm aware of the facts that you mentioned. In fact I have a better example if I may say so: Liver and kidney functions, for instance, don't show changes even into the fag end of people's lives. However, the difference between livers, kidneys and brains is that the former is physical and the latter is not entirely certain to be all physical. Also, the decline in kidney and liver functions will show if we use equipment sensitive enough to detect small changes in them that, I suppose, correlate with physical age. The same can't be said of the mind though - using logical ability as the parameter of interest, there's hardly any decline in logical thinking ability between the ages of 20 and 80.

↪BitconnectCarlos

Excellent point! However, there are confounding factors in your cute study of chess players. Competition, especially high-stakes ones like chess tournaments, are physically stressful and if your body has aged some parts of it will likely malfunction under the pressure causing, if I may say so, a decline in mental performance. It's not that the mind is malfunctioning or that it's showing signs of age but that the body it's linked to is failing to keep it at peak performance. I'm not blind to the fact that this smacks of some degree/level of physicalism. After all, if the mind is affected by the physical then it suggests that the mind too is physical. All I can do to deny this is to offer the analogy of a human in a car. If there's something wrong with the car then the driver's performance will be affected even if fae is the best driver in the world but that doesn't mean there's no difference between the car and the driver. For one, the car is dead and the driver is a living organism. I don't think it gets more different than that.

I'm a bit less interested in the exceptions here (dementia or preciousness in children), but more so in the normal situations — Mayor of Simpleton

The normal state of affairs is not to treat the mind of a 20-something person as different from a mind of an 80 year old. This is what I find odd!

Mayor of Simpleton

The normal state of affairs is not to treat the mind of a 20-something person as different from a mind of an 80 year old. This is what I find odd! — TheMadFool

Thanks!

That lends more context to the drift of the post.

Funny thing is I don't consider minds to be easy to generalize, yet that occurs very often. Perhaps it's this generalization that leads to many of our misunderstandings, as well as a whole host of hasty assumptions... but maybe not. I'm often off the mark.

Taking it for granted that minds are not treated as differently as they perhaps should be, be that due to age, geographical location, time in which one lives, social norms, conflicts with norms, comfort in norms... the list goes on and on... (I kind of make a lousy moral realist, but can't get my shit together enough to make a statement that is moral anti-realism... good thing I can still throw a baseball somewhat effectively. It gives me something to do that seem to make a 'difference', but really not, so... never mind... I'm on a tangent again.)

... anyway, I'm happy to see you place the granted and the given into question. More than likely I'm not the one to have the answer (if such a thing even exists), but hey... I can always provide distractions and jokes (that probably aren't that funny, but I'll try), as well as a few questions along the way. ;)

TheMadFool

Funny thing is I don't consider minds to be easy to generalize, yet that occurs very often. — Mayor of Simpleton

And...?

Taking it for granted that minds are not treated as differently as they perhaps should be, be that due to age, geographical location, time in which one lives, social norms, conflicts with norms, comfort in norms... the list goes on and on... ( — Mayor of Simpleton

You're talking about content but a mind's age relates more to the processes - logic for example - that go into creating the content.

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadFool

Yes, I have been meandering around the shopping centre thinking the answer I wrote what I really really believe.

It came from the repudiation of near death experiences as proof of life after death.

Really, I think that the mystery of consciousness transcends the whole body and mind dichotomy all together, or to put it differently perhaps the mind can be seen as associated with the body rather than dependent on it.

But my own basis of belief is really based on my own experience of out of body experiences. I have experienced these on a number of occasions, especially when I have been under stress. During one such experience I was aware of a silver coil attached to the centre of my forehead and during the experiment I was aware that if the coil was severed I would die. At the time, I was still at school and was not aware of Descartes' identification of that point as the seat of the soul, or of the third eye chakra.

In a few recent experiences I was aware of my body lying down and I could feel my astral body rising but it felt like the out of body experiences was related to lower chakra points. Friends told me I must have been hallucinating...

So I do grapple with the mind and body problem, partly seeing the matter from the conventional clinical perspective because I have trained in psychiatric nursing, but part of me keeps an open approach to the mystery of consciousness.

With regard to old age, I have worked with dementia clients in art groups and apart from all the negative aspects of memory loss some of their grapples with reality do seem to be about a synthesis of life experiences.

From my point of view, there are no definite answers but it is such an interesting area for speculation.

Mayor of Simpleton

And...? — TheMadFool

Isn't it a bit too early in the rant for an 'and'?

We've just started and now I need a conclusion?

... or is that the 'and itself?

You're talking about content but a mind's age relates more to the processes - logic for example - that go into creating the content. — TheMadFool

In part quite true applications of logic do indeed provide content, but what does logic without content to process state?

Where does it start?

TheMadFool

Really, I think that the mystery of consciousness transcends the whole body and mind dichotomy all together, or to put it differently perhaps the mind can be seen as associated with the body rather than dependent on it. — Jack Cummins

Nice! I like where you're taking this but I'm unsure as to what or where it leads to.

So I do grapple with the mind and body problem, partly seeing the matter from the conventional clinical perspective because I have trained in psychiatric nursing, but part of me keeps an open approach to the mystery of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Do we have a choice? We know so little. Perhaps, as Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, paraphrasing, "a good indication that we don't know what something is is the number of books that are out there on it." If all that we can do is speculate, then let's. Perhaps, if only through sheer luck, one of us will hit the target and not just anywhere but the bullseye.

sn't it a bit too early in the rant for an 'and'?

We've just started and now I need a conclusion? — Mayor of Simpleton

All I'm offering is what, to me, is an opening for dualism to make its case. That's all.

In part quite true applications of logic do indeed provide content, but what does logic without content to process state?

Where does it start? — Mayor of Simpleton

All I can say at this point is that logic seems more fundamental to mind than what it's applied to. Didn't Aristotle define humans as rational animals - no mention of ideas, concepts, theories, hypotheses, the stuff that constitute content as it were.

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadFool

I think that there are plenty of books on the new age fringe about consciousness and out of body states. But there is little connection between that and psychiatry. The challenge would be to write one but it would take a lot of research.

I have just lost my job in psychiatry recently and wouldn't mind doing something like this one day. I am not sure that I am up to it and I do need to get paid work but I do see writing a book on the interface of philosophy and psychiatry as a purposeful dream or ambition at least...

Mayor of Simpleton

All I'm offering is what, to me, is an opening for dualism to make its case. That's all. — TheMadFool

Fair enough. I was just a bit confused with the 'and', as it seemed to be more a conclusion than an opening.

All I can say at this point is that logic seems more fundamental to mind than what it's applied to. Didn't Aristotle define humans as rational animals - no mention of ideas, concepts, theories, hypotheses, the stuff that constitute content as it were. — TheMadFool

Seems more fundamental is perhaps a good place to start, as 'seems more so' isn't exactly the same as 'is more so'.

I get the Aristotle bit and yes I believe that was certainly the case, but I suppose just asked something that was maybe omitted or not asked or not answered or something of the like... without some sort of content as a point of reference, can logic tell us anything?

TheMadFool

Seems more fundamental is perhaps a good place to start, as 'seems more so' isn't exactly the same as 'is more so'. — Mayor of Simpleton

I was led to believe that hedges aren't used as often as they should be.

can logic tell us anything? — Mayor of Simpleton

Of course, logic is comparable to a tool and tools need material to work on. The point is the material is not what defines the mind, the tool does. At least that seems to be the received opinion on the matter.

Mayor of Simpleton

Of course, logic is comparable to a tool and tools need material to work on. The point is the material is not what defines the mind, the tool does. At least that seems to be the received opinion on the matter. — TheMadFool

I think we're talking about two different things here.

Sure the application of a tool(s) is needed to build things and the worker is the one who is applying the tool in their work to build whatever, but without any the material to begin with what can a tool do in and of itself even if a worker uses it?

The same applies to logic.

It is a tool and indeed someone applies the logic to build an argument and yes create content, but if there is no content in the beginning upon which the logic is working with what can logic really tell us in and of itself?

TheMadFool

I think we're talking about two different things here.

Sure the application of a tool(s) is needed to build things and the worker is the one who is applying the tool in their work to build whatever, but without any the material to begin with what can a tool do in and of itself even if a worker uses it?

The same applies to logic.

It is a tool and indeed someone applies the logic to build an argument and yes create content, but if there is no content in the beginning upon which the logic is working with what can logic really tell us in and of itself? — Mayor of Simpleton

As far as I can tell, the mind, if we must look to what is exclusive to it, deals with abstractions, roughly translatable as thoughts. Do you mean that thoughts exist independent of the mind? Sounds rather odd but that's probably just me. Kindly, if you care to, expand on this. Thanks

Mayor of Simpleton

To apply logic doesn't one need premises?

Aren't premises the content from which one works with (like the raw materials to build something) by applying logic (using tools to work with that material) and eventually have deduced conclusions.

Looking at these conclusions, well... they are really just restatements and repackaging of the content contained in the premises. While the conclusions may look new to us, probably because we hadn't thought through the logic, but they contain no more than the information contained in the premises. They are just cast in new form. Indeed it is a form that may seem to give us new insight and suggest new applications, but in fact no new information or truths are generated. (I'm kind of remembering something I read about 15 years ago, but I can't remember the reference. The writer was a whole lot clearing than I am and went into a lot of details, especially in mathematics... it was a good read. My memory was good about the content, but for the life of me I cannot remember who wrote it.)

If the premises, the content, are false, well... no matter if the logic is applied correctly the argument simply won't reveal a 'new truth'.

I believe these were errors made by Aristotle who believed logic would grant him 'new truths'. A bit odd as nearly everything he concluded via logic about the physical science was actually dead wrong.

I'm not really suggesting that thoughts exist independent of the mind, but rather the mind needs content first to even start up with an application of logic in thoughts.

Anyway...

Without the content of premises what exactly can logic be applied to leading to any conclusion?

Pfhorrest

Minds definitely age. They scar and otherwise accrue damage over time, and deteriorate in function as the brain deteriorates with the rest of the body. I’m not quite 40 and my mind is very different from how it was at 20. My girlfriend’s 70 year old dad was a brilliant teacher when I met him about a decade ago, and now he can’t even troubleshoot his own computer.

Minds age.

jgill

Minds age. — Pfhorrest

And interests change.

TheMadFool

↪Mayor of Simpleton

I think we're talking past each other at this point. I'll try and reframe the issue at stake in a way that, to me, highlights the features that interest me.

Physical age (after 30): Losing teeth, graying hair, wrinkles, aches and pains, and so on

Mental age (after 30): ????

Mayor of Simpleton

I'll try and reframe the issue at stake in a way that, to me, highlights the features that interest me. — TheMadFool

That is somewhat helpful, but isn't it running the risk of cherry picking the premises and hinting toward pleading a special case (as you probably know chess is one thing, but the totality of what sort of mental gymnastics is likely much much more as in all things... so I'll leave that example out).

As to the points you highlight regarding physical age... aren't they case in 'some of the cases' and not all of the cases, just as they are also in those under 30 'some of the cases'?

So, 'some' of the folks over 30 have 'some' of the qualities you highlight, so 'all' folks over 30 are what exactly?

As to mental age... I'm not too sure there is a consensus on a standard of measure for such a all encompassing determination.

On a side note: Personally I only know 4 top level chess players... the oldest is 74 and the youngest is 23. Indeed this isn't a large sample size, but one thing they have in common is that none of them have very mature social skills.

TheMadFool

That is somewhat helpful, but isn't it running the risk of cherry picking the premises and hinting toward pleading a special case (as you probably know chess is one thing, but the totality of what sort of mental gymnastics is likely much much more as in all things... so I'll leave that example out). — Mayor of Simpleton

I don't see how I'm guilty of cherry picking as I haven't cited any evidence to support my claims. All I'm asking for is some kind of mental parameter that tracks the mind's age just as there are physical ones that correlate with bodily age. I must admit that there are observable mental changes that occur from infancy to childhood to teens and then to adulthood but then it stops there until we enter 80's or 90's. There's a gap from roughly 25 years of age to about the late 90's during which there's no perceptible change in mental ability but the same can't be said of the body. It's as if the mind's age-clock stops between these years while the body continues to transform as time passes. In short, the mind doesn't age in the same way as the body does. This might mean a whole lot of other things but what piques my interest is whether this fact can be used to support dualism.

As to mental age... I'm not too sure there is a consensus on a standard of measure for such a all encompassing determination. — Mayor of Simpleton

Is it possible that no such measure exists for the simple reason that the mind actually doesn't age?

On a side note: Personally I only know 4 top level chess players... the oldest is 74 and the youngest is 23. Indeed this isn't a large sample size, but one thing they have in common is that none of them have very mature social skills. — Mayor of Simpleton

I'm not sure where you want to take this but the fact that social skills are lacking across the board makes it ineligible as a marker of mental age. Too, ceteris paribus, it seems social skills are mastered by 25 or so years and then stays at that level well into old age. In short, it isn't a good measure of mental age unless you want to compare infants, toddlers, teenagers and adults but that would be cherry picking, no?

Mayor of Simpleton

Is it possible that no such measure exists for the simple reason that the mind actually doesn't age? — TheMadFool

I don't think that is the complication. The aging of the mind may play a role in it's development, be that an increase or a decline in capacity, but I believe the real issue here is an overall standard of measure that will apply to every context in which one can discuss mental age. In short, the mental decline in one context, say chess is X, but in another context might be Y. What if X is 30 and Y is 80?

As to the chess issue, perhaps one can build a case within that particular game for mental age. The problem is the result will be subject to the established measure for chess; thus the result would only apply to chess. (btw... thanks for catching the intended irony of the cherry picking - note the "Indeed this isn't a large sample size, but... ") as to plea a special case as if it is a general norm for all cases creates far more problems than it ever solves

So as I see it...

Is there a context that can contain all possible context in which one can speak of 'mental age'?

I don't know of a context that can fulfill this role, but perhaps someone does.

TheMadFool

↪Mayor of Simpleton

Perhaps mental age, as you were initially suggesting, can be roughly measured in terms of the number of ideas our minds have come in contact with. This method would've been more accurate in the past but in the modern age of paperbacks and e-books, a motivated young person could absorb more ideas in a few months or years than faer counterpart back when there were no books or computers.

Philosophim

↪TheMadFool

Sadly, the brain does decay with time over aging. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596698/

"The effects of ageing on the brain and cognition are widespread and have multiple aetiologies. Ageing has its effects on the molecules, cells, vasculature, gross morphology, and cognition. As we age our brains shrink in volume, particularly in the frontal cortex. As our vasculature ages and our blood pressure rises the possibility of stroke and ischaemia increases and our white matter develops lesions. Memory decline also occurs with ageing and brain activation becomes more bilateral for memory tasks. This may be an attempt to compensate and recruit additional networks or because specific areas are no longer easily accessed."

Your brain will age and decay like your skin, your muscles, and every other part of you. Wisdom is not the only reason older people act the way they do. You will become dumber, slower, and make poorer conclusions and connections. New things will bother you more as your inability to quickly grasp them will frustrate you.

It is a terrifying prospect that every single one of us will face. Of course, due to your cognitive decline, you may very well be unaware of your lower level of intelligence. There is a reason 70 year old people are not often on the forefront of new discoveries and creativity.

TheMadFool

↪Philosophim

It seems I have no choice but to agree with you. However...what about the much-talked-about concept of qualia in re consciousness that seems to be last remaining stronghold of dualism? Do you think the redness of a strawberries changes with age? :chin:

Philosophim

However...what about the much-talked-about concept of qualia in re consciousness that seems to be last remaining stronghold of dualism? Do you think the redness of a strawberries changes with age? :chin: — TheMadFool

If the parts of the brain that process "redness" decay, break, or lose functionality, then yes. I see this in my parents. My mother's taste in colors have changed over the years. From liking bright colors she now desires dark and muted ones. The only conclusion I can draw is that these colors give her a different feeling now, or "qualia" (experience?).

In the more extreme cases, there is documentation of Cerebral achromatopsia, or color blindness through brain damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_achromatopsia#The_case_of_the_colorblind_painter
"Cerebral achromatopsia is a type of color-blindness caused by damage to the cerebral cortex of the brain, rather than abnormalities in the cells of the eye's retina. It is often confused with congenital achromatopsia[1] but underlying physiological deficits of the disorders are completely distinct. A similar, but distinct, deficit called color agnosia exists in which a person has intact color perception (as measured by a matching task) but has deficits in color recognition, such as knowing which color they are looking at."

Of particular note, a painter became color blind through brain damage and the following snippet is cited.

"Mr. I. could hardly bear the changed appearances of people ("like animated gray statues") any more than he could bear his own changed appearance in the mirror: he shunned social intercourse and found sexual intercourse impossible. He saw people's flesh, his wife's flesh, his own flesh, as an abhorrent gray; "flesh-colored" now appeared "rat-colored" to him. This was so even when he closed his eyes, for his preternaturally vivid ("eidetic") visual imagery was preserved but now without color] and forced on him images, forced him to "see" but see internally with the wrongness of his achromatopsia. He found foods disgusting in their grayish, dead appearance and had to close his eyes to eat. But this did not help very much, for the mental image of a tomato was as black as its appearance.

So from this it does appear that his ability to experience the qualia of colors was also gone.

TheMadFool

If the parts of the brain that process "redness" decay, break, or lose functionality, then yes. — Philosophim

:ok: Nothing much to argue about there.

My mother's taste in colors have changed over the years. — Philosophim

I don't think qualia has anything to do with one's color preferences. I'm talking about the immediate experience of color whatever color it may be; the so-called redness or blueness or whiteness of strawberries or the sky or snow respectively.

Cerebral achromatopsia — Philosophim

This doesn't seem to be relevant, at least not in the way you intend it to be. Even those with achromatopsia have subjective conscious experience of color no matter how distorted it is and this doesn't change with age to my reckoning.

Dualism And Acting One's Age

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions