I don't dispute the laws you mention. I want you to show me that they are inconsistent with a premise in my argument. — Bartricks

They are consistent with the conclusion that your mind appears to interact with your brain.

They are inconsistent with the conclusion that your mind interacts with your brain.

You frequently confuse the two. Or claim that in the absence of a reason to doubt what things seem like, things are what they seem like. Agreed. Except in this case there is plenty of reason to doubt what things seem like.

How?

You really don't know the definition of the mind-body problem? Or is it just easier to follow a question with another question?

Your mind is immaterial yes?

Therefore if it interacts with the brain (IE causes some movement) there would be no detectable physical source of that movement yes?

That would be an example where net momentum increased.

Something gained momentum, and nothing else lost it or gained momentum in the opposite direction.

That contradicts the law of conservation of momentum.

Point taken. Ok so my next question is do you think the mind is a nonphysical substance with no connection to the brain, because a non physical thing couldn't have a connection to anything physical?

mind is a nonphysical substance with no connection to the brain, because a non physical thing couldn't have a connection to anything physical? — GLEN willows

Wouldn't say "no connection" but no interaction.

The mind relies on the brain. But doesn't affect it.

"Plato, Avicenna, Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Bartricks". On the shoulders of giants. Sorry I couldn't resist.

All of the philosophers you mention had several things wrong, you know that right? Specifically dualism, Descartes - epic fail. Have you heard about Elizabeth of Bohemia?

No, this is how it works.

Event A - brain event - causes event B - mental event. Event B causes event C - brain event.

We can sensibly detect A and C, not B.

Now, what in that picture is inconsistent with the laws you mention? Show me the actual argument - for if you do that, then you will have to import an unnecessary premise in addition to the laws you mention, and those premises will be question begging.

So when your mind thinks about changing the tv channnel, you're body DOESN'T do it?

No? Where do I suggest that?

My thinking of switching the TV channel is done by my brain. So is the switching. So is the sense that I switched due to the desire to switch.

Event A - brain event - causes event B - mental event. Event B causes event C - brain event. — Bartricks

I think that you suggest that the relationship between B and C (and therefore the entire existence of B) happens in complete physical transparency. Then, how would free will manifest here?

All of the philosophers you mention had several things wrong, you know that right? Specifically dualism, Descartes - epic fail. Have you heard about Elizabeth of Bohemia? — GLEN willows

Er, no - they were right about the immaterialism of the mind. Their arguments are among the 14. No one has refuted them. (You said you were a philosophical rooky. Yet you're confident that these giants were wrong?! Are you aware of their arguments?)

And yes, obviously I have heard about her. And I have read her exchanges with Descartes. Have you? She is hugely overrated. She is credited - wrongly - with having raised the 'problem of interaction'. She didn't. Pierre Gassendi raised it first. And if you've read Descartes' replies to Gassendi you'll know just how thoroughly unimpressed he was by it. But Gassendi wasn't a young princess with a big bank account.

So you mean you don't have the thought (mind) "I wan't to watch Netflix" and this causes your brain to signal you finger to push the button on the remote?

.

Now, what in that picture is inconsistent with the laws you mention? — Bartricks

That mental event B causes brain event C.

Let's say brain event C is that neurotransmitter X is pushed by some force Y. And that results in you raising your arm. Stupidly simply but it will do.

This would be a case of net momentum increase. Since neurotransmitter X suddenly gained momentum, without colliding with anything (without anything else losing momentum).

That cannot happen per the laws of conservation.

and this causes your brain to signal you finger to push the button on the remote? — GLEN willows

No. It is not the thought that does it. Though it certainly seems to me like it is the thought that does it.

My brain does everything. Including the thought. And the seeming.

Ok well we're reading different accounts of the history of philosophy. So you have solved the mind-body problem. You realize that might make you a "pretty big deal." Have you submitted any papers to Philosophy journals?

So when you have a thought, like I feel good, it's your brain feeling it. When you feel love, or other qualia, it's the brain not the mind that feels it? That even feels weird writing it haha.

No, you're simply not getting this. You're thinking B causes C out of the blue.
No. A - which is a sensible event - causes B - which is a mental event - which causes C, which is another sensible event.

There's no new energy coming in, just energy transferring from A to B and then to C. It's just that B isn't sensibly detectable.

The thesis is not incompatible with the laws of conservation. If you don't believe me, check out Jose Gusmao Rodriguez's article "There are no good objections to substance dualism" in the journal "Philosophy".

Yes and yes. And it was solved ages ago. Plato. Avicenna. Descartes. Locke. Berkeley. Read them.

.

"which is a sensible event - causes B - which is a mental event"

How?

energy transferring from A to B — Bartricks

Your mind gains energy? :rofl:

Wasn't your argument for why the mind is not sensible this:

1. If one's mind is a sensible object, then it makes sense to wonder what colour, shape, smell, texture or taste it might have.
2. It does not make sense to wonder what colour, shape, smell, texture, or taste one's mind has
3. Therefore, one's mind is not a sensible object. — Bartricks

Well one of the things that it does not make sense to ask of the mind is "How much kinetic energy does it have"? Because "energy" applies only to physical things. Just like shape and color. It makes no sense to say anything non physical gained energy.

It's exactly like saying "Fear weighs 20 pounds"

It's just that B isn't sensibly detectable. — Bartricks

Ah, so you're suggesting that energy not only disappears into the ether momentarily, but that it then magically reappears conserved...

This is breaking the laws twice over, not abiding by them.

check out Jose Gusmao Rodriguez's article "There are no good objections to substance dualism" in the journal "Philosophy". — Bartricks

I would if it wasn't behind a paywall. But not right now in either case, you should be able to argue for your position yourself.

Wow that's wrong on so many levels. I really feel like we're on different planets. We're so far apart further discussion seems pointless. It's time for bed. Nice chatting, let's do it again.

ps - only 14? I have 27. (smiley face) toodles!

Your mind gains energy? — khaled

Yes, if that's what causal interaction requires. Note, this is also what would happen if the mind is your brain, right? So, either way the answer is 'yes'.

But you haven't shown a violation of the laws of conversation. There's no violation.

Yes — Bartricks

Does your mind gain weight too if you don't exercise? Ridiculous. You are literally going against your own argument about why the mind is non sensible. Again:

Well one of the things that it does not make sense to ask of the mind is "How much kinetic energy does it have"? Because "energy" applies only to physical things. Just like shape and color. It makes no sense to say anything non physical gained energy.

It's exactly like saying "Fear weighs 20 pounds" — khaled

"Energy" has a very specific meaning in physics, you can't just randomly apply it to something that is by definition outside of the scope of physics.

Note, this is also what would happen if the mind is your brain, right? So, either way the answer is 'yes'. — Bartricks

Except that's not my position. My position is that they do not interact. Not that the mind is sensible.

But you haven't shown a violation of the laws of conversation. There's no violation. — Bartricks

Correct, there is no violation. There is two.

Energy, which I repeat, is something only defined for physical things, firstly disappears, then reappears.

That's one... two violations.

Two violations don't make a right.

And furthermore you claim that energy, which disappears and reappears, does so because it is being taken by a non physical thing. Which is just as ridiculous as saying that "fear gains 20 joules of energy". It makes no sense. Just a confused application of a very specific term.

By causing it. I mean, what do you want by way of an account here?

When it comes to causation - and let's just stick to causation between sensible things - about the best we can do is say that causation happens. That 'what it is' for one thing to cause another is simply for a causal relation to obtain between them.

Now, that may be felt inadequate, but note that it is not a 'problem of interaction', for here we are dealing with causation between sensible things.

Well, if that's all we can say where causation between sensible things is concerned, I fail to see what's problematic about saying the same where causation between sensible and immaterial things is concerned.

But perhaps there is a problem - perhaps objects of one kind cannot possibly causally interact with objects of a fundamentally different kind. I don't see why not, but perhaps.

Okay, let's run with that. Well, I have 14 arguments that my mind is immaterial, and I'm still waiting for one - just one - in support of the materiality of the mind.

So, at this point I have very good evidence that my mind is immaterial. And if immaterial things truly cannot causally interact with anything other than immaterial things, and my mind appears to interact with a sensible world, then the conclusion any rational person will draw is that the sensible world is therefore a mental world and not an extra mental world. That is, the conclusion we reach is not materialism, but immaterialism.

I am an immaterialist, so if there really is a problem of interaction - and there isn't - then all this will do is furnish us with another argument for immaterialism. What it won't do is anything at all to establish materialism about the mind.

Wow that's wrong on so many levels. I really feel like we're on different planets. We're so far apart further discussion seems pointless. It's time for bed. Nice chatting, let's do it again. — GLEN willows

Odd that for someone who describes themselves as a philosophical rooky you are so confident about these matters. Methinks your humility was b/s, yes? I am not a philosophical rooky, btw.

"Energy" has a very specific meaning in physics, you can't just randomly apply it to something that is by definition outside of the scope of physics. — khaled

Ah, there you go - begging the question again. You really don't understand, do you? There's no violation of those laws. You have to add to those laws physicalist assumptions to get a violation - but that begs the question.

Where is the physicalist assumption? Lay it out.

The above quote states, factually, that energy has a very specific meaning in physics. It is with that meaning that I use it. And it is by that meaning that the laws make sense.

Our colloquial use of "energy" (like in "I'm just so low energy") is not what's being referred to in "conservation of energy".

I'm confident in this discussion. Not the others tho, where I have much to learn. G'night...feel free to have the last word.

Does your mind gain weight too if you don't exercise? — khaled

No. Your body will. Not your mind.

Unless you're not an immaterialist about the mind. In which case, yes. It will.

So, you're either a materialist about the mind or your not, right? If you're not, then you're with me. And as there is clearly causal interaction between the mind and the body, whatever that involves occurs.

Or you are a materialist about the mind. In which case the same is true.