Towards solving the mind/body problem

hypericin

Without solving the mind body problem, I think I can point the way towards doing so.

First, you must accept the axiom that mind is informational. I think there is very good reason to do so. The brain is an information processing body, and the mind is its fruit. Everything about the distinction between mind and matter holds of the distinction between mind and information.

* Matter has weight and extent, properties which seem to make no sense applied to mind/information
* And yet mind/information cannot survive without a material host

Moreover, the contents of mind, qualia, are symbolic, and thus informational. Qualia, like the word "dog", point to their "realities". But they are one way streets; which is to say,, symbols. Examine a dog all day, but without English already in your head, you will never discover "dog". The worlds greatest optical scientist can study light all their life, but without eyes and brain to symbolize it, they can never see it. "Dog" points to dog, and color points to light, but dog and light are independent of their symbols.

Once you accept that mind is informational, then the question "How does matter relate to mind?" can be reformulated as two:

1. How does matter relate to information?
2. How does information relate to mind?

These questions are associative: answer both, and you answer "How does matter relate to mind?"

There is an obvious benefit to this formulation. Question 1. bridges the seemingly irreconcilable parts of the mind/matter division. Information is as unlike matter as mind is. And yet, unlike confusing consciousness, we have relatively mundane and understood examples of this relationship, in computers and genes. You can answer the question 1. in terms of these, and leave mind out entirely.

That leaves question 2. Which while nontrivial, contains no intractable divide. Mind and information, being of the same nature, both lie on the other side of the divide with matter.

TheMadFool

↪hypericin

I'm not as well-informed as I'd like to be or as needed to comment on your quaint hypothesis but a response to Daniel Dennet's book "Consciousness explained" seems appropriate for the occasion, which is a retitiling of the book as: [Detractors have provided the alternative titles of] Consciousness Ignored and Consciousness Explained Away.

First off, I don't deny there's an informational aspect to mind and your computer analogies are good ones but, as far as I can tell, such a description seems incomplete - you know, like when someone gives you the news and you get that feeling that there's something fae's not telling me.

SolarWind

↪hypericin

I would say that qualia is not explained by information alone. Is your computer happy when it beats you in chess? If yes, why not?

Daemon

The brain is not an information processing body, any more than the stomach is. The brain is biological, it works by electrochemical and other biological mechanisms. When you've explained the biological mechanisms, that's it, there isn't anything left for "information" to do.

Gnomon

Once you accept that mind is informational, then the question "How does matter relate to mind?" can be reformulated as two:
1. How does matter relate to information?
2. How does information relate to mind? — hypericin

My personal worldview is based on the Enformationism thesis, which postulates that Generic Information (generates all forms) is the "Universal Substance" (Spinoza) of the world. The thesis proposes a rationale that I call Pragmatic Idealism. The spark for this new way of thinking about Reality was a quantum scientist's startling comment about the sub-atomic particles he studied : "it's nothing but information". At the quantum scale, solid matter seems to be reduced to patterns of intangible-but-knowable (informative) mathematical ratios, such as velocity & position. So, what we perceive as real stuff is ultimately Ideal stuff. Since that first insight, I have been working on finding plausible answers to questions (1) & (2) without descending into spooky spirituality. :smile:

Universal Mind vs Universal Matter :
Hence, on the cosmic scale, Mind seems to be more fundamental than Matter.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page12.html

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

3017amen

1. How does matter relate to information? — hypericin

Nice OP, in that I concede to the informational distinction(s). As an example (which is worth redundancy here), matter relates to information just like abstract mathematics (metaphysics) relate to matter.

If we concede that underlying reality, and the nature thereof, lies abstract mathematical formula's (descriptions), then the argument of a distinct informational structure strengthens. As an example of course we know that behind the structure of a building design lies mathematical formulas. And we know cosmologically, existing things eventually can only be described (for a lack of complete explanation) through abstract mathematical structures (neurons, protons, etc.).

Consciousness it seems, is part of an abstract structure. (Which in turn, philosophically, is not such of a tall leap to the idea of Platonic realities.) Too, one could look at causal relationships from the QM phenomenon which is tied to observation (double slit experiments, etc.) and see an underlying independence of matter. Which in turn, is 'explained' again through abstract mathematical structures (metaphysics).

For fun, there is also another Causal argument:

If your mind and its states, such as your beliefs and desires, were causally isolated from your bodily behavior, then what goes on in your mind could not explain what you do. If psychological explanation goes, so do the closely related notions of agency and moral responsibility. Clearly, a good deal rides on a satisfactory solution to the problem of mental causation [and] there is more than one way in which puzzles about the mind's "causal relevance" to behavior (and to the physical world more generally) can arise.

Feel free to poke holes...

Benj96

I do kind of see what you’re getting at and there’s some personal truth in there definitely but a few statements raised my brown and perhaps you might elaborate on them in your line of thinking so I can better understand.

* Matter has weight and extent, — hypericin

As far as I know matter only has weight when in the presence of a gravitational field. Weight is the effect of gravity pulling down on matter. In space or free fall, matter is “weightless”.

Secondly in regards to information. Both mind and matter are information are they not? This is because energy is equivalent to mass. So if energy is information matter must also be information.

Information to me is change. Because without change you cannot have the emergence of contrast/ dichotomies or “pairs of things”.

If all there was was “darkness” then darkness would not mean anything because there is no contrast to it. It is only when light and darkness are witnessed together that any appreciable difference or information can be obtained. Same with rich and poor. They can’t exist without each other. You cannot know anything of wealth without the information generated by opposites.

So matter and energy must be “informative” because matter is acted upon and energy acts upon it. They contrast each other and their interaction elicits information (change).

All I can offer is that the mind seems to dominate the electrical (energy) field as without any electrical activity in the brain we don’t appear to be conscious (Brain death) while the body (Brain) occupies the material field of physical substance. But both are equivalent (E=mc2) in a physics sense

Daemon

Nice OP, in that I concede to the informational distinction(s). As an example (which is worth redundancy here), matter relates to information just like abstract mathematics (metaphysics) relate to matter. — 3017amen

Well, you're right there, but that's exactly what's wrong with OP's idea.

Abstract can be defined as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence."

Mathematics is thought about aspects of the world. It is not the world itself.
Information is also abstract, it is our thoughts about aspects of the world.

Cosmologically, existing things eventually can only be described (for a lack of complete explanation) through abstract mathematical structures (neurons, protons, etc.). — 3017amen

Right again: abstract mathematical structures are only descriptions. Somebody is doing the describing. The neurons and protons are aspects of the world, the descriptions are ideas, thoughts. The neurons and protons carry on doing what they do regardless of our (incomplete) description.

The physicist Weiner said that the best model of a cat is a cat, and preferably the same cat.

3017amen

Nice OP, in that I concede to the informational distinction(s). As an example (which is worth redundancy here), matter relates to information just like abstract mathematics (metaphysics) relate to matter. — 3017amen
Well, you're right there, but that's exactly what's wrong with OP's idea.

Abstract can be defined as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence."

Mathematics is thought about aspects of the world. It is not the world itself.
Information is also abstract, it is our thoughts about aspects of the world. — Daemon

I agree, however, it begs at least one question. And that is, what do you consider "the world itself"?
In other words, we know mathematics has the unreasonable effectiveness in describing the cosmos, and that description by definition is abstract, much like consciousness itself.

Cosmologically, existing things eventually can only be described (for a lack of complete explanation) through abstract mathematical structures (neurons, protons, etc.). — 3017amen
Right again: abstract mathematical structures are only descriptions. Somebody is doing the describing. The neurons and protons are aspects of the world, the descriptions are ideas, thoughts. The neurons and protons carry on doing what they do regardless of our (incomplete) description. — Daemon

No exceptions taken. Thanks!

As a thought experiment, if consciousness operates from energy and information, what are neurons and protons connection/relationships, I wonder?

Daemon

It doesn't operate from information. It's biological.

Manuel

↪hypericin

You don't even need to do this much. There is no mind body problem since Newton demolished the mechanical philosophy. Back then we did have an intelligible notion of "body". Now we don't.

With no intelligible notion of body, how can the problem arise? If it need arise, it needs to reformulated from a metaphysical question into an epistemic one.

What's the problem? Well, I have experience, this thing which is my subjectivity and window into the world. But then I see these objects around me, rocks, rivers, tables, etc. These objects don't seem to have experience. They show no hint of evidence suggesting they have experience. Someone might reply that this doesn't mean they don't have experience. True.

But all things being equal, I think a better case can be made that these objects have no experience than they do have it.

So we have experience and non-experience. The terms now become experiential and non experiential. The world is one: "body", "mind", "neutral", "natural", etc. and we study it's different properties.

But the problem of mind over and above body or body as opposed to mind, can not be formulated and should not be thought of, in these terms, I think.

3017amen

doesn't operate from information. It's biological. — Daemon

The word biology is derived from the greek words /bios/ meaning /life/ and /logos/ meaning /study/ and is defined as the science of life and living organisms. An organism is a living entity consisting of one cell e.g. bacteria, or several cells e.g. animals, plants and fungi.

Biology is the scientific study of life.[1][2][3] It is a natural science with a broad scope but has several unifying themes that tie it together as a single, coherent field.[1][2][3] For instance, all living organisms are made up of cells that process hereditary information encoded in genes, which can be transmitted to future generations. Another major theme is evolution, which explains the unity and diversity of life.[1][2][3] Finally, all living organisms require energy to move, grow, reproduce, and regulate their internal environment.[1][2][3][4][5]

1. How does evolutionary biology square with self-awareness and sentient Being? Using logic, how can we connect the dots(?)

Daemon

↪3017amen

One of the best books I've read for years, Metazoa.

In his acclaimed book, Other Minds, Peter Godfrey-Smith explored the mind of the octopus – the closest thing to an intelligent alien on Earth. In Metazoa, he expands his inquiry to animals at large, investigating the evolution of experience with the assistance of far-flung species. Godfrey-Smith shows that the appearance of the first animal body form well over half a billion years ago was a profound innovation that set life upon a new path. He charts the ways that subsequent evolutionary developments – eyes that track, for example, and bodies that move through and manipulate the environment – shaped the lives of animals. Following the evolutionary paths of a glass sponge, soft coral, banded shrimp, octopus and fish, then moving onto land and the world of insects, birds and primates like ourselves, Metazoa gathers these stories together to bridge the gap between matter and mind and address one of the most important philosophical questions: what is the origin of consciousness?

3017amen

↪Daemon

Thank you! What are the implications, I wonder? In other words, you're making the leap from biology to self-aware sentient Being, using logic, how is that possible?

Daemon

I don't really see where logic comes into it. Logic, like mathematics and information is an abstract description of the world rather than being the world itself. It's an idea. Evolution isn't driven by ideaslike logic or mathematics.

3017amen

don't really see where logic comes into it. Logic, like mathematics and information is an abstract description of the world rather than being the world itself. It's an idea. Evolution isn't driven by ideaslike logic or mathematics. — Daemon

Really? Logic is a feature/attribute of consciousness. And so you seem to be reversing your philosophy since humans use mathematics and information to describe the world.

Otherwise, what is evolution (theory itself) driven by then?

Adam Hilstad

I agree that the mind is not information, but to say it is biological is not an argument against this—biology is simply a naturalistic angle from which to view the mind. I believe hypericin is looking for another, perhaps more Cartesian, angle from which to view it. I might suggest that the mind is processing, rather than what is processed.

Daemon

Otherwise, what is evolution (theory itself) driven by then? — 3017amen

Natural selection.

3017amen

Natural selection. — Daemon

....keep going. And how does natural selection provide for self-aware sentient Being?

Daemon

Self aware sentience has reproductive advantages.

SolarWind

... and the impotent ones are not self aware sentient.

Daemon

What?

3017amen

Self aware sentience has reproductive advantages. — Daemon

Awesome! Please share your theory, if you have one??

Daemon

It’s not my theory, it’s Darwin’s.

SolarWind

Jellyfish, bacteria and viruses can reproduce well and have no brain.

3017amen

It’s not my theory, it’s Darwin’s. — Daemon

Ok, keep going. So I ask again, how does Darwinian survival of the fittest explain self-aware sentient Being?

You seem to be struggling with this so let me try to help you. Does the ability to compute the laws of gravity provide for any survival advantages in the jungle?

bongo fury

1. How does matter relate to information? — hypericin

Matter is what there is. Things.

Information is patterns. Facts.

The relation is that of choosing. Pointing out.

2. How does information relate to mind? — hypericin

Mind is myth. Non-actual.

The relation depends on whether or how or which mythical facts are to be interpreted as pointing out actual things.

Translation of talk about nothing into talk about something often takes some trouble... — Nelson Goodman: Sights Unseen

Marchesk

Mind is myth. Non-actual. — bongo fury

Are information processors, generators and experiencers also myths?

Rxspence

First, you must accept the axiom that mind is informational. I think there is very good reason to do so. The brain is an information processing body, — hypericin

If at First I must accept the brain is physical then there is no discussion!
Steve Martin said, here is how you become a millionaire, first you take a million dollars......

Rxspence

I think, therefore I am
If the act of thinking confirms physical existence,
do things exist that have never been thought of ?
Many of the things we think of do not exist physically,
therefore the act of thinking does not confirm existence.
It was written in French, simplified in Latin, and commercialized in English.
Unless you have experienced death, the dependence on physical senses does
not allow you to understand physical existence.

bongo fury

Are information processors, generators and experiencers also myths? — Marchesk

I'm familiar with the first, and happy to grant their existence. "Information generators" and "information experiencers" I've not heard of, but am intrigued, and ready to learn.

Towards solving the mind/body problem

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions