The Mind/Body Problem

Cythraul said:
^ What the hell are you talking about?
This hell I am talking about. ;)


SPIDERMAN said:
This post should have been the first one
As it kills by its very nature the idea of having intellectual gymnastics we all enjoy (to some degree), is should not. But I thought that it is nice to offer another view at whole mind/body stuff.

Well I haven't read Heidegger's work but it sounds very interesting. However from what you've put forth it is still possible that this "world" in which everything relates to one another still could be completely idealistic (all mental). We still have not been given a reason to believe anything else is real, all we have been shown is that whatever it is we see is related to one another. The idealist can simply re-contextualize to this framework. But then agian I haven't read his work, so I'm probably missing out on a lot...
Btw, experience of the world is technically just a bunch of impulses in your brain. Even if you on the spiritual side, again there are some kind of senses that people use to get information. So as information by itself cannot be real, we agree that if we get same pieces of code in continuity, repeatedly, this is reality... At least this is method we use to learn. So whole life is just a inner game of receiving informations from senses and reacting on them with informations that makes our body and mind react. Technically we have no contact with outer world for real, so we cannot prove or dissaprove if it is real. As we cannot have direct experience of real world by using senses, we construct our inner idea of world, our personal concepts, that definitely are NOT real. When someone is talking about world he is actually talking about his subjective concept, so two people talking about something will have illusion of understanding each other only if their concepts are simmilar, and will eventually understand some parts of other persons reality only if there is emotional sync at work, and there are some similar intensive experiences. So you have billions different concepts roaming on the planet, caged in their own little "realities" with partial contact to real world and other beings, quite scarry by the way when you become REALLY aware of situation.
So it is funny when people egoistically turn it around and judge if there is a real world, when in practice, the world is there, quite real, but we are not.
But this is another hell I am talking about ;)
 
crimsonfloyd said:
Is it possible to escape skeptical questions concerning knowledge of anything "real" outside of ones mind, or are we trapped in idealism?

We are trapped in idealism, but through knowledge of the abstract design of reality, can transcend it enough to understand what must be done.
 
hey guys, sorry I havent posted in a while, I am busy with revising (1st exam is tomorrow \o/)

ARC150 if you are still interested (or anyone else :p), here is a link to the essay I was writing:
http://users.derelictstudios.net/users/korona/heidegger main.doc
Its very short (just above 2000 words) and pretty much addresses Heideger's response to Cartesian scepticism, sorry about the double spacing, Im sure you can change it if it bothers you...
Out of interest it got 68/100 which is just short of a first (70), the reason it didnt get higher was because I didn't explain a point on page 5 (the sentance with reference 8), which was a bit stupid :D
 
I am bumping this thread because there's something I want to say about substance dualism, although, many of the posts preceding mine have proven incomprehensible to me.

Specifically, I want to make a pairing argument against causal interaction between the material and immaterial. I assume that the substance dualist will agree with the following: immaterial thing X can influence material thing A without influencing material thing B. To give an example, my mind can cause my body to do something without causing yours to do it, as well. I cannot imagine a formulation that denies this. It is clear that this can happen with physical things, and the interaction can be explained. For example, imagine two men, A and B, standing back to back, taking target practice. A fires at target X, B fires and target Y. They each fire simultaneously. How can we explain why A's bullet penetrates X and B's penetrates Y? There is a relational property that holds between A and X, but not A and Y; between B and Y, but not B and X. This is spatial orientation. However, an immaterial thing has no spatial orientation, so one cannot explain how immaterial causes can be paired with effects at all. Until substance dualism offers a coherent formulation of how it works, this remains a daunting problem for it.
 
Yes, but we cannot define "immaterial" or explain some basic thing at this level of scientific knowledge. Defining universal meningful feelings as love or empathy as hormonal processes is not doing any help. Psychology has done a lot of work to explain why is something wrong, but can't really explain why things go right when they do and why it is like that. We can alos define and understand a lot of things around us but "self" is something that can't be located, dealt with, separated and experimented with inside scientific boundaries. So mind/body separation is in a lot of ways subjective/objective separation, and shows our immaturity and how much we are still helpless when it comes to dealing with things that are inside, subjective and often incomprehensible.
 
If you want science to define what the self is, it could be said that the conscious mind is the self and the body and real mind is the unconscious mind. Because of my experiences with hypnosis, and neuro linguistic programming, I have learned that the unconscious mind is very powerful in the things that it can do and acomplish whereas the conscious mind is and can be very limiting.

A good example of the power of the unconscious is that even though presently you may not remember what happened 15 years ago to this day, your unconscious mind can accurately recall everything experienced on that day.
Many of the most amazing things that humans achieve are due to ways of connecting with the immense power of the unconscious through trance. Through deep meditations people can control how their body functions, slow heart rate, stop bleeding, heal themselves, pain control, distortion of time, positive/negative hallucinations. Most people never realize that they do it, and it has always been a question about the self and what that means, when we never are 'asleep' but we are either conscious or unconscious in terms of the self or the conscious mind.
 
By the time we have fully understood present-day consciousness, we will have transcended it many times over.

If we look at our situation conservatively and leave aside any Divine or supernatural force, Nature - the will of Nature - has somehow advanced us to a relatively high degree of intelligence, imagination and overall ability in the animal kingdom. What the state of other animals' minds is cannot be known from their behaviour alone and this is more or less the case with men, women and children that I come into contact with - and those people may even speak a language that I cannot understand, so that makes it even more difficult to understand their situation. All I can know for certain is what I will, think, remember imagine and dream. My body remains in space while my mind revisits my past and I can place myself in possible futures and in dreams I find myself in uncharted territory and this is a profoundly disquieting aspect of my existence.

As Schopenhauer beautifully puts it: "We find ourselves like hollow glass globes, from whose vacancy, a voice speaks."

At which point of my physical existence did I become conscious? Like Carl Jung, I realized at the age of eight that "I am," as he wonderfully puts it in Memories, Dreams, Reflections: "I came out of a fog." But how did that come about? Is it a case of storing up enough memories for one to reflect on that brings out this awareness of existence? I percieve that consciousness/mind is an immensely powerful, yet deeply dormant force within us that will not easily manifested, as my will is the primary force and it only utilizes the intellect in a minimal capacity. I am a considerably detached person and I often 'observe' myself whilst doing mundane acts and the exprience is curious. I often feel that pain that my body experiences is not effectively 'felt' me myself - this voice communicating to you now via this text. My body is unaware of this voice; if it were, I would be free of all ailments and disease in the future. Faintly, there is a suggestion that this internal voice has some kind of permanence, whereas the body will fail and fade. It exists in a darkness that gives way to strange landscapes and characters one hour after putting on my pyjamas. The body regulates itself during this period, unaware of these psychic events. There are people who claims to be able to will themselves 'out of their body' and float above their house - some of them by accident, much to their distress. If this is true, then it says a lot about of what the Mind might be.

Consciousness is not fixed though, is it? It can be altered. When certain molecules enter the bloodstream and pass the blood/brain barrier, startling, appalling transformative changes take place to our consciouness. This is something that academic philosophy has never taken into account. Consciousness is always discussed in its 'normal' level - which is seen as its only level. But after smoking N, N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) the individual is seemingly 'sent' to an uncategorizable place that is agree by all who have seen it as most definitely NOT of their own making. Similar chemicals and compounds such as psilocybin have exceptional, unimaginable effects on our minds. So, consciousness seems to be maleable or has many levels. This was the case in remote past - Julian Jaynes' theory of the 'Bicameral Mind' are fascinanting - and it will surely be the case in the days to come. But, as I say, we - you and I and all 21st Century Humans - won't be able to contrast, compare and reflect - just as I cannot experience neanderthal consciousness. Alfred North Whitehead and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin concieved of a wonder "Process of Reality" where the Cosmos (including us) more towards what Teilhard de Chardin wonderfully called "concrescence" - where all consciousness and valuable ideas converge into an "Omega Point" and a new epoch would begin. Whitehead's concept of "Novelty" is very interesting and the late Terence McKenna (a cranky sceptic in addition to being a mushroom eater) wonderfully expanded on his theories, though they will go unnoticed in academia.

The main problem of tackling the "Mind/Body Problem" is due to the difficulty in articulating what bloody hell it is. Wittgenstein was painfully aware of this and he has some bracing statements on it. The breakthrough in understanding what mind is, will follow from a profound and unmissable breakthrough in human language skills and this is something that is well within the realms of immediate possibility. Man's next evolutionary step will be in the domain of language.