Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Consciousness, the mind-body problem and physics?

Page 6 of 7 [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Jan 2011, 5:24 am

Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Demonstrate the existence of Mind as a substance. Then you might have a point.


Define "substance".


That which exists in and of itself, not requiring the existence of anything else.

ruveyn


And without human (or other working intelligences) minds to make the abstractions of classes, numbers don't exist.


That is correct. Abstractions are not substances.

ruveyn



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

04 Jan 2011, 11:17 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Demonstrate the existence of Mind as a substance. Then you might have a point.

Define "substance".
That which exists in and of itself, not requiring the existence of anything else.


Do you believe that what we call "matter" (material objects-brains, tables, earth, etc.) exists in and of itself not requiring anything else?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

04 Jan 2011, 12:06 pm

Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Demonstrate the existence of Mind as a substance. Then you might have a point.

Define "substance".
That which exists in and of itself, not requiring the existence of anything else.


Do you believe that what we call "matter" (material objects-brains, tables, earth, etc.) exists in and of itself not requiring anything else?


It certainly does not require minds since it predated minds by a rather large number of years.



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

04 Jan 2011, 1:02 pm

Sand wrote:
Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Demonstrate the existence of Mind as a substance. Then you might have a point.

Define "substance".
That which exists in and of itself, not requiring the existence of anything else.


Do you believe that what we call "matter" (material objects-brains, tables, earth, etc.) exists in and of itself not requiring anything else?


It certainly does not require minds since it predated minds by a rather large number of years.


Nobody questions whether there is something there whether you or I are there. So, nobody is saying that nothing has any existence independently of our minds. What is being said is that there can be no sense made of the concept of the object in the world as it is "in itself" because such stuff exist only in terms of mind-dependent and sense-dependent categories. This is the Kantian argument.

Look at the stuff of physics (fields, forces, potentials, electrons, etc.). To a large extent they are treated with a higher degree of reality than the ordinary world of sensation because the latter while useful for everyday stuff are wrong at some level. So what we have are basically abstract mathematical models of the universe. What this stuff are in of themselves nobody knows (as pointed above in another post).



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

04 Jan 2011, 2:23 pm

91 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The Mind-Body Problem is like the Stomach-Digestion Problem. In short it is a pseudo problem. There is no Mind as an independent substance or thing. Mind is what the brain does when it is working right, just as Digestion is what the Stomach does when it is working right.

ruveyn


The easiest and worst way to resolve a problem, is to say that it does not exist.


No. The easiest and worst way to resolve a problem is to shout god did it and call it solved.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Jan 2011, 2:26 pm

01001011 wrote:
91 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The Mind-Body Problem is like the Stomach-Digestion Problem. In short it is a pseudo problem. There is no Mind as an independent substance or thing. Mind is what the brain does when it is working right, just as Digestion is what the Stomach does when it is working right.

ruveyn


The easiest and worst way to resolve a problem, is to say that it does not exist.


No. The easiest and worst way to resolve a problem is to shout god did it and call it solved.


Correct. Goddidit is not an explanation of anything.

ruveyn



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

04 Jan 2011, 4:51 pm

ruveyn wrote:
01001011 wrote:
91 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The Mind-Body Problem is like the Stomach-Digestion Problem. In short it is a pseudo problem. There is no Mind as an independent substance or thing. Mind is what the brain does when it is working right, just as Digestion is what the Stomach does when it is working right.

ruveyn


The easiest and worst way to resolve a problem, is to say that it does not exist.


No. The easiest and worst way to resolve a problem is to shout god did it and call it solved.


Correct. Goddidit is not an explanation of anything.

ruveyn


Unless, of course, that actually is the case.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

04 Jan 2011, 7:09 pm

AngelRho wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
01001011 wrote:
91 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The Mind-Body Problem is like the Stomach-Digestion Problem. In short it is a pseudo problem. There is no Mind as an independent substance or thing. Mind is what the brain does when it is working right, just as Digestion is what the Stomach does when it is working right.

ruveyn


The easiest and worst way to resolve a problem, is to say that it does not exist.


No. The easiest and worst way to resolve a problem is to shout god did it and call it solved.


Correct. Goddidit is not an explanation of anything.

ruveyn


Unless, of course, that actually is the case.


But even if it is the case, there is no logic or comprehension offered by the actions of a being with no limitations. It is more or less a statement that the universe is undecipherable and that is precisely the opposite of the assumption of science.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Jan 2011, 9:09 pm

AngelRho wrote:

Unless, of course, that actually is the case.


Even if true, not an explanation. Why? It states neither purpose nor means. Explanations say for what something is done and how it was done.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Jan 2011, 9:10 pm

AngelRho wrote:

Unless, of course, that actually is the case.


Even if true, not an explanation. Why? It states neither purpose nor means. Explanations say for what something is done and how it was done.

ruveyn



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

04 Jan 2011, 10:34 pm

Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Demonstrate the existence of Mind as a substance. Then you might have a point.


Define "substance".


substancde = hypostasis.

You are welcome.

The term realistically requires a context before definition.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

04 Jan 2011, 10:40 pm

Philologos wrote:
Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Demonstrate the existence of Mind as a substance. Then you might have a point.


Define "substance".


substancde = hypostasis.

You are welcome.

The term realistically requires a context before definition.


From Wikipedia: The word 'hypostasis' has been met with controversy and confusion over the years, especially in the conversations between those who consider it to be a violation of the principle of Monotheism and those who do not.

In other words your submission merely adds to the confusion.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jan 2011, 8:48 am

Sand wrote:
Philologos wrote:
Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Demonstrate the existence of Mind as a substance. Then you might have a point.


Define "substance".


substancde = hypostasis.

You are welcome.

The term realistically requires a context before definition.


From Wikipedia: The word 'hypostasis' has been met with controversy and confusion over the years, especially in the conversations between those who consider it to be a violation of the principle of Monotheism and those who do not.

In other words your submission merely adds to the confusion.


hy·pos·ta·sis (h-pst-ss)
n. pl. hy·pos·ta·ses (-sz)
1. Philosophy The substance, essence, or underlying reality.
2. Christianity
a. Any of the persons of the Trinity.
b. The essential person of Jesus in which his human and divine natures are united.
3. Something that has been hypostatized.
4.
a. A settling of solid particles in a fluid.
b. Something that settles to the bottom of a fluid; sediment.
5. Medicine The settling of blood in the lower part of an organ or the body as a result of decreased blood flow.
6. Genetics A condition in which the action of one gene conceals or suppresses the action of another gene that is not its allele but that affects the same part or biochemical process in an organism.

Which meaning is troublesome?

ruveyn



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

05 Jan 2011, 12:13 pm

I like to think that consciousness exists on different levels. The rest of the animal kingdom have their own unique consciuosness. But i don't stop there. Individual cells have a consciousness too. And I don't stop there either. Individual molecules have a consciousness. And even individual atoms and particles have their own unique consciousness.



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

05 Jan 2011, 12:59 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
I like to think that consciousness exists on different levels. The rest of the animal kingdom have their own unique consciuosness. But i don't stop there. Individual cells have a consciousness too. And I don't stop there either. Individual molecules have a consciousness. And even individual atoms and particles have their own unique consciousness.


You don't think there's something unique about the system we call the brain compared to say other organs like the lungs or kidney that kinda provides the outer shell/mechanism of thought/consciousness/subjective experience?



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

06 Jan 2011, 4:34 am

Kon wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I like to think that consciousness exists on different levels. The rest of the animal kingdom have their own unique consciuosness. But i don't stop there. Individual cells have a consciousness too. And I don't stop there either. Individual molecules have a consciousness. And even individual atoms and particles have their own unique consciousness.


You don't think there's something unique about the system we call the brain compared to say other organs like the lungs or kidney that kinda provides the outer shell/mechanism of thought/consciousness/subjective experience?


I think the brain does provide some insight into what we call consciousness. And that it may be impossible for an organism that doesn't possess a brain to have consciousness. And needless to say that would be true of molecules and atoms too.

But I think our problem is defining consciousness, and also defining a clear boundary for what is and isn't consciousness. So a brain may not be necessary.