I came here from another forum where ego trumps reasonable objections.
I’m hoping to find here arguments from persons who have read the material or who can comment without ad hominems or derailment.
My topic for discussion has to do with monism vs dualism–whether mind is something separate and aloof from matter or whether it is an extension of matter, an adaptational necessity. I opt for the latter.
I realize that many are turned off by monism for various reasons. The most serious objection, IMHO, is that matter cannot account for mind, souls or whatever it is that one believes holds humans as somehow special among organisms, as the crown of creation. Your take on this controversy will be most appreciated.
Love to give you some flack here. Can’t do it. “Mind” is a metaphor. Handy one, though.
Faust,
Lord Byron’s response to Coleridge’s metaphysics in “English Bards and Scottish Reviewers” or vice versa-- “Coleridge explains metaphysics to the nation./ I wish he would explain his explanation.” Please tell me what you are trying to say. I’m not impressed by sound bytes. I made my position clear. Where is the clear response?
Well, I certainly wish I had impressed you. It’s what I live for.
If it is a philosopher’s intent to learn, which is all I’m about, how can I learn from a nonresponse to the OP?
Dude - lighten up. We happen to be in the same camp on this one. It was just a passing comment. A way of saying “Hi”. It wasn’t like you gave an exhaustive treatise on the subjct yourself. Hang on - someone will disagree and then we can both have at’em.
IMHO, mind is an adaptational extension of matter. Do you agree?Disagree? Mind is not a metaphor, it is a living condition, a POV, a personal perspective. We don’t experience metaphor except in our usage of it for personal bearings in our experience of flux.
Thanks, faust,
I’m new here, maybe a bit itchy about that. I’ll listen to you more closely.
I don’t know what “adaptational extension” means. “mind” might be a living condition, sure. The word is a metaphorical one. That does not mean it is unreal.
Adaptational extension is the evolving of survival potential among organisms. I think metaphysicians should pay attention to that; but many don’t. What are the physical precursors of mind? And do they matter since mind, a brain product, is the vantage point from which we view reality?
Adaptational extension is the evolving of survival potential among organisms. I think metaphysicians should pay attention to that; but many don’t. What are the physical precursors of mind? And do they matter since mind, a brain product, is the vantage point from which we view reality?
Adaptational extension is the evolving of survival potential among organisms. I think metaphysicians should pay attention to that; but many don’t. What are the physical precursors of mind? And do they matter since mind, a brain product, is the vantage point from which we view reality?
“Mind” is one of those words that have many usages. I usually use “mind” as a metaphor for brain function. But it can also stand in for “will”, or one’s entire observable personality. So, there are some “minimal” usages and some more inclusive ones. I think that a metaphysical view can spring from either. But any feature we currently possess can be attributed to our biological evolution. The trick is to show exactly, or approximately how it is adaptive.
Metaphysics requires a certain way of understanding (I would say misunderstanding) language. I cannot tell right now if you wish to consign “mind” to brain function or not. Can you clarify?
Impressive response, faust. Now let’s see if anyone else can comment.
Impressive response, faust. Now let’s see if anyone else can comment.
Demonstrate “mind” without using empirical entities-- if you say or type “mind,” you are using physical or audible stimulus. The speaking of the word has no meaning, that is, it is nothing other than sound waves. The typing of it, the same…it is an image, a group of pixels.
What people want to use as proof of the “mind” is the event of “thinking.” Thinking cannot happen without words…words are physical stimuli, only the speaking is internal and without any sound. Thinking is speaking without sound.
Unconscious actions, which are those that act involuntarily, do not take place as “words,” but as actions which are signified with words. For example, the “heart-beat” is not a “heart-beat,” but a physical action. It is through collective language and tacit agreement that the action is named, but the action produces the name, not vice-versa. Likewise, the “thinking mind” is not the “thinking mind,” but an action that has aquired a name in language. The language is contingent to the action…it could have been called the “twizac froptal,” then you would be thinking the sound of these words without it being audible.
So, how did I do?
Oh, and one more thing, which is far more important than the “philosophy” I just did there above.
Dualism is an invention of the ruling classes-- “if you don’t work, you will burn in hell, etc., etc., because you have a spirit and this spirit was created by God and God wants you to work so you can redeem yourself from sin, etc., etc.”
Jesus, I hate it when Marxists try to explain human nature. The ruling classes, Detrop? I take it that even after a Bhudda manages to seperate himself for the rest of society for many, many years, in near complete isolation, meditating for days on end, he is still decieving himself with propaganda he picked up from a McDonalds commercial. This is not a class issue, this has nothing to do with the collective. This is a personal issue, a concept dating back to the earliest days of humanity. Are you trying to say that before we formed our selves in classes in those most ancient of days we were totally cognizant that our thoughts were simply particle streams?
A thought is just as real as an object, Detrop, it just belongs to a differant catagory of exsistence, i.e. subjective reality. Our subjective thoughts can be objectivly quantified as particle streams just as objective things can be subjectively quantified as observations. Truly a “chicken or the egg” question.
Words are orders, babies and the deaf understand this. Who gives orders?
I think there are valid arguments for both sides.
For Monism, you have the fact that neurologically, we are progressing nicely towards fitting explanations of both conscious and unconscious behavior into neuronal processes. Sure, there are plenty of unexplained phenomena - far more than there are explained phenomena - but we’ve already explained so much there doesn’t seem to be a single thing that cannot be explained, that requires something dualistic as an explanation.
You also have the fact that no known rule of physics or function of the brain (not the pineal gland… poor Descartes!) allows for the sort of interaction required between body and ethereal mind. In fact, there’s no provision in physics for an ethereal mind to even exist - raw energy is by nature noncohesive, spreading apart very quickly.
Now, for Dualism, you have the argument that… well… wait, what is it again?
Oh yes, we have immortal souls because, uh, a book and my dad told me so. And also because I don’t want to die. Ok, immortal souls. But the body is mortal, so the mind must continue on with the soul… and therefore cannot be a part of the body!
I rule.
No, all kidding aside, there are very few professional philosophers who are still Dualists. But that’s actually not very important. The far more important fact is that there are ESSENTIALLY ZERO neurobiologists who are Dualists! And - let’s be honest - who knows more about how the human mind works, philosophers, or neurobiologists?
It’s always those drones who complain. 
How the hell would they know? 
I don’t understand what survival potential might mean. All novelties are equal until some persist, post hoc, as permitted by greater external forces. Emergent complexity has no potential for survival until it actually survives to perpetuate its kind. The ‘mind’ can only perpetuate itself through educational intercourse.
Organs? Cells? Molecules? Strings? Physically there is only one existence. But how is that relevant? It is the concept of ‘mind’ that is the issue. What is its universe of discourse? Is it practical?