The mind/body problem: how important is it?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

One of the main arguments in Rorty’s Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature is that the whole mind/body problem has served as little more than a distraction from the primary issue that philosophy focused on in the beginning: that of how to live. He argues that the Greeks started off with philosophy being literally a love of wisdom, a way of engaging with the world and reality; but then Descartes came along and turned the focus to a study of the nature of mind. Furthermore, through ergo cogito sum, he established the notion that if there was certainty to be found, it would be accomplished through recognizing that the only thing we can be certain of is that we think. This, in turn, led to philosophy turning its focus to epistemology and the idea that it could create some epistemological or philosophical foundation by which all assertions could be judged as being wrong or right. Then Kant came along and made it appear scientific, through his categories, and put philosophy on a supposed secure path to a science. At this point, philosophy got determined as a discipline in itself -that is rather than people just thinking a lot about a lot of different things. Then, after an idealist break with Hegel, the analytic came in with the notion that we can arrive at truth if we simply look at the language we use to define things. In other words, if we got language right, we would then be able to use it as the perfect mirror of nature. They made it easier to hit the mark by pulling the target closer.

In other words, what got set off with Descartes was the notion that the mind, being something separate from the world of objects and, therefore, a mirror of nature, could give us perfect information about the world if only we tweaked it to where it would give us a perfect reflection of reality. And you have to give credibility to this to the extent that we do seem to have taken philosophy from a way of engaging with the world (much like poetry) to one of establishing who has the perfect description of reality -hence: the materialist trollers. This, in turn, has turned it into a game of king of the hill and little more than an armchair version of science based on a selective study of wikipedia. And as Rorty rightfully argues, we do this at a time when we have real issues to solve: Globalism, Global Warming, Injustice, the failure of Capitalism, etc…

However, you have to admit that the mind/body problem creates an opportunity for philosophical play. It seems to me that attempting to resolve an issue that, ultimately, cannot be resolved forces one to push the mind to understandings of our human predicament that we otherwise would not arrive at. I think, to some extent, Sartre comes close to making my point when he revises the definition of solipsism in Being and Nothingness by taking it from being a novel concept, as it was applied to Berkeley’s idealism (one that could only be applied to schizophrenics and episodes of The Twilight Zone), to one of an inherent pitfall of our subject/object relationship with the world which is an outcrop of the mind/body problem. According to Sartre, we are naturally disposed to solipsism because we are objects occupying space dealing with other objects occupying space who we must assume have perceiving things looking out of their eyes much like ours.

Anyway, I’m torn, guys. It certainly distracts me from my more Marxist concerns. At the same time, I’m drawn to it. Perhaps you can help me.

2

As Rorty points out, we would have done just as well thinking like the antipodians where we think in terms of brain states. If we did, it wouldn’t change anything.

3

I don’t know that this helps but i think descartes got it wrong. I just said in another topic, “The cogito ergo sum argument… that i think therefore i am… seems certain but it is based is it not on the idea that we know something about 'am’ness or [what] being is or perhaps even that we know what thinking is.”

I would say that it is a flaw to think that we can arrive at anything we can know to be 100% certain… in other words: “We can only ever be quite certain that we can never be completely certain.”

4

Thought has taken over the whole house. It will not budge. It is even the thought that looks at thought: it’s the knowledge you have about thought. It exists in a place we think is a mind which is also product of knowledge and thought. Thought is employed when you want something, or when you want o understand something. It is what gives the experience of ‘you’ when it’s there. So it seems difficult to think that you can separate yourself from thought and look at it when it is thought that is the object (of thought) and the same instrument (thought) which is the ‘you’ that is looking at the object thought. So there is thought that splits itself into the subject and the object … and then there is the (actual?) you that is a squatter there watching this whole video taking place before you.

I don’t know if I am being clear. … maybe you could help me out.

5

Yes, I think you both seem to be following the line that Rorty followed. As you point out, Abstract, Descartes’ Ergo is what led to the notion that we can be a 100% certain about anything. This, in turn, has led to philosophy’s preoccupation with thought as Finishedman points out. Epistemology has pretty much been the dominant topic of philosophy since then. As Rorty points out, we tend to talk a lot about the experience of pain as compared to people just having pain.

6

If one doesn’t know and respect oneself, how could one know and respect their environment?

7

The study of the mind/body relation is the study of one’s self. To know one’s self better is surely to be informed of how to live better.

8

How exactly? We have to remember here that one’s body is always a matter of it being among other bodies with minds in them. And those bodies can always cancel out whatever it is the individual body thinks it knows. I have, since I was 14, been either engaged or completely immersed in culture and the creative act. And at 51, I’m not sure what “living better” is. I’m not dogging you here. But all I have found are chance moments when I seem to be feeling better. And that generally tends to be when other bodies are not interfering with my space.

9

All that means is that after 35 years of being distracted and pestered by others, you still haven’t figured it out.
That is why they are there… to keep you bemused and confused.
That is an easier task than obtaining a clear understanding of yourself and your situation.
The odds are in their favor.

10

Hmm… How is it they have done this? Can you elaborate? Why would they choose to keep me confused and bemused? And what exactly is it I still haven’t figured out? What certainty, exactly, is it that you and gib have to offer? How does one live better? How does the solipsism you are offering suffice as an answer to it all?

What exactly is a “clear understanding of yourself and your situation”?

Now putting the hostility aside, James (since your post can be read in multiple ways), I’m not sure intellectuals would be of any use without such people. Firemen need fire victims. Police need crime victims. Soldiers need a country of citizens to protect. Likewise, people who are just living life need people who put the effort into actually articulating it. It’s what we’re made to do, James. We have to be every bit as heroic as the fireman, policeman, or soldier. We have to be like Sisyphus and bring fire to the people. And we have to be willing to suffer the same fate Sisyphus did: continually pushing a rock to the top of the hill only to watch it roll down the other side.

We, in our capacity, must always face the next creative barrier with courage and resolve, only to find ourselves standing before the the next barrier. Otherwise, we would only be settling: like those people.

Even if it drives us to a meltdown.

11

What is it you’re trying to say, d63? That one finds out how to better live by observing under what conditions in one’s life one has felt better than at other times? Sure that’s one way, but why is that the only way?

In my own case, studying the mind/brain relations (in terms of both introspection and neuroscience) has taught me how the mind clings to values and how values “migrate” from one attachment to another. When we study a thing, we learn what principles it operates under, and that informs us of how it can be used in practical applications to make life better. The more I understood the way my own mind (and I extrapolate this to human minds in general) attaches itself to certain values, the more I understood how and when to choose what values I adopt carefully and in a healthy way–and over the longhaul, this has lead to a healthier and happier lifestyle.

12

My first reaction was to agree, but then I got a second wave, so let me play a little devil’s advocate. Do you think the people who do what you are saying - instrospect and study neuroscience - are likely to be mentally healthier than people who do not do these things?

13

I find that to be true myself. then I also find that not being around those other bodies leads to other kinds of not feeling better.
So what exactly happens in the presence of other bodies?
I would guess there are thought components involved, thoughts intermeshed with emotions. What are those thoughts?

14

I think people who practice this have a tool that can be used towards a healthier/happier mental state or life. Those who don’t practice this don’t have this tool (unless they’re born with it or come across it by some other means). You figure out the rest.

15

They have a tool, yes. But perhaps the people who focus on this tool are on the neurotic side or at least many are or I am raising the issue if there might not be a tendency to overintellectualize, distance oneself from oneself, not be able to just let a more natural flow happen, etc. Whereas many others might have more simple heuristics - not that they would use the word - to find things they enjoy. Does one really need to read neuroscience? Do those who do really have a better chance of getting the life they want?

I am skeptical.

This doesn’t mean knowledge of neuroscience and introspection cannot be useful. I have some of the former and engage in the latter, so I hope they can be useful.

I look at how you worded it first and you very clearly put it all in personal terms. I am not trying to question whether it is useful for you and the way I responded likely made that unclear. I am questioning the idea more on the general level.

16

The strategy I described is pretty simplistic if you really understand it.

Perhaps an example will suffice, something from my own life just recently. I saw this video the other day:

youtube.com/watch?v=GudcxvmHoyQ

It wasn’t at this particular link, but the exact site I went to had some comments underneath. Some guy was royally offended by the video, claiming that if guys ever made a commical video to raise awareness about breast cancer, they’d be ostrasized and accused of sexism (the charge being that breast cancer is no laughing matter).

Now, I felt this guy’s pain. I too think there tends to be a double standard in regards to how men vs. women are treat or labeled as “sexist”. But this guy seemed to be succumbing to a knee jerk reaction. The video raised emotionally ladened issues in his mind and he reacted with resentment. The result was that, whether he realized it or not, he was making a decision in that moment to be anti-humor. When it comes to serious matters, he thought (and would probably continue to think from that point on–or for a short while to come, at least), humor has no place.

But if such an issue is raised in your mind, there is an alternative way of responding to this video. This guy could have protested against the (supposed) charges of sexism against men who would (hypothetically) make a commical video in support of breast cancer awareness. This approach would advocate injecting humor into promotional videos made to raise awareness about certain issues (and in my opinion, this is more often a healthy thing and productive towards the cause), and it would demote false accusations of sexism (which I think is also healthy).

Both approaches fight against double standards (which is, at bottom, what this guy was all up in arms about); one approach promotes healthier outcomes than the other.

My point is that we can always catch ourselves before we make knee jerk reactions in response to emotionally ladened issues, and take a few seconds to think about what would be the best (healthiest, happiness-inducing, etc.) way to react. All one needs is to be aware of the fact that the mind works this way–when we make decisions about how to react to issues or emotionally laden situations, we are (usually without knowing it) attaching ourselves to particular values in the moment, and once those values take hold, they are very difficult to change. Simply being aware of that has a powerful effect on the mind–it has the effect of, first, helping one recognize that this happens when it happens, and second, empowering one to stop reacting in a passive manner and start acting in an informed and purposeful manner. I don’t think this interferes much with the natural “flow” of the mind–rather, just being aware of this (that the mind works this way), alters the flow in the way I just described.

I hope that helps to make things more clear.

I think the word “need” there is misplaced. Of course one doesn’t need to read neuroscience, but I certainly think it helps. Like I said in my last post: it provides one with a tool; how one uses the tool is really what determines how their life procedes.

I think it does work on a more general level–I’m going on the assumption that what the neurosciences tell us about the human brain is more or less generalizable to all people (and obviously there are going to be a few exceptions). Introspection in particular is especially helpful because in no other way can we learn about ourselves (as opposed to humans beings in general) and our unique idiocyncranies and differences. So what works for me may not be what works for you, but I think the general principle that the more you understand something (in this case, your mind, your self), the more able you are to apply your understanding in a practical context and ameliorate your life.

17

Note: I understand better what your perspective is, but I can’t see where your response actually integrates my concerns about the potential problems with the approach. Obviously at the very least you think the benefits outweigh any negatives of the kind I mention, but it seemed like they could be addressed in any case.

Couldn’t not allowing spontaneous reactions - to use a more neutral term than the value laden ‘knee jerk’ reactions - be a kind of value in the moment that one is attaching oneself to?

If we take this scenario, a person reacting with a kind of global quick judgment (to something that might be more nuanced then he, in this case, is first getting) he still gets to learn from his reaction. Other react to his naked expression, and he can learn from these reactions. Or not. But the self-distancing, judgment of quick immediate/intuitive/knee jerk reactions, then mentally (and generally verbally) working one’s way to a rational self to be in a given situation, may delay the kinds of learning one gets from being spontaneous, and need not lead to learning at all. It certainly can, but so can reacting without first taking a step back, mulling, and then formulating a carefully chosen reaction.

I suppose I find that a lot of people change the way they present themselves, including how they present themselves to themselves, and don’t realize how much was actually left untouched. Sort of like an internal politically correct set of adjustments. (by politically correct I do not mean any particular viewpoint, it could be a liberal or conservative or whatever set of ideas)

To emphasize: I am not saying what you are suggesting may not work well in some situations or rather some times. I am convinced doing something like that has helped me on occasion. I think I have also learned a tremendous amount by simply reacting and then learning that way. Often mulling after the fact or working it out in dialogue.

In the end I would like to have my spontaneous reactions be unified ones, not simply habitual. One can try to eliminate the habit in advance or one can live out the habit and keep one’s eyes open. Was it a good intuitive take or was it merely a semi-blind, not quite appropriate to the context habitual reaction?

Rather than finding tools so that I have the right reactions, regardless of my spontanaity, and perhaps instead of it.

I also think that what seems rational here, actually is based, at least for a lot of people on a value that they repeatedly attach themselves to - distrust of spontaneous reactions, intuition and strong emotions - that they can reinforce by focusing on their own and others errors (knee jerk reactions).

IOW there can be a hindsight bias that the actual motivation was preventing habitual responses, when in fact there is a repeated attached to the value of not being spontaneous (and perhaps emotional, blunt, intuitive, not thinking of all perspectives at all times, etc.)

Another way to put my question would be, couldn’t one recognize these patterns without a drop of knowledge of neuroscience? I look at the description of knee jerk reactions and attachment to values and I am pretty sure an illiterate person could come at those ideas just through observing social interactions. They would likely express it in less intellectual language, but it seems accessible just from paying attention on the street.

18

I’m not sure how to address them. You mentioned that such an approach might be more neurotic than helpful, but I don’t see how. It might be neurotic if one fought against his more spontaneous tendencies to react, but that’s not what I’m suggesting. My response to the following should clarify what I’m suggesting:

To learn from one’s spontenaity still requires observing one’s mind in action. And further to my point, what one learns from this is often enough by itself to have a positive effect. That is to say, just being aware of something is often enough to change one’s behavior or attitude towards that something for the better. I don’t think I’d ever advocate fighting against one’s own spontenaity (but there’s always exceptions to every rule), but I think that observing how that spontenaity works and what kind of consequences follow from it can change that spontenaity–not in that it becomes less spontaneous but that we start having different reactions that are no less spontenous.

It’s like this: you take a particular route to work every morning, right? I’m going to assume you do. You do it habitually, like a (very prolonged) knee-jerk reaction. But suppose one morning you heard on the radio that there was an accident on this route and they recommended an alternate route. Would you have to “try” to break from your usual habit of taking your usual route?.. Or would it happen automatically? Would it be that hard to know what to do? Or would you just find yourself taking that alternate route like it was an equally engrained habit? The point is, sometimes just being aware of something has an automatic effect on the mind that changes how it operates or how you behave–no less spontaneously.

Of course. The particular example I gave (of how to management one’s value attachments) is a bad one if you wanted an example of how studying the neurosciences help to improve one’s life. It’s not so obvious, and indeed one doesn’t need an education in neuroscience to apply the principles I described.

But upon reflection, I think there were three lessons from the neuroscience that inform this practice:

  1. neural associations and how they fortify or atrophy–this adds some depth to one’s understanding of how thoughts, emotions, and values (among other mental things) become attached to one another.

  2. the plasticity of the human brain–this is very encouraging to those who wonder if they can ever change their bad habits, mental problems, disabilities, etc.

  3. the many ways in which the human brain functions similarly to computers–add to this a bit of education in computer programming (particularly of how computers can be programmed to self-program), and it gives one an idea of how to “self-program” one’s own brain.

Of course, you’re right–you don’t need all this to recognize that these principles can be applied to one’s own mind–but it certainly helps.

19

First, this sounds like an understanding that comes up when things just happen to be going good for the individual. That said (and not to be a smartass), I’m glad that is working out for you. The problem is that I generally find unthinking and non-introspective people to be generally happier. And this generally comes from their willingness to conform and, consequently, better reap the rewards of society.

Once again, I respect where you’re coming from, but reading this, I get the feel of something like Dianetics. It’s like you think you have found a way to have your cake and eat it too. And I’m not sure that feeling can last forever. My experience has been that, sooner or later, the world steps in.

And that’s just it, Moreno. Our cultural history has shown that people who tend to introspect tend to be more fucked-up than those that don’t. Van Gogh, Sylvia Plath, Nietzsche, Gilles Deluez, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Pollock, Kafka, etc., etc…. I mean, take your pick.

And I’m a little cynical about the notion that if you attach a “study of neuroscience” to it, this will somehow change it into the holy grail of happiness. But then I guess I’m a little cynical about anything that sounds as anchored as what Gib is talking about. It seems to me that he is sporting yet another form of classicism that only works if you can allow yourself to believe in it.

I have to approach this from the perspective of Rawl’s “Veil of ignorance”. I agree with you to the extent that if I wanted to quit drinking, the secret to it would lie in avoiding those places in which I use to drink and those people with whom I use to do so. But the petty and mundane is a completely different breed of animal and addiction. It saturates the world and therefore follows you wherever you go. As I was initially pointing out: it’s never just a matter of what you think; it’s equally a matter of what those around you think as well. The thoughts of the other, turn to action, will always intrude no matter what we think.

The only way to avoid it (Rawl’s “Veil of Ignorance”) is to fall into situation where one has no familial ties with others that have opposite agendas to our own. And this is why I have to wonder if Gib’s take on it isn’t just a result of his circumstance: a contingency.

20

And doesn’t this all seem like a lot nitpicking that ultimately distracts us from changing the world we live in to one in which we can all be reasonably happy?

This is where I have to agree with Rorty to the extent that our arrogance of thinking we can solve the mind/body problem has held us in a kind of Land of the Lotos Eaters. We’ve gotten so wrapped up in our own ambitions that we have forgotten that the Capitalism that is exploiting us is the source of that ambition.

Even philosophy, for all its presumptions to do otherwise, has become sick with it.