Religous debates and questions [2]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I dont understand the concept of a nonphysical mind- the mind is just the product of the activity of the brain- a physical object obeying physical laws.

It's actually easy for me to accept the concept of a nonphysical mind which interacts with a physical brain, because many of the things the mind concerns itself with are just that.   Think about the Lord of Rings that Tolkien wrote, and it's relationship to any particular book.  It's clearly made up of cellulose and ink pigments, and if you reproduced that physical arrangement exactly, you'd arguably have reproduced the work.

But what about if you convert it to an electronic file?
What if you tear out the last page? Is it still Tolkien's Lord of Rings?
What if you translate into another language, or write it in foot-high letters across the Gobi Desert with a stick?
There seems to me to be something distinctly nonphysical that all these have in common than seems to transcend the combination of cellulose and ink.

It seems to me that all the things the mind seems to value most, with the exception of a few things like food and shelter, are nonphysical in exactly this way.  
Family, relationships like love, trust and honor, music, and on and on. All of them are nonphysical, so why would it be hard to conceive that the mind itself is nonphysical? 

Where would you keep it for a start?

Where do you keep a rainbow?

maybe there is such a thing as a non physical mind, what about remote viewing?

Where do you keep a rainbow?- Dave

A rainbow is a (complicated!) physical phenomenon that exists in measurable and reproducible ways.
We cant reproduce a brain yet, but we can increasingly measure how it functions.
Once we thought rainbows were bridges to other worlds, we thought they, like mind, were somehow nonphysical and more than mere matter.
They turned out not to be.

Regards humans spending a lot of time on things which dont physically exist- I think thats a product of how we communicate- of being story tellers.
Nothing else on the planet gets out of bed early so its not late arriving somewhere else two hours in its future.
Humans do because we know the story- the story of the person who is late for work and gets fired.

We predict the future based on stories from the past, a handy survival tool, we an prepare for a future that only might happen, we can have contingency plans for multiple possible futures (as just getting up early does not ensure you wont get hit by a bus on the way to work- so we also remember the story about that and put on clean underwear and remember to look both ways before crossing roads).
Humans act now on the basis something in the future will happen.
So its hardly surprising we have extended that sort of imagining space to also take in things like family, relationships ect.

I think Bees probably know all that getting up early stuff. They must time their flights to the opening of certain flowers, avoiding certain danger areas because one of the drones told them through pheremones there was danger or in this other garden theres this fruit tree in bloom. I think we do them an injustice if we think we are the only ones to make plans for the future.

The difference is bees and other such forms are affected by external triggers- like temperature being a big one for bees- if its too cold you stay where you are, the poor human still gets up anyway and goes out because they know the story about not doing so.
I dont think anything else is driven to act out of collective knowledge of stories.

If you choose to believe that a rainbow is real, I have no problem with that, but there's a pretty good argument that it has no physical being.

It's an optical illusion, specific to the point where the observer is standing, created by the way bending light interacts with certain colour sensitive chemicals in the human eye.  

The fact that we can photograph it is only due to the fact that we've designed and built a "camera" that can simulate the chemistry of the eye.

If we exactly  reproduced the chemistry of the eye, you could argue we would have created a rainbow, in the same way that exactly reproducing a brain might be argued to have created a mind,  but it seems to me that there's a big piece missing from both these arguments.  A rainbow is more than its chemistry.

But its entirely reliant on the physical to exist-no water particles in the air, no light to pass through it, no eye to observe it and it would not be 'a rainbow' even though even if you disregard these physical components it would still exist in the sense that the same properties and interactions would be occurring which gives the eye the impression of 'rainbow'.

Yes, that's more or less what I'm saying. I would argue that the rainbow can be conceived to exist without an eye to observe it, and can exist in different mediums besides water and air. I'd argue that, understood this way, it exists as a complex relationship of physical objects and physical laws, but not restricted to any particular objects or laws. It's the pattern that matters, not the medium on which it manifests itself.

At least that's how I looked at the world as a mathematician. Does that make any sense at all?

It makes sense, but it still relies on the physicality of things to exist, its physical things which are interacting to create the effect- I see mind as the same way- its a product of interactions between physical things- the input from the physical universe, interpreted through the nervous system and processed within a brain.
I dont think we will ever find a mind atom but nevertheless without the physical components it relies on to come into being there would be no mind.
Just as if there were no physical conditions there would be no rainbow. It exists because of the physical nature of things, not as magic or some other non-physical thing.

Does that make sense?

I would argue that the physical world is necessary to measure the effects of minds and rainbows, and because the patterns can exist in the medium of the physical world we can therefore measure their effects here.

But I don't see why that necessarily implies that the pattens cease to exist outside the physical world. It just means that we can't measure it with our limited tools. Like a camera in the dark.

It's a bit circular really. We define the physical world as that which we can measure with the tools at hand, and then use the argument that we can't measure something as proof of nonexistence, when it really says more about the quality of our tools. The "real world" keeps getting bigger year by year as we develop cleverer tools to measure. Why should there be an edge? Why does everything have to be knowable?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The mapping between the brain and mental properties is unspecified- Richard

Surely thats just a lack of knowledge so far, knowledge we gain more of every day.
Its quite possibly one day science will fully map the brain and all it functions.

This is not simply a question of mapping brain functions. If the mapping between neural connectivity and our unified perceptual experience is anything but one-to-one then reductive physicalism has problems. Such as the coherent perception of colour and movement, when these aspects of vision are processed separately (if you want better examples without obvious counter arguments just ask). But this is diverting from the point entirely. Something may be casually reducible (physical and extra-physical mind), but it doesn't make it ontologically reducible. Confounding the empirical observation of brain with the internal observer in a philosophical discussion is not going to help. Nor is mandating our belief in universal sentience, or its necessitation by the brain (our model of mind may require a brain, but the brain does not therefore require a mind), whatever its likelihood.

richardbrucebaxter wrote: But this is diverting from the point entirely.

I'm afraid this is often unavoidable in Forumshire, Richard.  
By the way, I'm enjoying your arguments.

I don't see why that necessarily implies that the pattens cease to exist outside the physical world- David

Well you would first have to prove that such a place existed, outside the physical world for it to exist in. I have never seen any compelling evidence of such a place.

"If the mapping between neural connectivity and our unified perceptual experience is anything but one-to-one then reductive physicalism has problems."- Richard

I dont see why this has to be the case- as in the rainbow example the relationship between water particles, light and optical receptor that produce the image of a rainbow is not one to one, its a complex effect that comes about as in interaction between separate physical elements obeying simple rules.
The universe exists on the basis of simple rules leading to complicated results.
The basic rules underpinning mind are likewise probably simple but lead to complex end results- minds like ours for example.
Without requiring anything other than the physical components, the basic rules they follow and without the need for some 'mind space' in which it exists out with physicality.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I don't see why that necessarily implies that the pattens cease to exist outside the physical world- David

Well you would first have to prove that such a place existed, outside the physical world for it to exist in. I have never seen any compelling evidence of such a place.

Why is necessary for me to prove that "outside" exists for it to exist?   

Why, when for every question that science and philosophy has ever successfully answered, there's another question raised to replace it, isn't it obvious that there has to be an "outside"?

Remember your discussion with Halfwise about light waves? What do those waves move through? What is Space-Time made of?

There was another discussion here on so-called "dark matter", "dark energy", and what's Beyond the Edge, something or nothing.  There are no clear answers to any of these. That's "outside", and it's all around us if we look for it.  

Why is necessary for me to prove that "outside" exists for it to exist?- David

Because otherwise you could equally say mind exists inside a handbag in the possession of a multidimensional transcendental giant space rabbit.
Its like claiming a God exists- claiming it exists is not the same as pointing out His house and going round for a chat and a cuppa.
I could claim the sky was made of marshmallow and had pink polka dots and then insist I am right because 'thats what I believe' then demand tax exemption!
But it wouldnt prove anything or make it any more likely I am right.

If we ever do discover what lies out-with our own universe that will simply be another piece in the larger physical picture of how it all works. Outside will no longer be unknown. But I doubt we will find it full of human minds though.


"Why, when for every question that science and philosophy has ever successfully answered, there's another question raised to replace it"

Because the universe is mindbogglingly huge and lots of complicated, not very obvious things happen in it (not obvious at least from the point of view of a species that evolved mainly to detect food, avoid predators and work out things we can try to have sex with).
Look how long it took just to work out the earth went round the sun.
Its not instantly an obvious conclusion to draw.
Humans trying to work out the universe is  a bit like a walnut trying to work out the existence of Sainsbury's, there is a connection between the two (if you buy your walnuts from Sainbury's that is, but its not obvious to see if your the walnut on a tree somwhere- do walnuts grow on trees?   )

yes they do, theres a walnut tree living about 50 yards from me at this precise moment, and its confused.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Humans trying to work out the universe is  a bit like a walnut trying to work out the existence of Sainsbury's, there is a connection between the two (if you buy your walnuts from Sainbury's that is, but its not obvious to see if your the walnut on a tree somwhere- do walnuts grow on trees?   )

That's exactly what I mean by "outside", Petty. When people talk about the physical world, they usually mean that part of the cosmos we can make some type of physical measurement of from inside our walnut. I'd be the last to claim I know what's going on out there, but I'm convinced it's a hell of a lot more than I can measure from in here.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:(not obvious at least from the point of view of a species that evolved mainly to detect food, avoid predators and work out things we can try to have sex with).
......

...of a multidimensional transcendental giant space rabbit.

Don't even think about it, Petty!    

Give me enough buckie (or the space rabbit)   (Im assuming it looks like an intergalatic version of Jessica Rabbit)


"When people talk about the physical world, they usually mean that part of the cosmos we can make some type of physical measurement of from inside our walnut"

I suppose our difference in view is I am assuming (big word to use in this context I know) a totality of physical universe, including all the stuff we cant see at this point, and I just dont think we will find anything supernatural or magical in it, like human minds hanging about in some other state not tied to the physical brain, just an ever more refined understanding of interactions.

Wasnt it Arthur C Clarke said that once technology becomes sophisticated enough it becomes indistinguishable from magic? He is right about that, but its not actually magic, it just looks like it.
I think mind is currently in that category, we cant yet explain it, it just looks like magic because of that.

Note Petty this is probably more of a semantics issue than anything else. By distinguishing between "physical mind" and "extraphysical mind" I am not describing the independent existence of mind (substance dualism) - this is generally rejected at present because it requires mind to interact with the brain, compromising physical law in the process (see my post with the example "I remember seeing that"). Nor am I describing a detached stream of mental properties that are first triggered by the brain but otherwise have no basis in the brain (epiphenomenalism) - this is generally rejected at present for similar reasons; because it fails to explain how we could be aware of and recall such properties if they have no connection with our brain (which is presumed to store memories). Although the distinction between reductive and non-reductive physicalism is not relevant to my original argument (only to semantics here), under non-reductive physicalism the "subjective side of consciousness" can be viewed as consisting of non-physical properties (mental properties) experienced by an observer (non-physical mind) which map to physical properties (neuronal properties) of the brain (physical mind), both properties of one "physical" substance. I personally would call this a natural rather than a physical substance, but this is just how the terminology has developed. With any form of physicalism (besides eliminativism), and our present understanding of physics, the existence of a mental reality is irrelevant to the function of the physical system. There are various speculative roles extraphysical mind might take like providing some basic libertarian free will mechanism (will power in conjunction with physical indeterminism; considerable evidence mounts against this), or collapsing a probabilistic wavefunction (copenhagen interpretation), but they certainly don't contribute to the evolution of the organism.

This analogy appears to cover some of the issues; Imagine an advanced artificial intelligence (robot) with no user interface - no access to its software - no monitor, keyboard or mouse (it could be running any number of complex algorithms). The only interaction one can have with the robot is through audio/touch/visual stimulation and measuring its behavioural response. One starts to develop the ability to look inside ("brain scan") the computer and measure its individual electrical interactions. The software running on the computer however is not those interactions, it is a function of those interactions. This makes it difficult to decode the exact purpose of the electrical interactions and derive details of the softare. Over time (decades) one is able to reverse engineer the software running on the computer (talking to it certainly helped). Is its software its mind? Is the robot's self-awareness (model of self) demonstrative of this? Is this an extraphysical mind or merely an electrical representation of one?

That's a very good analogy Richard. It's more or less what I was aiming at when I spoke of the story being independent of the medium it was written in.

Do you have a personal opinion on the answers to your questions?

Is this an extraphysical mind or merely an electrical representation of one?- Richard

Why would there be a distinction?
The robot mind arises from the activity of the software running in its physical components. The two are not separate even if the link is not immediately obvious.
My pc right now has a mind of sorts, it performs tasks and functions based on software causing activity in its components which then produce results and actions.
But the processes that arise, such as typing this dont require some extra 'mind space' to exist for them to occur in.
I dont see the brain being much different.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Is this an extraphysical mind or merely an electrical representation of one?- Richard

Why would there be a distinction?
The robot mind arises from the activity of the software running in its physical components. The two are not separate even if the link is not immediately obvious.

But is that true?  

If your computer and mine had been booted from the same disc, I would say we were running the same software even though they were on completely different machines on opposite sides of the world.

In this world where thoughts and images are easily converted into a thousand different digital formats, then sent into the Cloud to live a bazillion copies of themselves, often sliced and diced into bit torrents to be re-assembled on demand anywhere in the world, I have to ask if thinking of the software as only living on one particular machine as a function of its physical parts is very useful at all.