Mind//body problem

[Deleted member 12009]

What's your stance in the discussion about the relationship between mind and body?
Please do not post unless you know what the problem is and which solutions have been proposed historically.

 

[Elis]

LOL, I find myself wandering around the apt.ment, chewing on raw pasta, trying to come up with a good reply. As a kid I got very unsettled by being unable to comprehend 'not being able to think'. I am still not able to, but I don't give it much thought any more.

I think our "minds" compute under physical circumstances. We need our physical brains to think, just as we need our eyes to see. What we see and what we think is not reality, but a representation of it. A world that exist, whether or not we're there to perceive it. What we see is not true, but it's not false either. It is simply a representation to comprehend. I'm inclined to say that our thoughts aren't physical, but that they exist objectively. As for your question, I don't know.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I have an unwanted unique perspective on this. My brain was effected in a way that for a few years made it more difficult to think clearly than otherwise. Many of my senses severely hindered and those that were not, returned flawed data. Durning this time I became "lesser".

Anyway, mind can effect the body and the body can effect the mind. What implication this has on the mind being able to exist outside the body is always an interesting discussion.

 

[Solongo]

What is the proposed "problem" between mind and body? Did I miss something??

 

[muir]

The room you are looking at and the computer you are typing on do not exist outside you....they exist within you

 

[Korg]

It's only a "problem" because the question itself assumes a materialist ontology.

I don't care for any of the solutions to this so-called problem that try to maintain materialism; they mostly just seem like pretzel logic arguments to me. The only tebable arguments that I've seen are the ones that no longer require a bridge between mind and matter.

 

[Deleted member 12009]

It's only a "problem" because the question itself assumes a materialist ontology.

I don't care for any of the solutions to this so-called problem that try to maintain materialism; they mostly just seem like pretzel logic arguments to me. The only tebable arguments that I've seen are the ones that no longer require a bridge between mind and matter.

Actually materialists, especially Reid, argue the mind-body problem is a category mistake caused by DUALISM. Not materialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
Also, the modern version of the question was first proposed by Descartes, a dualist.

The room you are looking at and the computer you are typing on do not exist outside you....they exist within you

Is there anything outside us? In what sense are they inside me?

I have an unwanted unique perspective on this. My brain was effected in a way that for a few years made it more difficult to think clearly than otherwise. Many of my senses severely hindered and those that were not, returned flawed data. Durning this time I became "lesser".

Anyway, mind can effect the body and the body can effect the mind. What implication this has on the mind being able to exist outside the body is always an interesting discussion.

I hope it's not too personal to ask, but what do you mean by "lesser"?

What is the proposed "problem" between mind and body? Did I miss something??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem
also:

Please do not post unless you know what the problem is and which solutions have been proposed historically.

 

[Korg]

Actually materialists, especially Reid, argue the mind-body problem is a category mistake caused by DUALISM. Not materialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
Also, the modern version of the question was first proposed by Descartes, a dualist.

Well, okay. That's fair.

When it comes to philosophy (and this particular topic), I dislike a lot of the semantic quibbling and nit-picking over terminology - but I see your point about dualism vs. materialism.

My point is that the so-called problem presupposes a specific metaphysical explanation for reality which is what creates the problem in the first place. As a crude analogy, it's like looking at this optical illusion:

...but insisting it must be either 1) a candlestick or 2) a pair of human profiles. Refusal to recognize them as both, simultaneously, is what makes the problem 'hard'. If you do see them as both, it's no longer 'hard'. It's not even a problem in the first place.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Its not too personal but it is difficult to describe especially typing on a phone.

Imagine lossing your senses. Taste, touch, sight etc...or that what senses you do have are being overridden by other things lkke dizziness, loud ringing in my ears and nausea. Add to that what is called brain fog where its difficult to think and do simple tasks like forming a grocery list in your head without writing it down. I simply was not "here", was not as aware. Yes I could feed myself, drive a car, speak, walk but not much else. Just was not aware of myself as much anymore.

It is because of this state to this day I think that I, if anyone has, proof there may in fact be nothing after the brain ceases to function. Today I have the leisure of looking back on that time like a bad nightmare. It fades but never goes completely away and of course, I live in fear one day I find myself back there.

 

[Deleted member 12009]

Well, okay. That's fair.

When it comes to philosophy (and this particular topic), I dislike a lot of the semantic quibbling and nit-picking over terminology - but I see your point about dualism vs. materialism.

My point is that the so-called problem presupposes a specific metaphysical explanation for reality which is what creates the problem in the first place. As a crude analogy, it's like looking at this optical illusion:

...but insisting it must be either 1) a candlestick or 2) a pair of human profiles. Refusal to recognize them as both, simultaneously, is what makes the problem 'hard'. If you do see them as both, it's no longer 'hard'. It's not even a problem in the first place.

There have been people who proposed both exist, and they also proposed a way on how they interact. I think you misunderstood the question entirely.
It's not about EITHER mind or body. There's a difference between semantic nitpicking and complete misunderstandings.

the significance of the question arises from problems with what mind and body are, and how they could interact.
Descartes tried to conjure up a strange idea where the mind is a spirit that has enough strength to make a gland in the brain move, controlling the body.
Leibniz said the mind and body DO NOT interact but have been perfectly synchronized since their dawn.
Malebranche straight out claims every time the mind and body do something synchronously it's God who intervenes.
etc.
For them, it was a matter of figuring out how they connect. For others it's different altogether.

going for dual aspect theory is probably your safest bet.

Its not too personal but it is difficult to describe especially typing on a phone.

Imagine lossing your senses. Taste, touch, sight etc...or that what senses you do have are being overridden by other things lkke dizziness, loud ringing in my ears and nausea. Add to that what is called brain fog where its difficult to think and do simple tasks like forming a grocery list in your head without writing it down. I simply was not "here", was not as aware. Yes I could feed myself, drive a car, speak, walk but not much else. Just was not aware of myself as much anymore.

It is because of this state to this day I think that I, if anyone has, proof there may in fact be nothing after the brain ceases to function. Today I have the leisure of looking back on that time like a bad nightmare. It fades but never goes completely away and of course, I live in fear one day I find myself back there.

that must've been horrible. how'd you end up in that?
And ye. It's this that makes me stray away from idealism and possibly also dualism. The brainstatus affects us a bit too much to simply be separate...
scary.

 

[muir]

Is there anything outside us? In what sense are they inside me?

I'll be attempting to answer this in detail in the 'the world is an illusion' thread

 

[Eventhorizon]

There have been people who proposed both exist, and they also proposed a way on how they interact. I think you misunderstood the question entirely.
It's not about EITHER mind or body. There's a difference between semantic nitpicking and complete misunderstandings.

the significance of the question arises from problems with what mind and body are, and how they could interact.
Descartes tried to conjure up a strange idea where the mind is a spirit that has enough strength to make a gland in the brain move, controlling the body.
Leibniz said the mind and body DO NOT interact but have been perfectly synchronized since their dawn.
Malebranche straight out claims every time the mind and body do something synchronously it's God who intervenes.
etc.
For them, it was a matter of figuring out how they connect. For others it's different altogether.

going for dual aspect theory is probably your safest bet.



that must've been horrible. how'd you end up in that?
And ye. It's this that makes me stray away from idealism and possibly also dualism. The brainstatus affects us a bit too much to simply be separate...
scary.

Naturally its a long story, naturally on my phone...
Short answer is that I at some point became one of the most gluten sensitive people on the planet. Or so it seems. Among other things it appears as if it messed with my cerebral cortex. Now that I have been eating gluten free for about a year I am much better though still have some lesser issues.

 

[Deleted member 12009]

LOL, I find myself wandering around the apt.ment, chewing on raw pasta, trying to come up with a good reply. As a kid I got very unsettled by being unable to comprehend 'not being able to think'. I am still not able to, but I don't give it much thought any more.

I think our "minds" compute under physical circumstances. We need our physical brains to think, just as we need our eyes to see. What we see and what we think is not reality, but a representation of it. A world that exist, whether or not we're there to perceive it. What we see is not true, but it's not false either. It is simply a representation to comprehend. I'm inclined to say that our thoughts aren't physical, but that they exist objectively. As for your question, I don't know.

Sorry for not replying earlier. I agree with everything... ;w;

Naturally its a long story, naturally on my phone...
Short answer is that I at some point became one of the most gluten sensitive people on the planet. Or so it seems. Among other things it appears as if it messed with my cerebral cortex. Now that I have been eating gluten free for about a year I am much better though still have some lesser issues.

wow. dat sounds rather intense. I'm glad it's better now, at least...
Your argument is a good reason to personally believe in a variety of materialism.
Same goes for me really; I realize more and more that the depression I once had was caused by strange changes in my body and behavior, for example lying on a bed all day and drinking 8 liters of water a day (and remaining thirsty) at some point.
However, I think mind is a different representation of the electrochemical activity in the brain. Therefore I think it exists, not as a separate entity, but as a different viewpoint.

 

[54tjsioU]

Its not too personal but it is difficult to describe especially typing on a phone.

Imagine lossing your senses. Taste, touch, sight etc...or that what senses you do have are being overridden by other things lkke dizziness, loud ringing in my ears and nausea. Add to that what is called brain fog where its difficult to think and do simple tasks like forming a grocery list in your head without writing it down. I simply was not "here", was not as aware. Yes I could feed myself, drive a car, speak, walk but not much else. Just was not aware of myself as much anymore.

It is because of this state to this day I think that I, if anyone has, proof there may in fact be nothing after the brain ceases to function. Today I have the leisure of looking back on that time like a bad nightmare. It fades but never goes completely away and of course, I live in fear one day I find myself back there.

Have some of this: brain fog, dizziness. Nero doc said it was 'Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension!' Started exercising and it went away. Comes back when I'm on my period and cramping but goes away with less stress and more blood flow. Not saying you have the same thing, just saying I've had it and it sucks horrible x.x

 

[sprinkles]

I'm somewhere between neutral monism and dialectical monism. The former being the position that the two things arise from a singular kind of material, and the latter being that there's only one and the dualism is only a perception.

 

[sprinkles]

Or think of it this way. You don't get an apple without a core and you also don't get an apple without a peel. Cores and peels are different but they're aspects of the same thing and it's not incredibly useful to treat them as separate entities because they never come to be as separate entities - and yes you can core an apple and have it be separated but it's never going to start out that way, so the separation of the core is still a constructed thing, you'd just be trying to actualize it by separating the two with space, which doesn't change the nature or origin.

 

[sprinkles]

Moreover, what we call the body is an abstraction. If you take one car and replace it with another car, nobody would say it is the same car would they? But yet that's what is going on with the body. It gets replaced - not once but thousands of times. It's similar to taking a car and replacing it with another car - it looks the same, works the same, etc but it is a different car.

You may object to this notion, but just imagine you're sitting in a car, and while you're sitting in it, unbeknownst to you some very tiny gremlins are replacing the car with another car atom by atom. Eventually what you'll end up with is the same situation as if they'd simply traded cars in one go. The scenario is not essentially different at all. People like to believe it is because they find the notion uncomfortable or unintuitive.

 

[Average]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] you really bothered with this lol

Not 2 disagree with the OP.
But he suggest a problem as though it's a known theory...although i dont think thats what he meant.

To stick to basics. The concept of mind is not one to mock....and body, well, dont come in it much...hense, biology.

So, whats your point?

 

[Deleted member 12009]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] you really bothered with this lol

Not 2 disagree with the OP.
But he suggest a problem as though it's a known theory...although i dont think thats what he meant.

To stick to basics. The concept of mind is not one to mock....and body, well, dont come in it much...hense, biology.

So, whats your point?

So you say the mind has to exist and kept separate from the body due to personal emotional reasons?

 

[Average]

So you say the mind has to exist and kept separate from the body due to personal emotional reasons?

When

??