There is no Mind-Body problem...


The mind is an interaction of brain parts. Much like a race is an interaction between cars.

The race doesn't have a physical presence, you can't grab it, yet it is connected to physical elements (cars). (you can say, "those cars make up the race" and you can say "those brain parts make up the mind")

Just like a race is an emergent property of competitive individuals, The mind is an emergent property of competitive physical parts of the brain.

There is no Mind-Body problem...


The mind is an interaction of brain parts. Much like a race is an interaction between cars.

The race doesn't have a physical presence, you can't grab it, yet it is connected to physical elements (cars). (you can say, "those cars make up the race" and you can say "those brain parts make up the mind")

Just like a race is an emergent property of competitive individuals, The mind is an emergent property of competitive physical parts of the brain.

What’s uncontroversial is that there are causal interactions between parts of the brain. How you get from that claim to the claim that the mind is like a race is a mystery. You’re reasoning analogically—and that’s the worst from of reasoning, albeit the most primitive. I’m at the grocery store; they’re out of my favorite cereal; but, wait, here’s a box of cereal that’s in a package that is the same color as that of my favorite cereal; since, they’re the same in that respect, that must mean they’re the same in the respect of how they taste; I’ll buy this one, then!. How do you do it? You go from neurons and the mind, to cars and a race. My goodness! Neurons causally interact to produce mental states such as desiring, believing, hoping, worrying, feeling pain, etc. There’s nothing relevantly analogous to that going on with respect to cars and a race. Nothing. Cars racing around on a racetrack don’t causally interact with one another to produce anything except maybe accidents. And an accident is not relevantly analogous to a mental state. Well, why not? Because mental states have been selected for by a mechanism of natural selection in order to fulfill certain functions: for example, natural selection selected some of our internal states (perceptions, beliefs, memories) for the function of representing external states of affairs. Nothing like that is going on with car accidents on racetracks. Maybe the point your trying to make is that: without the cars racing around the track, there would be no race. Analogously, without the neurons, there would be no mind. Well that’s uncontroversial. Everyone participating in the debate over the mind-body problem agrees with that: that having a brain (or something functionally equivalent with it) is causally necessary and sufficient for having a mind. Also, calling the mind an “emergent property” of the brain doesn’t solve any problems. If by “emergent property”, you just mean a property at some level of reality that doesn’t exist at some lower level of reality: for example, the property of liquidity that water has at the ordinary object level of reality but doesn’t have at the lower level of molecules. Because then we have emergent properties all over the place. It’s pretty uncontroversial that mental states are emergent with respect to neurons

James,
You seem to be an intelligent person. Are you saying that you don’t get the meaning of the race analogy? Is it that you want someone to explain it to you? Putting it bluntly intelligence is a symptom. Just as Alex has implied with his race = actions of cars. I think you’re being shallow, excuse me, primitive.

“Neurons causally interact to produce mental states such as desiring, believing, hoping, worrying, feeling pain, etc. There’s nothing relevantly analogous to that going on with respect to cars and a race.”

That’s like saying steel, plastic, rubber and oil interact so people can travel down the road. It’s true but there’s a lot that’s missing! Are you saying that neurological causal interaction doesn’t produce an indirect effect. If not than how are “desiring, believing, hoping, worrying, feeling pain, etc” produced? Or are you saying that this neurological interaction sometimes produce the mental state of desiring, and sometimes believing, sometimes hoping etc? Because if this is the case than your ideas will require a homunculus, a separate intelligence that decides what the neurological interaction should be. In other words, an extra stage of processing that simply brings us back to where we started. It is a non-answer! But how about if we invent separate “desiring, believing, hoping, worrying, feeling pain, etc” machines and integrate their output so that at any given moment we would have the same capability as the animals do? But then again, it would require a homunculus to decide when to activate any of those machines. Back to square one!

It is by far better to attempt to understand what animals can do with ease. But it does require a paradigm change. A better way to accomplish the same old bad idea gives the same failed result but I suppose we would be getting there faster!

Lex Ricketts

James,

Could you please pose a specific question for us to discuss? This is a forum and not a blog.

LEX:

You seem to be an intelligent person. Are you saying that you don’t get the meaning of the race analogy? Is it that you want someone to explain it to you?

I didn’t say I didn’t understand the race analogy, you idiot: I said there was NOTHING RELEVANTLY ANALOGOUS BETWEEN NEURONS AND THE MIND, ON THE ONE HAND, AND CARS AND A RACE, ON THE OTHER.

Putting it bluntly intelligence is a symptom. Just as Alex has implied with his race = actions of cars. I think you’re being shallow, excuse me, primitive.

Neurons causally produce mental states, you idiot. Cars racing around the track don’t causally produce a race: they causally produce pollution or accidents. Learn what the hell causation is, and get back to me.

James,

“I didn’t say I didn’t understand the race analogy, you idiot: I said there was NOTHING RELEVANTLY ANALOGOUS BETWEEN NEURONS AND THE MIND, ON THE ONE HAND, AND CARS AND A RACE, ON THE OTHER.”

Of course you didn’t say you didn’t understand the race analogy, you didn’t have to, it was quite obvious you didn’t. It’s still obvious that you don’t and we’re not here to discuss that. Your references seem to imply that cars in a race were all that was discussed. It wasn’t about cars! You seem to have let slip the meaning of what we were talking about. You talk as if you have more than a simple level of understanding regarding mental states or am I misunderstanding that as well? If you do then why aren’t we discussing that? I attempted to discus some of the problems associated with directly connecting synaptic current flow with mental state output. What you state regarding mental states has no depth. At least none that I am privileged to. James if you think my ideas are idiotic, than tell me about it. I want to hear where I’m wrong! I will thank you for it! But, I don’t think you have a clue about what you are attempting to talk about! I met my wife when I was a psych student. She went on to get her masters in it while I went into computer science. Mental states aren’t enough to explain animal behavior; they don’t go deep enough to reveal the symptomatic relevance they have with actual behavior. Mostly they are a product of behavior and not the root.

So far, I have introduced the concepts of homunculus ideas and how they are non-answers, implied that mental states might not explain behavior. I have spoke to emotion as a homeostatic currency. I have made an honest attempt to answer your statements regarding dualism. But what I get from you is less than understanding, a lot less! It wouldn’t be so bad if you would offer some sort of discussion about where I’ve gone wrong and you right. But that isn’t what I get. You seem contemptuous to me. I am here to build something and I am hopping to find others that share this direction. I might be the idiot as you suggest but I’m more than willing to be that without you! You seem to have nothing to offer that I can use. When the name calling is over and the dust has settled you will still be faced with the problems that I have pointed out and that’s not going to make you look very bright.

Then again, it should be the group that concerns me. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of this discussion board. I think my misunderstanding is regarding the word “discussion” in the name. Perhaps it should be called the agreement board. . If it were changed, I’m sure that James and those like him would receive discussion at a higher intellectual level. One more suited to their the reason for the discussion in the first place. Whatever that is!

Are the idiots (including me) taking over this group? If so than help us help you who don’t have this blatant lack of understanding. I have no interest in wasting my time here in discussion that leads nowhere. I have this illusion that discussion can clear the air but it will only happen if discussion actually takes place. Or are those here only interested in what they can take from this group and therefore have nothing to offer. Not even agreement! If this is the case than this is a very sad place indeed. I would compare it with the same kind of stimulation available at a cemetery! You can talk to the dead but if you get anything back, I can guarantee it’s an illusion!

Lex Ricketts