For those people listening to this and not understanding any of it because you are in your first philosophy class where this is mentioned. Here is the simple mind-body problem to get you started Dualists think existence is made of two substances, one material (think your body, trees, your pens and phone) and the other immaterial (think of things you can’t touch, or observe or measure/weigh like a thought, or a soul, but some people include things like math, you can’t physically touch 2+2 = 4.) Dualist call the immaterial substance: Mind. And the material substance is called : Body Okay so two substances. Now consider that if this is true then you are made of these two substances. For instance let’s say your thoughts and your body. The mind-body problem is this “Well wait how does an immaterial thing, interact with a material thing?” When I have a thought or if I had a soul, where/how does that animate my body? And the problem is there isn’t a good answer. Partly because we have never found the place where the immaterial and material interact. And partly because if they did, well wouldn’t that mean that the immaterial thing is just another material thing?
[infinity and zero, theology, soul]: in·fin·i·ty MATHEMATICS a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞). (In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects). What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary? a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity. b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers. Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)? Well, 0D is outside of space and time: 0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless 1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions 4D (natural) = temporal dimension Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language. Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1. Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them. In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension). "Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)". A) The postulated soul, 👻, has 1. no spatial extension 2. zero size 3. exact location only B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension. Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
Addressing your last sentence - consider the analogy/metaphor where the material/physical is a simulation and the immaterial/nonphysical is in the realm of the simulator, then we can easily see that the nonphysical can interact with the physical just as a simulator can interact with a simulation. Then the immaterial thing doesn't have to be a material thing in order to interact with material. Regard this as a starting point for considering how such a situation might be possible for the real physical case.
The material thing can only exist because of the immaterial thing, without experience there is no biology, and material phenomena cannot generate immaterial phenomena. So the awnser must be extraordinary, because of the nature of minds. I think that the body causes the mind and the mind affects indeterminally the body, this perfectly explains the uncertainty principle.
@@ianwaltham1854 It has it's own problems though. If conscious experience defines reality, how is it that our conscious experiences can prove to be unreliable? We perceive illusions that vary from what we discover on investigation. If there is no objective reality, separate from experience, what is it that these experiences are varying from?
Love ❤️ your passion💫 Thank you for sharing these stimulating talks with us all. We are so grateful to you and your drive in taking us on this wonderful voyage. ❤️ 🙏
A professor of philosophy (Guest) probably venturing into areas of neuroscience and psychology (Mr Robert). How right is this or no issue for debating mind-body problem. Mr Robert is competent enough to handle this. If you can kindly comment on this. Thanks
In the 13th century Yunus Emre states that in his poem as "There's an I, inside of I." "Yunus Emre also known as Derviş Yûnus was a Turkish folk poet and Sufi who greatly influenced Turkish culture. He wrote in Old Anatolian Turkish. His name, Yûnus, is the Arabic equivalent to the English name Jonah."
There is one component of both the body and mind that is always on the scene and that is "life". Neither mind nor body can objectively exist or be viewed independent of the entire living organism. Also included in the "living" package is consciousness and creativity though perhaps you are rolling that into your notion of a mind.
Why is this even a question after all the research that has been done? The purpose of all life is to make more of itself. To that end, every living thing is motivated to do what is necessary to achieve that goal. And evolution favoring the fittest, ensures the weaker will fall by the wayside. So there are two components to the brain. The primitive side, that has hardwired in the motivations and the processing side that attempts to satisfy the motivational side. So what are the motivations in support of survival of the species? Survival of the individual, survival of the mate, survival of the offspring. For the individual to survive food, clothing and shelter are required. Then finding a mate and producing offspring and keeping them alive. Take one example, food. Your body tells you when it is hungry. When it does, the processing side brings up memories of where food is available. It could be the fridge, it could be berries in a field, it could be an animal still walking around. The processing part then has to work out how hungry am I, what is my body telling me I need to eat, and where is the most likely place to get food. Everything every living being does is in support of survival of the species. And one other thing, boredom. The processing part of the brain needs to be processing all the time. It will come up with ideas of what to do once the basic needs are met. So first on the priority scale is the individual. Because the individual can find another mate and produce more offspring. Then the mate and offspring. Then the tribe, then the species.
Nice hypothesis. You might like Platonics. When survival is sought out and had, then realization of well-being occurs, which too, was of survival to a degree, but now on a spiritual level; can only be focused on fully when survival is no longer the focus. What is well-being. What is this good, what is this state - when sought out the life style of philosophy is acknowledged.
@@S3RAVA3LM You are right. Once needs are met, the idle mind looks for what to do next. Hopefully, it is something that will enhance species survival in one way or another.
Interesting. Individuals are rational and conscious but limited in time. At the same time individuals have an instinctive part that is eternal, irrational and powerful. When you see a person you are tempted to see an integrated unit, but in the same package you find rational and irrational forces, as well as a transient component besides an eternal one. Once you understand this things become clearer.
I've had many Out of Body Experiences (Without taking drugs I might add) and I am pretty convinced my mind was NOT inside my body. I was able to travel to a location and see things which I could later prove accurate. So my gut feeling is the mind and consciousness are separate entities from the body. I don't know how it works and was once skeptical of this until it happened to me.
It's so strange that these guys will mention organic matter and refuse to consider that organic matter is alive, and that's why it can have a phenomenal experience. They are so committed to "life is just chemistry" that they don't even have to say it out loud. The issue isn't what the computer is made out of, the issue is that the computer is dead, and dead things don't have experiences.
@@ianwaltham1854 That's a deep question. I would start with wondering if viruses or even prions are alive. Since I don't have an answer for anything below a living cell, I stick with that. I know a cell is alive, it has experiences and has a level of awareness of its immediate surroundings. Nature builds on that basic awareness, adding better perception, memory and cognition until you get to us. In this way of looking at things, there really isn't a need for a separate category called consciousness.
@@maxmudita5622 I think they are still fighting against the Vitalists. I get recommended videos from the Discovery Institute occasionally, and I'm pretty sure they are still pushing Intelligent Design, so any opening will be exploited.
Could you do some talks about how thoughts that are feelings typically feel located in the chest, ie heart and why evolution would make that the location for feelings rather than in the brain or head? Thank you.
Strong emotional responses are often associated with the release of hormones such as adrenaline. These have physiological effects which we can feel in our bodies.
I guess it's an overview of the question. I missed if there was an answer out forth. Usually these videos are beyond my ability to process the discussion into something I will say such as wow . Today I said huh.
The question was what is the problem? I think he did a really good job of explaining what the problem is, and a few ways people have tried to solve it.
None of his later discussion got away from the fact that dualist 'thinking stuff' must still interact causally with the brain in order to make a difference in the world. The brain activity associated with consciousness occurs across broad regions of the brain and recruit many millions of neurons. Conscious activity seems to integrate information from various regions of the brain and co-ordinate their activity so this is not a small local effect. It seem that to participate in that, this other stuff would have to be part of this process in order to generate experience encompassing sensory stimuli, body awareness, linguistic cognition, and motor functions from all these different brain regions. If it's not causally contiguous with, and constantly interacting with these areas it's difficult to see how it could operate. Yet we observe no such causal interaction interfering in biology, so far anyway. Even if it is there, if it's interacting with the physical causally, in what way is it non-physical? Non-physical is a statement about what it isn't, not what it is. If physical stuff can't transition between different conscious experiences, what is it about this other stuff that means that it can? It doesn't really seem to address the question. If we can simply define a stuff that can be conscious, why do we get to define that physical stuff can't? I don't really see a justification for that. Something is making consciousness happen, and we can see that physical stuff is there doing things, and we don't see anything else. That doesn't prove that physicalism is correct. The question may not be provable either way. There may be ways in theory, I have some ideas on that, but I don't think it's likely to be achievable in practice. However substance dualism just seems to raise a lot more questions with actually furnishing any answers.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. Feelings are about something which makes them information, and information is a physical Phenomenon. That’s why we can have information technology, we can engineer it because it exists are physical representations and is transformed by physical processes. I think panpsychists are partially right, consciousness is a phenomenon of attributes of the physical, but that attribute is information. It’s just that it isn’t itself consciousness, but consciousness is one of its possible expressions, as are logic, mathematics and computation. All of the attributes of consciousness also seem to be informational. Sense information, memories, decision making, even self referentiality and recursion. Are there any that aren’t informational?
If you thought of the brain as a simulation you would have no difficulty seeing how the simulator could 'integrate information from various regions of the brain' and be 'causally contiguous with, and constantly interacting with these areas', but that wouldn't be evident from inside the simulation. Whatever does that in the realm of the simulator is not made of the same stuff as the realm of the simulation per se, yet can interact with it. Then that metaphor is a starting point for considering how there might be causal interaction between physical and non-physical, in terms of integrative dualism combined with integrative theism. What is the nonphysical? - well what is the physical essentially, rather than descriptively of what it does? Our only way of reproducing a physical world is through information in a simulation; the obverse of the physical as our only way to reproduce information. But our consciousness is OF information, so it it is quite unclear how it could be information or physical. Our phenomenal conscious experience necessitates dualism while there remains no viable account of how it is physical.
@@HighPeakVideo >”Our phenomenal conscious experience necessitates dualism” I think it necessitates explanation. There’s a missing piece yo the puzzle, but it’s not necessarily a substance. It could be a fundamental property, or it could be a behaviour, or it could be an emergent property. I just don’t see how dualisms as offered solve the problem though. Physicalism has one explanatory gap. How do recursive, self referential informational processes reflecting on their own functions and state manifest first person conscious experience. Dualism has several explanatory gaps. (1) How does non physical stuff causally interact with physical stuff without itself being physical? (2) What properties does it have beyond those of physical stuff? After all non physical is a statement about what it isn’t, not a statement about what it is. (3) What processes does it have beyond those of physical stuff that enable it to manifest conscious experiences? Maybe there are answers to those, but none of the versions of dualism Ive investigated, property dualism, Cartesian dualism, bundle theory, identity theory, etc, offer such an explanation. So I don’t think it’s possible to rule out dualism with the information we have, however I don’t think any of the versions of dualism I’m aware of (and I’ve read the SEP articles in this extensively) show what explanatory power dualism offers, while also leaving open some major additional questions that it raises. >”Our consciousness if OF information, so it’s quite unclear how it could be information or physical.” That is a very common misunderstanding of the physicalist claim. If you’re going to argue against physicalism you need to address the actual claim. I don’t think consciousness is information, it’s a process of information. An engine is an object, but the running of an engine isn’t an object. A computer and its software are objects, but the running of a program isn’t an object. These are processes objects perform. Processes and events are ontologically distinct from the objects they are associated with. Similarly I think consciousness is a process on information, but it’s not itself information in the sense of a statement you could write down or encode, anymore than a storm is. I think it should be clear how a process on information can be OF information without itself being information. Actually this is another issue I have with dualism. The claim is that consciousness IS a kind of stuff. However consciousness is constantly changing, perpetually transitioning from state to state in highly complex ways. Surely that seems to make it more like an activity of a stuff, not itself a stuff?
@@simonhibbs887 Extend your quoting of me: 'phenomenal conscious experience necessitates dualism *while there remains no viable account of how it is physical*'. So in the absence of physicalist explanation (or elimination) there is necessarily a dualism of consciousness and the physical. That could be versions of property dualism / dual aspect theory or emergent dualism, but on supervenience analysis these are implausible, epiphenomenal or degenerate into physicalism; such that full dualism is entailed. In this way dualism simply arises, rather than being adopted for its explanatory value; though I think it does have some of that in conjunction with theism, particularly in regard to the difficult question of how functional meaning is interpreted into unitary consciously perceived meaning. 'How does non physical stuff causally interact with physical stuff without itself being physical?' Could simply ask why only physical stuff can interact with physical stuff - what is the logical necessity of that? However, I have already gone beyond that and provided a certain level of explanation for how nonphysical could interact with physical using the analogy of the physical being simulated or realised by the nonphysical. I have mentioned this idea previously, and wonder why there is such continued regard for the issue of causal interaction, except it has a long tradition as the key physicalist objection to dualism, regardless of whether it is valid. 'What properties does it [non physical stuff ] have beyond those of physical stuff?' - for the purposes here, it is sufficient to propose only a metaphysically simple entity with the property of consciousness. Since it has no parts there are no constituent processes to its fundamental properties, though there may be processes of interaction. Integrative dualism is not committed to your description that 'consciousness IS a kind of stuff', rather consciousness is a property of an entity, which continues to exist when unconscious. Expanding and clarifying my original statement: Our consciousness is OF information and its processes, so it is quite unclear how it could actually be physical information or information processes. It is wholly unclear how 'recursive, self referential informational processes reflecting on their own functions and state manifest first person conscious experience'. This seems to amount to vaguely jiggling the information around enough so that it becomes mysterious, as a supposed explanation of the mystery of consciousness. Of course many proposed explanations (dualism, panpsychism, quantum superposition, etc) are variously mysterious!
Matter and Energy are both incorporated within 'materialism'. There are many lines of evidence that indicate only a low weight must be assigned to the consequential activity of the immaterial, or to influential activity that may extend from a realm beyond space, matter, and energy. Such an event is not even a consideration, let alone a determined factor given weight when examining other consistently observable phenomenon. I would take it is a clue, that as the immaterial is not factored into commercial planning, legal decision making, or scientific examination in general, it should not become a preoccupation during the examination of consciousness. There are more obvious paths yet to be examined.
Just because brain is located near the eyes, where we really perceive events most purpose relevantly, there is no need whatsoever to assume it to be the seat of cosciousness and memory. They both could very well be an interactive PROCESS with the environment, while brain itself is the location where samples of the displaced substances to be detraced from inside the earth are stored as task for the individual being to get rid of. Memories themselves could very well be located inside the earth accessible as CONSCIOUSNESS when proper detracement portion from the stored junk, we call the brain, reaches the relevant location where it should be inside the earth ~ corresponding to the PLEASURE sensation (an interactive event with the interior of the earth through plants to which beings exhale air, and the soil to which they release other excreta). All 100% tangible material events. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the physical possibility of such instant interaction with interior of the earth as the maximum possible distance to cover (the center of the earth from any location on its surface) is much less than half the distance of a phone call from Singapore to Florida. This understanding would pave the way to derive the mathematical model of the mechanism how the sources of all evil can be traced and rearranged, while they are still inside the earth, in order to PREVENT them from reaching the surface of the earth to harm beings. Intentional and phenomenal events Dean separates correspond to events on plants due to sources of particles inside the earth and outside of it, accordingly. The former require differentiation to detrace negative, while the latter integration to perpetuate positive (the words "positive" and "negative", thereby, meant in the layperson's sense and NOT in the various self contradicting meanings science and mathematics assign to them).
So, when we ask, what is the mind brain problem, are we saying that it is the brain that is in confusion about this? If so, then would that mean it is influenced by ignorance. If so, what is producing the ignorance?
maybe substance dualism from infinite time (consciousness) and infinitesimal time (physical matter)? how might physical brain interact with infinite time?
Both monoism sciences - mind or consciousness worlds - either materialism or idealism science - are working in circular logic. Each working in their own world. Of course it looks like working without a gap problem like dualism/duality world because everytime there is problem each model will retreat to respective world as the root of their epistemology. But the true reality is that each of them is circulating in their own vicious circle: emergence within respective world denies/deludes the existence problem of a gap between material and non- material world.
The digital computer model of life, that a 1 and zero switch when built up in complexity allows consciousness to emerge, lacks dimension like flat earth perspective. Each cell in the body contains the hardware and software to build itself up from its fractal quantum volition architecture.
Just study zero vs nonzero numbers. Zero is not-natural and locally real. Nonzero numbers are natural and not locally real. 0D (not-natural/ectropy) = dimensionless and timeless 1D, 2D, 3D (natural/entropy) = spatial dimensions 4D (natural/entropy) = temporal dimension
[infinity and zero, theology, soul]: in·fin·i·ty MATHEMATICS a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞). (In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects). What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary? a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity. b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers. Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)? Well, 0D is outside of space and time: 0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless 1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions 4D (natural) = temporal dimension Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language. Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1. Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them. In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension). "Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)". A) The postulated soul, 👻, has 1. no spatial extension 2. zero size 3. exact location only B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension. Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
That one is easy. Software is hardware. It's a physical phenomenon, usually in the form of patterns of electrical charges in computer memory, but sometimes holes burned into the reflective layers of a CD, patterns of magnetism on tapes, etc.
@@tedgrant2 At a deep philosophical level no. Consider the history of programmable systems. The first such were Jaquard Looms which used a card with punched holes to change the operation of the loom. Various parts of the loom interacted with the holes to control what it did so that it produced a particular pattern. However the punched card was physically part of the loom, the loom couldn't oeperate without it. Mechanically it's just another component of the system. However it's a component that could easily be swapped out for a slightly different one to easily change the behaviour of the loom. Still, philosophically is there any real difference between one of these cards and a gear, or lever, or sprocket? Yet the card, or at least the pattern of holes on it, is clearly what we would today call 'software'. The pattern of electrical charges, or absence of charges, trapped in transistors in a computer memory are the modern equivalent of the pattern of holes, or absence of holes, on those punched cards. Obviously form an engineering and practical point of view there's a huge difference, but those differences are mostly to do with speed and convenience, not the philosophical interpretation of the nature of the physical. Electrical charges are still clearly physical.
The mind-brain(body) problem, Mr. Kuhn clearifies. This question, but really, it's an inquiry that requisites one meets certain thresholds for the unfolding of light in realization. Without the apprehension of soul and what this entails, one will not be leaving the revolving door of the alleged premise of the problem - i assume such men are just too proud to come to realize the way their minds work isn't how 'all of this' works. Every form, idea, thought, nature(s), imagination, vision, relation, contingents, effects, accidents, illusions; these have not simply arisen by themselves, from themselves, inside themselves. These do not 'relate' to each other by themselves as if they choose to; there isn't attraction or repulsion by these things as if they choose this by themselves. Things don't just fit because they choose to make it fit; nor are discrepancies a self-motive action by things themselves. On the individual level, the soul is twofold; the lower part in the phenomena plane known as the irrational aspect, the animal, and the higher part in the intelligible known as the rational aspect of soul, that of intellect, the divine aspect. Matter is a mirror, and such forms are the intelligible reflections captured in the mirror so cloaking the forms. Nothing has arisen by itself or from the material aspect of phenomena. Such a man who hasn't the courage to acknowledge soul and 'the one' will not be making any real progress - and that's what these academicians prefer, because of concient. 'They're just too smart and right, to acknowledge what they're incapable of comprehending'. It's very difficult to overcome the mind.
@@Bill..N no, it does. Because the mind has to be overcome before any real progress is made. You think you're strong because you don't only believe without question like some religions do. The fact is, 'there can be no other way'. First, explicate your model of how you think things work, and start from there - hypothesis.
@S3RAVA3LM Respectfully, it is YOU who "believe without question" because MY opinions are NOT locked in and can change if new evidence emerges.. THAT is how scientific discovery works... Contrast that against how religious beliefs work, and one can immediately see the difference...
I have had some very extraordinary experiences that are the primary reasons for me having any interest in theoretical physics and the philosophies of physics. Occasionally some of these P.H.D. wielding thinkers, through some sort of attempt to aggregate the literature, would seem to have almost forged a little artificial experience of their own somewhere in their imaginations.
@David.C.Velasquez They are making a conscious driven effort to think their way through some set of ideas. They have created the experience; I simply had the experience.
@@wagfinpis Any reason to gain interest in theoretical physics and philosophy, is a good one. Would you happen to be speaking of the psychedelic experience? If so, I can highly identify with that aspect.
@@wagfinpis Very interesting! I believe any evidence, even anecdotal, is worthy of consideration with this subject. It is simultaneously in the realms of physics, biochemistry, metaphysics, and philosophy, with no definitive answer in sight. In my case, dream states are most informative from a subjective point of view. I have learned from an early age, to supress the mental filters blocking or blurring 'dream imagery' in memory, for lack of a better term. It seems the mind/brain tends to rebuild a dream memory, upon recall, with imagery/information native to this human world. I realize that human vocabulary falls short, in expressing such abstract concepts, so read 'with a grain of salt' as it were.
Brain is the triggering point of mind and body, THE record writer is consciousness for future emergencies to react , every happening is like a blockchain , any & EVERY moment is recorded in 3 places MINIMUM in existence , brain , mind and SELF consciousness , that's the reason you can't cheat the system for long , blocking the mind creates duality by any stuff , meditation, external substance , body alignment YOGA or intellectual understanding is the transformation process , but all have some side effects, meditation is the best & easy way to creates duality without any side effects , OYE TRY TO LEARN & UNDERSTAND TRUE GOD THE REALITY WITH ALL YOUR OYO ,O RA RA RAY RAY O 💔🧘🙏
@@fractal_gate In the visual cortex at the back of your skull. Colors are part of the cognitive consciousness that evolved right along with the sense of self. The evolutionary advantages of these characteristics for an organism to have are plain and obvious.
Good video.. There are many things to agree with here, SOME to disagree with.. I believe all "mental states" are physical states.. Whether one is imagining things that don't exist OR appreciating art. No immaterial influences are involved..Mind/body problem? IT doesn't exist. Dualism in general? Doesn't exist.. One opinion, peace.
@@Bill..N Actually, I was just emulating your one word "NO" responses to other comments, but for an example, what could be physical about the empty room in a house, in a dream I once had? Given that the recall of the memory is a physical state, but what of the entity of the room itself?... and random 'brain noise' is only an acceptable answer, for the most basic of intellects. If you've ever had a dream, with a life, possibly a wife, different from this life but maybe similarity, feel so 'real' that one could almost weep at the loss upon waking... you'd understand my point.
@David.C.Velasquez Thank you for your response.. Although I think dreams are a side bar, the underlying mechanisms are precisely the same. ALL thoughts are the conduction of elementary particles and chemical elements with the brain, no? Primarily, the brain is powered by the directed movement of electrons (electricity).. You ask how random thoughts or your imagination fits into this view. It is the brain DECODING the physical information flowing to it from particles and chemicals, both within the brain and nearby environment..
@@Bill..N I will agree that your explanation of the mechanisms of the brain are valid at a crude level, but the fact that the storage process, and even the precise location of where memory is encoded still eludes us, means that much speculation remains unfounded... let alone any notion that the abstractions encoded therein, can be considered physical in any meaningful way. To do so, is to confuse the medium with the message, contrary to McLuhan's famous, but disciplinarily unrelated mantra. *spelling
What is guys solutions about mind and body? He shows nothing true evidence about mind body solutions. Guys mind body is It NOT philosophy proceendings. He doesnt knows How figure out mind body though philosophy process.
Kuhn didn’t ask him to propose his solution to the problem, just to lay out the possible theories around the topic. So yeah obviously he didn’t argue for what he thought the solution was.
@@Bill..N Well first of all I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to the OP of this comment, so I don’t know why you’re asking me. Anyhow, I do think the mind-body problem exists because there’s a lot about consciousness we don’t understand including the so-called hard problem of consciousness. I don’t think it’s likely that dualism is the answer, but I don’t think it’s a solved problem; philosophy of mind is hugely up for debate at the moment and it will only be more relevant over time as we continue to push AI technology and see what comes of it.
If one pursues the subject from an "objective" premise/point of view, there is not real "mind/body problem". Just look at the evidence is all that's needed. Moving on from there it is VERY apparent that Mind does not exist separately from Body. So... where's the problem? Kuhn seems unnecessarily perplexed with something mundane. That mind proceeds from body. What the exact mechanism is may not be completely understood but it's obvious the two are intimately linked, that mind emerges from body. It's "unscientific" to posit there is anything else to mind. And conclusions that terminate with there being a god or disembodied intellect is dubious at best. Every other aspect of human life is geared toward and anchored in the physical world. We are part of nature whether we like it or not. Acknowledging the obvious is a fundamental aspect of surviving the real world. There is NO POINT whatsoever in pursuing mysticism, the supernatural, etc. unless of course one chooses to view it as a form of entertainment.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
For those people listening to this and not understanding any of it because you are in your first philosophy class where this is mentioned. Here is the simple mind-body problem to get you started
Dualists think existence is made of two substances, one material (think your body, trees, your pens and phone) and the other immaterial (think of things you can’t touch, or observe or measure/weigh like a thought, or a soul, but some people include things like math, you can’t physically touch 2+2 = 4.) Dualist call the immaterial substance: Mind. And the material substance is called : Body
Okay so two substances. Now consider that if this is true then you are made of these two substances. For instance let’s say your thoughts and your body. The mind-body problem is this “Well wait how does an immaterial thing, interact with a material thing?” When I have a thought or if I had a soul, where/how does that animate my body?
And the problem is there isn’t a good answer.
Partly because we have never found the place where the immaterial and material interact. And partly because if they did, well wouldn’t that mean that the immaterial thing is just another material thing?
Thats why conscious fundamentalism works better where mind creates world.
[infinity and zero, theology, soul]:
in·fin·i·ty
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
(In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects).
What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary?
a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.
b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers.
Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it.
Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.
Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)?
Well, 0D is outside of space and time:
0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless
1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions
4D (natural) = temporal dimension
Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language.
Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1.
Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them.
In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension).
"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".
A) The postulated soul, 👻, has
1. no spatial extension
2. zero size
3. exact location only
B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension.
Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
Addressing your last sentence - consider the analogy/metaphor where the material/physical is a simulation and the immaterial/nonphysical is in the realm of the simulator, then we can easily see that the nonphysical can interact with the physical just as a simulator can interact with a simulation. Then the immaterial thing doesn't have to be a material thing in order to interact with material. Regard this as a starting point for considering how such a situation might be possible for the real physical case.
The material thing can only exist because of the immaterial thing, without experience there is no biology, and material phenomena cannot generate immaterial phenomena.
So the awnser must be extraordinary, because of the nature of minds. I think that the body causes the mind and the mind affects indeterminally the body, this perfectly explains the uncertainty principle.
@@ianwaltham1854 It has it's own problems though. If conscious experience defines reality, how is it that our conscious experiences can prove to be unreliable? We perceive illusions that vary from what we discover on investigation. If there is no objective reality, separate from experience, what is it that these experiences are varying from?
Love ❤️ your passion💫
Thank you for sharing these stimulating talks with us all.
We are so grateful to you and your drive in taking us on this wonderful voyage. ❤️ 🙏
Good to see young boy making worthy research of a very difficult subject.
Isn't "thinking" a phenominal state of it's own? Isn't it a sense of being, reflected as an intrinsically internal process?
No.
A professor of philosophy (Guest) probably venturing into areas of neuroscience and psychology (Mr Robert). How right is this or no issue for debating mind-body problem. Mr Robert is competent enough to handle this. If you can kindly comment on this. Thanks
In the 13th century Yunus Emre states that in his poem as "There's an I, inside of I."
"Yunus Emre also known as Derviş Yûnus was a Turkish folk poet and Sufi who greatly influenced Turkish culture. He wrote in Old Anatolian Turkish. His name, Yûnus, is the Arabic equivalent to the English name Jonah."
The illusion created by thought is trying to figure out all the problems its existence creates.
True. But you got a better idea?
If it's an illusion, who is having that illusion?
@@Izquierda The experiencer IS the illusion.
@@courrierdebois But who is having/experiencing this illusion that is itself the experiencer?
@@Izquierda The who is the experiencer, the illusion.
There is one component of both the body and mind that is always on the scene and that is "life". Neither mind nor body can objectively exist or be viewed independent of the entire living organism. Also included in the "living" package is consciousness and creativity though perhaps you are rolling that into your notion of a mind.
Why is this even a question after all the research that has been done? The purpose of all life is to make more of itself. To that end, every living thing is motivated to do what is necessary to achieve that goal. And evolution favoring the fittest, ensures the weaker will fall by the wayside. So there are two components to the brain. The primitive side, that has hardwired in the motivations and the processing side that attempts to satisfy the motivational side.
So what are the motivations in support of survival of the species? Survival of the individual, survival of the mate, survival of the offspring. For the individual to survive food, clothing and shelter are required. Then finding a mate and producing offspring and keeping them alive.
Take one example, food. Your body tells you when it is hungry. When it does, the processing side brings up memories of where food is available. It could be the fridge, it could be berries in a field, it could be an animal still walking around. The processing part then has to work out how hungry am I, what is my body telling me I need to eat, and where is the most likely place to get food.
Everything every living being does is in support of survival of the species. And one other thing, boredom. The processing part of the brain needs to be processing all the time. It will come up with ideas of what to do once the basic needs are met.
So first on the priority scale is the individual. Because the individual can find another mate and produce more offspring. Then the mate and offspring. Then the tribe, then the species.
Nice hypothesis. You might like Platonics.
When survival is sought out and had, then realization of well-being occurs, which too, was of survival to a degree, but now on a spiritual level; can only be focused on fully when survival is no longer the focus. What is well-being. What is this good, what is this state - when sought out the life style of philosophy is acknowledged.
@@S3RAVA3LM You are right. Once needs are met, the idle mind looks for what to do next. Hopefully, it is something that will enhance species survival in one way or another.
Interesting. Individuals are rational and conscious but limited in time. At the same time individuals have an instinctive part that is eternal, irrational and powerful. When you see a person you are tempted to see an integrated unit, but in the same package you find rational and irrational forces, as well as a transient component besides an eternal one. Once you understand this things become clearer.
I've had many Out of Body Experiences (Without taking drugs I might add) and I am pretty convinced my mind was NOT inside my body. I was able to travel to a location and see things which I could later prove accurate. So my gut feeling is the mind and consciousness are separate entities from the body. I don't know how it works and was once skeptical of this until it happened to me.
Funny how when this is tested, to see if subjects actually can see things they otherwise couldn't, it never works.
It's so strange that these guys will mention organic matter and refuse to consider that organic matter is alive, and that's why it can have a phenomenal experience. They are so committed to "life is just chemistry" that they don't even have to say it out loud. The issue isn't what the computer is made out of, the issue is that the computer is dead, and dead things don't have experiences.
It's their metaphysical commitment
I can appreciate your point, but where then, is the line to be drawn? Is a benzene ring alive?... or even a protein molecule?
@@David.C.VelasquezNo, consciousness is life and these bodies are forms of life.
@@ianwaltham1854 That's a deep question. I would start with wondering if viruses or even prions are alive. Since I don't have an answer for anything below a living cell, I stick with that. I know a cell is alive, it has experiences and has a level of awareness of its immediate surroundings. Nature builds on that basic awareness, adding better perception, memory and cognition until you get to us. In this way of looking at things, there really isn't a need for a separate category called consciousness.
@@maxmudita5622 I think they are still fighting against the Vitalists. I get recommended videos from the Discovery Institute occasionally, and I'm pretty sure they are still pushing Intelligent Design, so any opening will be exploited.
There is no problem; the problem is only in our heads. 😅
Yes, it is difficult to discuss these distinctions in a fruitful or persuasive manner. The insufficiency of language is only a part of the problem.
Could you do some talks about how thoughts that are feelings typically feel located in the chest, ie heart and why evolution would make that the location for feelings rather than in the brain or head? Thank you.
Strong emotional responses are often associated with the release of hormones such as adrenaline. These have physiological effects which we can feel in our bodies.
Mint tea is the answer - calming and a great cure for trapped wind. Senna tea for constipation
I guess it's an overview of the question.
I missed if there was an answer out forth.
Usually these videos are beyond my ability to process the discussion into something I will say such as wow . Today I said huh.
The question was what is the problem? I think he did a really good job of explaining what the problem is, and a few ways people have tried to solve it.
None of his later discussion got away from the fact that dualist 'thinking stuff' must still interact causally with the brain in order to make a difference in the world. The brain activity associated with consciousness occurs across broad regions of the brain and recruit many millions of neurons. Conscious activity seems to integrate information from various regions of the brain and co-ordinate their activity so this is not a small local effect. It seem that to participate in that, this other stuff would have to be part of this process in order to generate experience encompassing sensory stimuli, body awareness, linguistic cognition, and motor functions from all these different brain regions. If it's not causally contiguous with, and constantly interacting with these areas it's difficult to see how it could operate. Yet we observe no such causal interaction interfering in biology, so far anyway.
Even if it is there, if it's interacting with the physical causally, in what way is it non-physical? Non-physical is a statement about what it isn't, not what it is. If physical stuff can't transition between different conscious experiences, what is it about this other stuff that means that it can? It doesn't really seem to address the question. If we can simply define a stuff that can be conscious, why do we get to define that physical stuff can't? I don't really see a justification for that. Something is making consciousness happen, and we can see that physical stuff is there doing things, and we don't see anything else.
That doesn't prove that physicalism is correct. The question may not be provable either way. There may be ways in theory, I have some ideas on that, but I don't think it's likely to be achievable in practice. However substance dualism just seems to raise a lot more questions with actually furnishing any answers.
Emotions and feelings ARE physical friend..@@offtheradarsomewhere.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. Feelings are about something which makes them information, and information is a physical
Phenomenon. That’s why we can have information technology, we can engineer it because it exists are physical representations and is transformed by physical processes.
I think panpsychists are partially right, consciousness is a phenomenon of attributes of the physical, but that attribute is information. It’s just that it isn’t itself consciousness, but consciousness is one of its possible expressions, as are logic, mathematics and computation.
All of the attributes of consciousness also seem to be informational. Sense information, memories, decision making, even self referentiality and recursion. Are there any that aren’t informational?
If you thought of the brain as a simulation you would have no difficulty seeing how the simulator could 'integrate information from various regions of the brain' and be 'causally contiguous with, and constantly interacting with these areas', but that wouldn't be evident from inside the simulation. Whatever does that in the realm of the simulator is not made of the same stuff as the realm of the simulation per se, yet can interact with it. Then that metaphor is a starting point for considering how there might be causal interaction between physical and non-physical, in terms of integrative dualism combined with integrative theism.
What is the nonphysical? - well what is the physical essentially, rather than descriptively of what it does? Our only way of reproducing a physical world is through information in a simulation; the obverse of the physical as our only way to reproduce information. But our consciousness is OF information, so it it is quite unclear how it could be information or physical. Our phenomenal conscious experience necessitates dualism while there remains no viable account of how it is physical.
@@HighPeakVideo >”Our phenomenal conscious experience necessitates dualism”
I think it necessitates explanation. There’s a missing piece yo the puzzle, but it’s not necessarily a substance. It could be a fundamental property, or it could be a behaviour, or it could be an emergent property. I just don’t see how dualisms as offered solve the problem though. Physicalism has one explanatory gap. How do recursive, self referential informational processes reflecting on their own functions and state manifest first person conscious experience.
Dualism has several explanatory gaps. (1) How does non physical stuff causally interact with physical stuff without itself being physical? (2) What properties does it have beyond those of physical stuff? After all non physical is a statement about what it isn’t, not a statement about what it is. (3) What processes does it have beyond those of physical stuff that enable it to manifest conscious experiences?
Maybe there are answers to those, but none of the versions of dualism Ive investigated, property dualism, Cartesian dualism, bundle theory, identity theory, etc, offer such an explanation. So I don’t think it’s possible to rule out dualism with the information we have, however I don’t think any of the versions of dualism I’m aware of (and I’ve read the SEP articles in this extensively) show what explanatory power dualism offers, while also leaving open some major additional questions that it raises.
>”Our consciousness if OF information, so it’s quite unclear how it could be information or physical.”
That is a very common misunderstanding of the physicalist claim. If you’re going to argue against physicalism you need to address the actual claim. I don’t think consciousness is information, it’s a process of information. An engine is an object, but the running of an engine isn’t an object. A computer and its software are objects, but the running of a program isn’t an object. These are processes objects perform. Processes and events are ontologically distinct from the objects they are associated with. Similarly I think consciousness is a process on information, but it’s not itself information in the sense of a statement you could write down or encode, anymore than a storm is. I think it should be clear how a process on information can be OF information without itself being information.
Actually this is another issue I have with dualism. The claim is that consciousness IS a kind of stuff. However consciousness is constantly changing, perpetually transitioning from state to state in highly complex ways. Surely that seems to make it more like an activity of a stuff, not itself a stuff?
@@simonhibbs887 Extend your quoting of me: 'phenomenal conscious experience necessitates dualism *while there remains no viable account of how it is physical*'. So in the absence of physicalist explanation (or elimination) there is necessarily a dualism of consciousness and the physical. That could be versions of property dualism / dual aspect theory or emergent dualism, but on supervenience analysis these are implausible, epiphenomenal or degenerate into physicalism; such that full dualism is entailed. In this way dualism simply arises, rather than being adopted for its explanatory value; though I think it does have some of that in conjunction with theism, particularly in regard to the difficult question of how functional meaning is interpreted into unitary consciously perceived meaning.
'How does non physical stuff causally interact with physical stuff without itself being physical?' Could simply ask why only physical stuff can interact with physical stuff - what is the logical necessity of that? However, I have already gone beyond that and provided a certain level of explanation for how nonphysical could interact with physical using the analogy of the physical being simulated or realised by the nonphysical. I have mentioned this idea previously, and wonder why there is such continued regard for the issue of causal interaction, except it has a long tradition as the key physicalist objection to dualism, regardless of whether it is valid.
'What properties does it [non physical stuff ] have beyond those of physical stuff?' - for the purposes here, it is sufficient to propose only a metaphysically simple entity with the property of consciousness. Since it has no parts there are no constituent processes to its fundamental properties, though there may be processes of interaction. Integrative dualism is not committed to your description that 'consciousness IS a kind of stuff', rather consciousness is a property of an entity, which continues to exist when unconscious.
Expanding and clarifying my original statement: Our consciousness is OF information and its processes, so it is quite unclear how it could actually be physical information or information processes. It is wholly unclear how 'recursive, self referential informational processes reflecting on their own functions and state manifest first person conscious experience'. This seems to amount to vaguely jiggling the information around enough so that it becomes mysterious, as a supposed explanation of the mystery of consciousness. Of course many proposed explanations (dualism, panpsychism, quantum superposition, etc) are variously mysterious!
The gut microbiome is the real dark knight in this debate
My resident bacteria and viruses, etc... were just thinking the same thing.
The heart thinks too
Matter and Energy are both incorporated within 'materialism'.
There are many lines of evidence that indicate only a low weight must be assigned to the consequential activity of the immaterial, or to influential activity that may extend from a realm beyond space, matter, and energy. Such an event is not even a consideration, let alone a determined factor given weight when examining other consistently observable phenomenon.
I would take it is a clue, that as the immaterial is not factored into commercial planning, legal decision making, or scientific examination in general, it should not become a preoccupation during the examination of consciousness. There are more obvious paths yet to be examined.
Just because brain is located near the eyes, where we really perceive events most purpose relevantly, there is no need whatsoever to assume it to be the seat of cosciousness and memory.
They both could very well be an interactive PROCESS with the environment, while brain itself is the location where samples of the displaced substances to be detraced from inside the earth are stored as task for the individual being to get rid of.
Memories themselves could very well be located inside the earth accessible as CONSCIOUSNESS when proper detracement portion from the stored junk, we call the brain, reaches the relevant location where it should be inside the earth ~ corresponding to the PLEASURE sensation (an interactive event with the interior of the earth through plants to which beings exhale air, and the soil to which they release other excreta). All 100% tangible material events.
There is absolutely no reason to doubt the physical possibility of such instant interaction with interior of the earth as the maximum possible distance to cover (the center of the earth from any location on its surface) is much less than half the distance of a phone call from Singapore to Florida.
This understanding would pave the way to derive the mathematical model of the mechanism how the sources of all evil can be traced and rearranged, while they are still inside the earth, in order to PREVENT them from reaching the surface of the earth to harm beings.
Intentional and phenomenal events Dean separates correspond to events on plants due to sources of particles inside the earth and outside of it, accordingly.
The former require differentiation to detrace negative, while the latter integration to perpetuate positive (the words "positive" and "negative", thereby, meant in the layperson's sense and NOT in the various self contradicting meanings science and mathematics assign to them).
Mentally speaking I create problems then create solution
So, when we ask, what is the mind brain problem, are we saying that it is the brain that is in confusion about this? If so, then would that mean it is influenced by ignorance. If so, what is producing the ignorance?
maybe substance dualism from infinite time (consciousness) and infinitesimal time (physical matter)? how might physical brain interact with infinite time?
Both monoism sciences - mind or consciousness worlds - either materialism or idealism science - are working in circular logic. Each working in their own world. Of course it looks like working without a gap problem like dualism/duality world because everytime there is problem each model will retreat to respective world as the root of their epistemology. But the true reality is that each of them is circulating in their own vicious circle: emergence within respective world denies/deludes the existence problem of a gap between material and non- material world.
We can all agree that our thinking and subjective awareness is not at all due to our toenails? 😂😂😂
The mind body problem = wave particle duality in quantum physics
The engine of biology runs on mesoscopic microtubule networks of orchestrated momentum uncertainty.
The digital computer model of life, that a 1 and zero switch when built up in complexity allows consciousness to emerge, lacks dimension like flat earth perspective. Each cell in the body contains the hardware and software to build itself up from its fractal quantum volition architecture.
I exist in the mind of God
First, you have to have a mind.......
when body not do what mind wants it to do?
Navigation
Well, this episode was partially helpful! You got the mind problem nailed down solid. 🤣
Yea, but no..
I exist in the mind of God and live on earth the place between 2 different worlds distinct separation by good or evil. BATTER UP
No Body, Never Mind. 😂
Just study zero vs nonzero numbers.
Zero is not-natural and locally real.
Nonzero numbers are natural and not locally real.
0D (not-natural/ectropy) = dimensionless and timeless
1D, 2D, 3D (natural/entropy) = spatial dimensions
4D (natural/entropy) = temporal dimension
[infinity and zero, theology, soul]:
in·fin·i·ty
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
(In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects).
What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary?
a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.
b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers.
Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it.
Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.
Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)?
Well, 0D is outside of space and time:
0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless
1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions
4D (natural) = temporal dimension
Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language.
Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1.
Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them.
In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension).
"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".
A) The postulated soul, 👻, has
1. no spatial extension
2. zero size
3. exact location only
B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension.
Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
Resound deadspace.
What is the software-hardware problem ?
Philosophers have been pondering this question for months.
So far, they've made no progress at all. Useless.
That one is easy. Software is hardware. It's a physical phenomenon, usually in the form of patterns of electrical charges in computer memory, but sometimes holes burned into the reflective layers of a CD, patterns of magnetism on tapes, etc.
@@simonhibbs887
So there is no difference ?
@@tedgrant2 At a deep philosophical level no. Consider the history of programmable systems.
The first such were Jaquard Looms which used a card with punched holes to change the operation of the loom. Various parts of the loom interacted with the holes to control what it did so that it produced a particular pattern. However the punched card was physically part of the loom, the loom couldn't oeperate without it. Mechanically it's just another component of the system. However it's a component that could easily be swapped out for a slightly different one to easily change the behaviour of the loom. Still, philosophically is there any real difference between one of these cards and a gear, or lever, or sprocket? Yet the card, or at least the pattern of holes on it, is clearly what we would today call 'software'.
The pattern of electrical charges, or absence of charges, trapped in transistors in a computer memory are the modern equivalent of the pattern of holes, or absence of holes, on those punched cards.
Obviously form an engineering and practical point of view there's a huge difference, but those differences are mostly to do with speed and convenience, not the philosophical interpretation of the nature of the physical. Electrical charges are still clearly physical.
The mind-brain(body) problem, Mr. Kuhn clearifies.
This question, but really, it's an inquiry that requisites one meets certain thresholds for the unfolding of light in realization. Without the apprehension of soul and what this entails, one will not be leaving the revolving door of the alleged premise of the problem - i assume such men are just too proud to come to realize the way their minds work isn't how 'all of this' works.
Every form, idea, thought, nature(s), imagination, vision, relation, contingents, effects, accidents, illusions; these have not simply arisen by themselves, from themselves, inside themselves. These do not 'relate' to each other by themselves as if they choose to; there isn't attraction or repulsion by these things as if they choose this by themselves. Things don't just fit because they choose to make it fit; nor are discrepancies a self-motive action by things themselves.
On the individual level, the soul is twofold; the lower part in the phenomena plane known as the irrational aspect, the animal, and the higher part in the intelligible known as the rational aspect of soul, that of intellect, the divine aspect.
Matter is a mirror, and such forms are the intelligible reflections captured in the mirror so cloaking the forms. Nothing has arisen by itself or from the material aspect of phenomena.
Such a man who hasn't the courage to acknowledge soul and 'the one' will not be making any real progress - and that's what these academicians prefer, because of concient. 'They're just too smart and right, to acknowledge what they're incapable of comprehending'.
It's very difficult to overcome the mind.
It takes ZERO courage to believe in a soul friend.. It takes TREMENDOUS courage to emerge from such lifelong beliefs and assumptions..
@@Bill..N no, it does. Because the mind has to be overcome before any real progress is made.
You think you're strong because you don't only believe without question like some religions do.
The fact is, 'there can be no other way'.
First, explicate your model of how you think things work, and start from there - hypothesis.
@@Bill..N 'courage to acknowledge the soul'.
I never said courage to believe in soul.
@S3RAVA3LM Respectfully, it is YOU who "believe without question" because MY opinions are NOT locked in and can change if new evidence emerges.. THAT is how scientific discovery works... Contrast that against how religious beliefs work, and one can immediately see the difference...
@S3RAVA3LM Stating it more simply, religious faith requires unquestioning adherence, but NOT science..
I have had some very extraordinary experiences that are the primary reasons for me having any interest in theoretical physics and the philosophies of physics.
Occasionally some of these P.H.D. wielding thinkers, through some sort of attempt to aggregate the literature, would seem to have almost forged a little artificial experience of their own somewhere in their imaginations.
What makes your "very extraordinary experiences" any more real than their "little artificial experiences"?
@David.C.Velasquez They are making a conscious driven effort to think their way through some set of ideas.
They have created the experience; I simply had the experience.
@@wagfinpis Any reason to gain interest in theoretical physics and philosophy, is a good one. Would you happen to be speaking of the psychedelic experience? If so, I can highly identify with that aspect.
I am referring to ≈ 15 spontaneous OBE's, 1 NDE, and 2 NDE-like experiences. All spontaneous or accidental.
@@wagfinpis Very interesting! I believe any evidence, even anecdotal, is worthy of consideration with this subject. It is simultaneously in the realms of physics, biochemistry, metaphysics, and philosophy, with no definitive answer in sight. In my case, dream states are most informative from a subjective point of view. I have learned from an early age, to supress the mental filters blocking or blurring 'dream imagery' in memory, for lack of a better term. It seems the mind/brain tends to rebuild a dream memory, upon recall, with imagery/information native to this human world. I realize that human vocabulary falls short, in expressing such abstract concepts, so read 'with a grain of salt' as it were.
Brain is the triggering point of mind and body, THE record writer is consciousness for future emergencies to react , every happening is like a blockchain , any & EVERY moment is recorded in 3 places MINIMUM in existence , brain , mind and SELF consciousness , that's the reason you can't cheat the system for long , blocking the mind creates duality by any stuff , meditation, external substance , body alignment YOGA or intellectual understanding is the transformation process , but all have some side effects, meditation is the best & easy way to creates duality without any side effects , OYE TRY TO LEARN & UNDERSTAND TRUE GOD THE REALITY WITH ALL YOUR OYO ,O RA RA RAY RAY O 💔🧘🙏
Name one conscious mind that is not biological. Next question.
Just because we dont know any doesnt mean there arent any!
Here's a question: find the color red in the brain. Where is it? It's not the neurons or the connection between them...that's not RED. So where is it?
@@brunoheggli2888 You’ll have to do better than claiming ignorance to change any minds.
@@fractal_gate In the visual cortex at the back of your skull. Colors are part of the cognitive consciousness that evolved right along with the sense of self. The evolutionary advantages of these characteristics for an organism to have are plain and obvious.
Those are neurons, not colors. Where are the colors?@@reason2463
Good video.. There are many things to agree with here, SOME to disagree with.. I believe all "mental states" are physical states.. Whether one is imagining things that don't exist OR appreciating art. No immaterial influences are involved..Mind/body problem? IT doesn't exist. Dualism in general? Doesn't exist.. One opinion, peace.
No...
@David.C.Velasquez NO? Ok, that's fair, friend.. WHY, no?
@@Bill..N Actually, I was just emulating your one word "NO" responses to other comments, but for an example, what could be physical about the empty room in a house, in a dream I once had? Given that the recall of the memory is a physical state, but what of the entity of the room itself?... and random 'brain noise' is only an acceptable answer, for the most basic of intellects. If you've ever had a dream, with a life, possibly a wife, different from this life but maybe similarity, feel so 'real' that one could almost weep at the loss upon waking... you'd understand my point.
@David.C.Velasquez Thank you for your response.. Although I think dreams are a side bar, the underlying mechanisms are precisely the same. ALL thoughts are the conduction of elementary particles and chemical elements with the brain, no? Primarily, the brain is powered by the directed movement of electrons (electricity).. You ask how random thoughts or your imagination fits into this view. It is the brain DECODING the physical information flowing to it from particles and chemicals, both within the brain and nearby environment..
@@Bill..N I will agree that your explanation of the mechanisms of the brain are valid at a crude level, but the fact that the storage process, and even the precise location of where memory is encoded still eludes us, means that much speculation remains unfounded... let alone any notion that the abstractions encoded therein, can be considered physical in any meaningful way. To do so, is to confuse the medium with the message, contrary to McLuhan's famous, but disciplinarily unrelated mantra. *spelling
What is guys solutions about mind and body? He shows nothing true evidence about mind body solutions. Guys mind body is It NOT philosophy proceendings. He doesnt knows How figure out mind body though philosophy process.
Philosophers ask questions but don't offer answers
I don't believe there IS a mind/body problem, friend.. Why do you?
Kuhn didn’t ask him to propose his solution to the problem, just to lay out the possible theories around the topic. So yeah obviously he didn’t argue for what he thought the solution was.
@@AlphynKing NO solution is necessary if the problem doesn't exist, correct?
@@Bill..N Well first of all I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to the OP of this comment, so I don’t know why you’re asking me.
Anyhow, I do think the mind-body problem exists because there’s a lot about consciousness we don’t understand including the so-called hard problem of consciousness. I don’t think it’s likely that dualism is the answer, but I don’t think it’s a solved problem; philosophy of mind is hugely up for debate at the moment and it will only be more relevant over time as we continue to push AI technology and see what comes of it.
If one pursues the subject from an "objective" premise/point of view, there is not real "mind/body problem". Just look at the evidence is all that's needed. Moving on from there it is VERY apparent that Mind does not exist separately from Body. So... where's the problem? Kuhn seems unnecessarily perplexed with something mundane. That mind proceeds from body. What the exact mechanism is may not be completely understood but it's obvious the two are intimately linked, that mind emerges from body. It's "unscientific" to posit there is anything else to mind. And conclusions that terminate with there being a god or disembodied intellect is dubious at best. Every other aspect of human life is geared toward and anchored in the physical world. We are part of nature whether we like it or not. Acknowledging the obvious is a fundamental aspect of surviving the real world. There is NO POINT whatsoever in pursuing mysticism, the supernatural, etc. unless of course one chooses to view it as a form of entertainment.
Hahahahaha.