Alva Noë - Solutions to the Mind-Body Problem?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 มิ.ย. 2024
- Watch more videos on the mind-body problem: shorturl.at/1scfS
What’s the relationship between our brains and our consciousness, between the physical stuff in our skulls and the mental experiences in our minds? Much rides on the answer. Are human beings purely physical? Evolved at random and destined to die, extinguished forever? Or are we something more? A spirit or a soul, with existence beyond?
Follow us on X for exciting updates: x.com/CloserToTruth
For members-only exclusives, register for a free CTT account today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Alva Noë is Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. The main focus of his work is the theory of perception and consciousness. In addition to these problems in cognitive science and the philosophy of mind, he is interested in phenomenology, the theory of art, Wittgenstein, and the origins of analytic philosophy.
Show your love for the show with Closer To Truth merch: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
"Neurological conditions alone are not sufficient for states of consciousness. [...] To make a conscious being you need to make a conscious world" 5:48
That hit really hard.
it's called "extended cognition", and the dude isn't wrong, he just didn't sell the idea very well. basically, the fact is, we're part our environment, and our environment is part of us. we interact with it as it interacts with us in an attempt at harmony. that's not to say 'there's nothing special about the skull', lol, it's very special in that it contains our brains -- but you must imagine, that the boundary between our model of the world and the world itself blurs as you zoom in. consider this: the photons from the apple activate your retina in such a way that your brain recognizes the pattern and holds it relative to everything else -- now understand that the energy of the photons are *the same energy* manifesting your awareness, so in that sense you're seeing the energy of the apple *itself* relative to its environment, which includes you and your brain's rendition. moreover, when you talk about consciousness as 'temporally extended' as the man says, rather than trying to find it within a single instant, you realize it is part of the process of nature, a continuously updating feedback of energy between you and your local environment, body included.
N.B. Before reading the following Glossary entry, it is absolutely imperative to understand that the term “mind” is being used according to the definition provided by the ancient Indian philosophical paradigm (in which it is called “manaḥ”, in Sanskrit), and NOT according to the manner in which the term is used in most all other systems (that is, as a broad synonym for “consciousness” - e.g. “The mind-body problem”).
mind:
Although the meaning of “mind” has already been provided in Chapter 05 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, it shall prove beneficial to further clarify that definition here in the Glossary. It is NOT implied that mind is the sum of the actual thoughts, the sensations, the memories, and the abstract images that inhabit the mental element (or the “space”) that those phenomena occupy, but the faculty itself. This mental space has two phases: the potential state (traditionally referred to as the “unconscious mind”), where there are no mental objects present (such as in deep sleep or during profound meditation), and the actualized state (usually referred to as the “conscious mind”), where the aforementioned abstract objects occupy one’s cognition (such as feelings of pain).
Likewise, the intellect and the pseudo-ego are the containers (or the “receptacles”) that hold conceptual thoughts and the sense of self, respectively. It is important to understand that the aforementioned three subsets of consciousness (mind, intellect, and false- ego) are NOT gross, tangible objects. Rather, they are subtle, intangible objects, that is, objects that can be perceived solely by an observant subject. The three subsets of consciousness transpire from certain areas of the brain (a phenomenon known as “strong emergence”), yet, as stated above, are not themselves composed of gross matter. Only a handful of mammal species possess intelligence (that is, abstract, conceptual thought processes), whilst human beings alone have acquired the pseudo-ego (the I- thought, which develops in infancy, following the id stage). Cf. “matter, gross”, “matter, subtle”, “subject”, and “object”.
In the ancient Indian systems of metaphysics known as “Vedānta” and “Sāṃkhya”, mind is considered the sixth sense, although the five so-called “EXTERNAL” senses are, nonetheless, nominally distinguished from the mind, which is called an “INTERNAL” sense. This seems to be quite logical, because, just as the five “outer” senses involve a triad of experience (the perceived, the perception, and the perceiver), so too does the mind comprise a triad of cognition (the known, the knowing, and the knower). See also Chapter 06.
Nota Bene: There is much confusion (to put it EXTREMELY mildly) in both Western philosophy and in the so-called “Eastern” philosophical traditions, between the faculty of mind (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) and the intellect (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit). Therefore, the following example of this distinction ought to help one to understand the difference between the two subtle material elements:
When one observes a movie or television show on the screen of a device that one is holding in one’s hands, one is experiencing auditory, textural, and visual percepts, originating from external objects, which “penetrate” the senses of the body, just as is the case with any other mammal. This is the component of consciousness known as “mind” (at least according to the philosophical terminology of this treatise, which is founded on Vedānta, according to widely-accepted English translations of the Sanskrit terms). However, due to our intelligence, it is possible for we humans (and possibly a couple of other species of mammals, although to a far less-sophisticated degree) to construct conceptual thoughts on top of the purely sensory percepts. E.g. “Hey - look at that silly guy playing in the swimming pool!”, “I wonder what will happen next?”, or “I hate that the murderer has escaped from his prison cell!”. So, although a cat or a dog may be viewing the same movie on the screen of our electronic device, due to its relatively low level of intelligence, it is unable to conceptualize the audio-visual experience in the same manner as a primate, such as we humans.
To provide an even more organic illustration of how the faculty of mind “blends” into the faculty of the intellect, consider the following example: When the feeling of hunger (or to be more precise, appetite) appears in one’s consciousness, that feeling is in the mind. When we have the thought, “I’m hungry”, that is a conceptual idea that is a manifestation of the intellect. So, as a general rule, as animals evolve, they develop an intellectual faculty, in which there is an increasingly greater perception of, or KNOWLEDGE of, the external world (and in the case of at least one species, knowledge of the inner world). In addition to these two faculties of mind and intellect, we humans possess the false-ego (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit). See Chapter 10 of "F.I.S.H" regarding the notion of egoity.
I'm a panpsychist. I believe consciousness is a fundamental property of spacetime.
Silly.
In the discussion it is assumed that everyone has all faculties functional and operating. What happens in the minds of those who are challenged in faculties like vision, hearing, smells, tastes and touch. It might be a very different experience and cannot be explained in a commonly understandable manner. So there could be something very internal that happens with external encounter much beyond the physical brain and neural connections.
The mind body problem is fascinating and incredibly difficult. The one thing we have in our favor to understand it is the fact that we know we are conscious beings, so we have first-hand experience and can describe it later. I like the arguments in particular consciousness is not a snapshot. We focus are awareness on things and as we focus, we gain more knowledge of parts of the outside world that we focus on. We shift our focus and gain more knowledge that way. That much I believe is true. We can shift our focus from one thing to another thing with rapidity. At any one instant in time, we can only focus on one thing. We attach meanings and values to things and somehow these are filed away in our heads to be recalled at a later time when we need to or when we wish to. These things are our conceptualization of the external world and ourselves as well when we try to understand pretty much everything that we might think about.
I wouldn't say it's "difficult" as that implies there is some challenge to solving it. It's purely opinionated and base don personal feelings. There are tons of philosophical schools, a mountain of them, that do not encounter this problem at all. The "difficulty" is only that some people have a strong emotional feeling to the problem and find the other philosophical schools emotionally "icky." There hasn't been a difficulty in constructing a philosophical system that simply never encounters the problem, they have existed for arguably thousands of years, and in explicit materialist and realist forms have existed for centuries. The only "difficulty" is getting people to abandon their emotional attachment to certain premises due to psychological biases we are born with.
@@amihartz I think there is still a problem of attaching meaning and values to pretty much everything we observe or interact with. For example, we can have a video recording of something but that attaches no meaning or value by itself. Is it portraying something good or bad or neither? No meaning is attached by itself. We still need for consciousness a conceptualization of all interactions with the external world by which questions can be asked and answers will be received. This does not seem at all easy to me. It does however seem like AI is making inroads in this direction. Even then this does not touch on the question of self-awareness that I believe is necessary for consciousness.
@@noelwass4738 Again, ancient problems that were already solved centuries ago. All metaphysical abstractions are created by the mind as a way to simplify nature down to properties relevant to us, and thus easier to interact with. Reality does not contain meaning, it does not even contain "things" at all. These are all just simplified metaphysical abstractions we create to make it possible to talk about a real world which is infinitely complex and impossible to grapple with as it is in its entirety.
I like his argument. We cannot imagine the world as real as it is with our eyes closed. Unless we are dreaming, which is fully internally generated, but this as well cannot be as richly detailed as actual physical view by eyesight. If you feel it is, this is an illusion. The outside world is necessarily a part of our concious experience, to shape it. Never thought about it that way 👍
Your own comments refuted it. Dreaming shows that you don’t need the outside world for a conscious experience.
@@mikewiest5135 Not really, because we only dream of things that are remixes of the outside world. A person blind since birth, for example, cannot suddenly see in their dreams. If you follow that logic, then a person born without sensation should not be able to dream at all.
@@amihartz that’s fine, but if we’re looking for what is necessary to create a moment of consciousness it doesn’t need anything outside the head at that moment…like when dreaming. So yes we ordinarily need sensations to fill the content of consciousness…but since those same sensations can be evoked by artificially stimulating the appropriate neural activity, again the external objects were not necessary in principle.
@@mikewiest5135 Your argument presupposes that dreams share the same status as veridical perception/experience, but they don't. And the claim here concerns veridical perception/experience.
@@mikewiest5135 try to read a book, or watch a film in your dream and focus on the seams of the shirt of the actors. Impossible. Unless you are in a perfect samadhi, like the perfect one: the buddha
...When I saw my Grandmother at her funeral. I was moved very deeply. Her empty shelf was there, however, she, my Grandmother, her Essence, Spirit, as nowhere to be seen. She like each and everyone of us, is so special, we each have different, gifts, talents, and even fingerprints, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube ..Blessings...We are all born as babies yet our knowledge and experiences elevate our being...
Aldo Nova? “Life is Just a Fantasy”. 🤘🏼🤘🏼
well, there's 7 minutes I'll never get back !
The single keyword that is missing from this conversation is association (CS Peirce, Pavlov's dog and all that). At 6:05 - "embedded and coupled and interacted with and extended into". These are examples of the ways in which Peirce's *association* manifests.
At 5:53 Alva Noë says "You can't have consciousness in a test-tube." I've always said that you can't have consciousness in a vat (brain-in-a-vat). My dog's brain is not a brain in a vat. It's a brain in a dog's body. Were Robert to ask his questions of my dog, my dog would wag his tail and respond with "woof!" Why? Because my dog does not have the human body that predisposes it to culture and language. He does not know what worries Robert. Instead, he is delighted that Robert is giving him attention, and his "woof!" is a response affirming that he wants to play this game too.
Likewise, a human brain is a brain in a human body, not a vat. The brain in a human body with vocal chords with which to speak and hands with which to write and create is a brain predisposed to making associations in language and culture, and experimenting with objects in space. A human brain-body makes associations between its extensions in space (arms, legs, voice, body, etc), and the objects comprising the space within in which the brain-body resides.
Bodies wire neuroplastic brains. More specifically, experiences intercepted by bodies wire neuroplastic, DNA-entangled brains. This is integral to the mind-body problem and how it works. What's it like to be a bat? How would Noë respond? I get where he's coming from, but I can't imagine that what he's saying is as clear as it could be, for much of the audience.
Suppose we would draw from quantum physics the idea of quantum fields: space, time and energy (of which mass is one manifestation) as continuous fields. That would easily corroborate mr Noë's theory of interconnectedness. But if everything is connected to everything, how can there be different things? Simple, these fields are not homogenous. The non-homogeneity of space-time-energy creates the possibility to draw distinctions while at the same time being interactive with them (the skull as a boundary interacting with what's outside of it). One of the most asked questions in philosophy is "Why is there something instead of nothing?". The sister-question "Why is the something that exists non-homogenous instead of homogenous?" is hardly ever asked.
There is no problem except for the mind says the body.
Higher parts of the neurological machinery get busy trying to understand the lower parts, still automatically if it is a machinery. Isn't the conscious entity trying to answer it's own conscious-ness generated questions?
for there to be a lover there needs be a beloved... poets say it best.
There's a sense of our perceptions being meaningless unless we create a story out of them. In doing so, we mix our perceptions with internal creativity and understanding. We discover our external world by familiarising ourselves with our ability to understand it. The result has to be a personal and a social story.
That is a good way of thinking about it. Meanings need to be attached. You explain things well.
N.B. Before reading the following Glossary entry, it is absolutely imperative to understand that the term “mind” is being used according to the definition provided by the ancient Indian philosophical paradigm (in which it is called “manaḥ”, in Sanskrit), and NOT according to the manner in which the term is used in most all other systems (that is, as a broad synonym for “consciousness” - e.g. “The mind-body problem”).
mind:
Although the meaning of “mind” has already been provided in Chapter 05 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, it shall prove beneficial to further clarify that definition here in the Glossary. It is NOT implied that mind is the sum of the actual thoughts, the sensations, the memories, and the abstract images that inhabit the mental element (or the “space”) that those phenomena occupy, but the faculty itself. This mental space has two phases: the potential state (traditionally referred to as the “unconscious mind”), where there are no mental objects present (such as in deep sleep or during profound meditation), and the actualized state (usually referred to as the “conscious mind”), where the aforementioned abstract objects occupy one’s cognition (such as feelings of pain).
Likewise, the intellect and the pseudo-ego are the containers (or the “receptacles”) that hold conceptual thoughts and the sense of self, respectively. It is important to understand that the aforementioned three subsets of consciousness (mind, intellect, and false-ego) are NOT gross, tangible objects. Rather, they are subtle, intangible objects, that is, objects that can be perceived solely by an observant subject. The three subsets of consciousness transpire from certain areas of the brain (a phenomenon known as “strong emergence”), yet, as stated above, are not themselves composed of gross matter. Only a handful of mammal species possess intelligence (that is, abstract, conceptual thought processes), whilst human beings alone have acquired the pseudo-ego (the I- thought, which develops in infancy, following the id stage). Cf. “matter, gross”, “matter, subtle”, “subject”, and “object”.
In the ancient Indian systems of metaphysics known as “Vedānta” and “Sāṃkhya”, mind is considered the sixth sense, although the five so-called “EXTERNAL” senses are, nonetheless, nominally distinguished from the mind, which is called an “INTERNAL” sense. This seems to be quite logical, because, just as the five “outer” senses involve a triad of experience (the perceived, the perception, and the perceiver), so too does the mind comprise a triad of cognition (the known, the knowing, and the knower). See also Chapter 06.
Nota Bene: There is much confusion (to put it EXTREMELY mildly) in both Western philosophy and in the so-called “Eastern” philosophical traditions, between the faculty of mind (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) and the intellect (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit). Therefore, the following example of this distinction ought to help one to understand the difference between the two subtle material elements:
When one observes a movie or television show on the screen of a device that one is holding in one’s hands, one is experiencing auditory, textural, and visual percepts, originating from external objects, which “penetrate” the senses of the body, just as is the case with any other mammal. This is the component of consciousness known as “mind” (at least according to the philosophical terminology of this treatise, which is founded on Vedānta, according to widely-accepted English translations of the Sanskrit terms). However, due to our intelligence, it is possible for we humans (and possibly a couple of other species of mammals, although to a far less-sophisticated degree) to construct conceptual thoughts on top of the purely sensory percepts. E.g. “Hey - look at that silly guy playing in the swimming pool!”, “I wonder what will happen next?”, or “I hate that the murderer has escaped from his prison cell!”. So, although a cat or a dog may be viewing the same movie on the screen of our electronic device, due to its relatively low level of intelligence, it is unable to conceptualize the audio-visual experience in the same manner as a primate, such as we humans.
To provide an even more organic illustration of how the faculty of mind “blends” into the faculty of the intellect, consider the following example: When the feeling of hunger (or to be more precise, appetite) appears in one’s consciousness, that feeling is in the mind. When we have the thought, “I’m hungry”, that is a conceptual idea that is a manifestation of the intellect. So, as a general rule, as animals evolve, they develop an intellectual faculty, in which there is an increasingly greater perception of, or KNOWLEDGE of, the external world (and in the case of at least one species, knowledge of the inner world). In addition to these two faculties of mind and intellect, we humans possess the false-ego (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit). See Chapter 10 of "F.I.S.H" regarding the notion of egoity.
The story is in the behaviour of a particular structure or its goal the behaviour represents the goal which is inherent.. All extensions or body parts of a biological life form are for survival of structure and to continue into the future, its called meat on the bones. That is the story of evolution survival due to existence which are different in connotation or definition. Humans have created other meanings for life but that is the objective, goal, or spirit within the structure itself a tenacity to survive in environment and its why we have a brain. The brain is the survival of structure in an evolved state or material formation. Behaviour with environment in relation to survival of structure. That has been the story since biological life was formed and its historically accurate dating to millions of years in the past until this day. You do not choose survival it chooses you. Vegetarian.
Soul, spirit, consciousness ,God the after life are all representations of survival in some way or rely on survival to exist into the future. They all have one thing in common which survival does not which is meat on the bones or it can be seen to exist in other biological life forms by the behaviour they show or the trajectory to which they adhere to. Soul, spirit, consciousness, God, the after life share emptiness, are non provable or circular, do not exist, are invisible, and have no correlation to material or physical disposition or postulations of material objects which can not be defined in a physical contextualization where as survival can be shown to exist, be proven, is true and relevant and is a force of nature or has meat on the bones. The others do not. That is the difference. Vegetarians.
@@MasterofOne-zl6ur Yes, I am sure that it began as a survival mechanism and passed on to the offspring via DNA and evolved through natural selection and evolution. Animals needed to hunt when hungry and so on. They have emotional states just as humans do. They had to know what they wanted and needed. Humans developed language and that accelerated the development of consciousness. The development of language is pivotal for humans. We know for certain that animals are conscious because their behavior shows that.
@@noelwass4738 They show behaviour in accordance to the need to survive in environment that is what consciousness is in reference to as you as if you were not conscious or unconscious then you cannot exhibit behaviour and you cannot survive as a result or you would not survive especially if you were 'Unconscious' for long time periods such as 2 weeks or 4 weeks it would be impossible to survive as you can not par take in the process itself so it is a requirement of survival or a representation or elaboration on survival or survival expressing itself. If you takeaway the ability to behave you takeaway survival itself so it is coupled with behaviour. Language itself is not needed for survival or required it is a later edition which can support survival and would of been introduced or acquired to support survival itself or in reference to the ability to survive.
All elaborations or human extensions which are physical in structure are survival in spirit or have history in survival mechanics or are for that soul purpose depending on the shape or structure evolution and survival do the rest. When individuals speak of soul or spirit or consciousness God or the after life what they are referring to is survival itself be that be in God which is invisible or immortal or continuous and lives in the after life, survival, the after life which is survival of soul or spirit which is invisible or empty, soul or spirit survival now also survival into the after life which requires non survival. All have one thing in common which is survival however the difference is this, all those postulations are invisible, cannot be seen, are empty in weight, have no reference to the physical in definition, cannot be measured, have no correlation or meat on the bones, however survival does not lack this issue as it is behaviour in spirit, has meat on the bones, can be seen by behaviour, has weight, has a correlation to physical or is dependant on physical structures to exhibit its nature, can be defined with meaning or reference and it is a force into which all must follow or adhere to. Soul, spirit, consciousness, God the after life are by definition false or fake postulations of survival or are imposters to survival itself. Do not be fooled. That language of soul or spirit or consciousness are actually false or in support of an after life postulation which can never be determined or has no meat on the bones. Behaviour has the meat sandwich.
Vegetarian Dinosoul methods.
This is an interesting approach to the mind-body problem. It's not entirely wrong, but nor is it as radical as he is making out. And it doesn't explain how we can remain conscious (for a short time at least) inside a sensory deprivation tank.
Finally at least confronting idealism, albeit in baby steps ! Yes, Kant said that we can't ever directly know the thing in itself(the noumena) but, Schopenhauer went even further & said that we can indeed know that outside thing doing the impinging to some extent, at least insofar as BOTH are "allegedly" made from same particles & force fields(phenomena) that appear on our screens of perception. We can know it just bc we are a part of it. But to think that either ought to be exhaustively describable by quantiles alone is a BIG mistake of physicalism & thE root of the so called hard problem. There is indeed a quantity/quality quandary afoot under that view. We should know better by now that such partial images only need to correlate NOT cause. What we colloquially call physical is ALWAYS just our internal representations, instrument assisted or otherwise. Admittedly that last part sounds just like physicalism too but the subtle caveat is that there is NO arbitrary distinction between mental & non-mental processes being made regardless of the degree to which it is shared Vs. idiosyncratic. Nor is there ANY room for dualistic thinking to creep in like it almost always does in the current view despite physicalism also being monistic. A single field of subjectivity or transpersonal mind stuff is the ontic primitive which appears as matter/energy in spacetime.
Perfect
Why would you want to “solve” the mind body problem. It’s not so much a “problem” as a _condition_. It’s like solving gravity.
Peak irony: Discussing the mind-body problem whilst sitting on uncomfortable chairs.
The mind could not make pizza without a body, nor appreciate one without a stomach, which needs a body.
I am not yet ready to share my body with you.
High level vs low level viewpoint.
Is it the whole machine that performs the function or the component functions that fire random signals that we create random interpretations from ?
The world is a feedback loop, otherwise individual existance would be pointless.
How does one explain "The mind of the mnemonist"?
The guest speaker has not understood Robert's question.
He has understood it way better, read Heideggers introduction to Being and Time and youll see
By formulating the question in a certain way, you only allow for answers that would suit the question. Alva Noe says no, the mind body question is outdated, its Platonic concepts that have smuggled themselves into our understanding of how things are, but its completely pointless to talk about this question
What we need to talk about is how the mind is embodied and how it is realized in an environment
God's design.
@@LittleMushroomGuy Yes it i true brother we are here for love and i appreciate you
@@sven888 What do you get out of trolling all of this nonsense?
I did not hear a solution to the mind body problem as the title says. We did not get closer to truth.
They need more funding to do that!
The solution is to reject it as a question
Some problems are solved, others are dissolved. The 4E cognition view that Noë is putting forward is an attempt to thoroughly reject the implicit Cartesianism that Robert had mentioned as the mainstream view…the one that underpins the mind-body problem.
Agree that the skin is not a magical boundary. It's properties are well known and on one side of the skin there resides an awesome inference machine that reconstructs reality in the fullest of dream detail (some of it confabulated) and bathes the result in an electro cocktail of groovy truthfulness that generates confidence and certainty. Lovers, dreamers, scholars; everyone marvels and wastes time over the 0.05% of activity that is possibly at work behind a perceptual veil. It's now time to drop the mystical precoital baloney and account for, understand and describe with clarity, the 99.95% of conscious activity that is a product manifested by the organ of consciousness. Indeed, there is likely nothing magical about it.
If I got this right, Alva is arguing for a direct realist theory of perception where you have direct access to the world in itself rather than a representational theory of perception that puts humans behind a veil of perception or sense datum that belongs to the mind.
I think so. To some extent he is right, we are not just passive receptors of information, we are also corporeal beings in the world that can act in the world. This is why solipsism doesn't work, it can't account for our ability to investigate, interrogate and test our environment through action.
On the other hand in the act of perception, we are passive. When I see a poster, there's no part of me, or no signal from my mind reaching out to the poster and affecting the poster. I have my problems with Donald Hoffman as well, but he has a point when he says that the external world is not as we perceive it. Rather we construct a model of the world that is radically simplified and processed into a representation, that's optimised for us to reason about and interact with efficiently.
Right. Silly. Like we never had 20th century neuroscience. Or Plato.
@@simonhibbs887 I think the type of argument that Hoffman makes is logically incoherent. The claim is that your perception does not tell you about the world in itself, but rather it is just a representation. He often tries to justify that by appealing to science/evolutionary theory.
When he makes that argument, he is cutting the branch he is sitting on.
Evolutionary theory is based on empirical science. If your perception does not tell you about the world in itself, then evolutionary theory deals with the representation and doesn't tell you about how things are in the world itself.
You need a realist approach to maintain consistency.
But I can see where he is coming from with his idealistic presuppositions that are not supported by science at all!
@@mikewiest5135 It seems like you missed Aristotle!
this disdainful anteodidi guy stalks others, and when you read its comments you quickly realize a sophist.
Aristotle had some ok metaphysics but the people during his time or surrounding him wanted teleology.
A distinction without a difference. If you keep changing the subject, you don’t get agreement. Kant was wrong. Einstein took pride that he sorted out time/space and demonstrated that these are not primarily mental constructs. Space/Time IS the thing-in-itself. Close all the philosophy departments, since all they do is change the subject and keep arguing. Consciousness is the brain’s awareness of its workings. An emergent property of complexity. Computers can simulate this, but because they are not alive, cannot instantiate this.
There is no problem, it’s a neural-sensory synthesis that is quantum collapsing into a single state as a singularity.
Is that you, Deepak?
words
I like Kant's argument for the self or soul... as a necessary entity to explain the unity of consciousness. His arguments for other beings of the noumenal realm are inscrutable for me. But, in any case, none of our concepts apply to that realm. So every thing science studies are just entities of the mind. So... there's no mind body problem at all for Kant.
Kant's "noumenal" realm is a meaningless construct and thus does not need explanation. It is literally defined as something with no observable properties, which is logically equivalent to nothingness itself. Saying it is a "realm" or contains "things-in-themselves" as Kant does is internally inconsistent as you cannot assign properties to nothing. How does he know the "noumenon" is a "realm" with "things" if he's never observed it? Kant invents a problem that isn't there in order to posit a magical soul.
@@amihartz Well, sadly, if there's no noumenal realm then there's nothing that exists unperceived, and you have to adopt idealism.
@@Appleblade Haha, what? No. Me saying Kant's noumenonal realm is inconsistent doesn't mean I am endorsing Kant's phenomenal realm only. Neither exists. There is no "subjective experience" that "reflects reality." There simply is no "phenomenon." That does not exist, either. Experience just _is_ reality from a particular context frame. It is not "subjective" at all. It is reality directly experienced _as it actually exists_ independent of the subject.
@@amihartz How did you defeat Descartes' Dream Argument? What 'sure sign' did you find that distinguishes waking from sleeping? Or are you saying the trees you dream are actual trees? In Total Recall, a bead of sweat from the 'Recall' rep gave the game away (a computer generated reality would not have produced a sweating representative, surely.) Did you find a similarly powerful way to distinguish reality from simulation?
@@Appleblade Dreams are not false, they are still real. I am really dreaming. When I recount my dreams, I am not lying, I really did dream that. The trees in my dreams are obviously not the same as the trees when I am awake, they literally have different properties. I know they are different for the same reason I know a rock and a tree are different: they can be observed to be different. If we lived in a simulation, that would still be a _real_ simulation, it would require a real computer to run it on, there would be electrodes pumping real information into my brain. I would _really_ be in a simulation. None of the experiences would be nonreal.
When your philosophy has a contradiction at its core, that's a good sign you need to reevaluate its underlying assumptions. There have both realist and materialist philosophical schools without these contradictions since at least the 19th century, arguably even further, but for some reason they are entirely ignored by the overwhelming majority of academia. You only see a handful of academics take interest in them. Most just accept, as a premise, that there is this contradiction at the root of philosophy, then proceed from there. But if you've accepted as a premise that there is this contradiction, then _by definition,_ you could not solve it, as doing so would contradict your own premises. This one contradiction gives birth to many others, such as the so-called "hard problem" and the "measurement problem." All of which dissolves if you just adopt a framework without contradiction at its core.
I'd say people admire me more for my body than my mind, that's ok with me, in fact I'd say "I don't...MIND!!"
That's a little bit of humor from the philosophy muscle community 😁😁
Tennessee Whiskey
Centralized nervous system 😂
Thanks! For giving me the solution in Christ Jesus of Nazareth.
Plato mind body solution find true It is absolutetly in a Haven. Descartes mind body problems solution It true in reality though reason. This Guys mind body solution it is not philosophy proceendings seriously . Rambling and pathetic.
Why do so many philosophers invent problems for them to solve where there aren't any to begin with?
Soul, spirit, consciousness, God the after life all have the exact same problem, you can never measure what your are postulating, it is invisible or does not exist, it is empty and circular in reasoning, it has no meat on the bones or no correlation or definition category to attach to physical phenomena. It is not information processing that is called lower level distinction error. What soul, consciousness, spirit, God, the after life all have in common is that they are representations of biological survival of material objects either postulated or in reference to survival, survival does not lack this problem which the others have as we can see it in other biological life or physical objects, it is in itself a physical process which one must adhere to, it is also a disposition of biological life or abstract or inherent in nature or acquisition or goal oriented and it has meat on the bone which we can attach definition to and be classed or categorized. Consciousness the word is merely a replacement for soul or spirit and is circular in connotation where as survival is not, you cannot survive without a soul, spirit or consciousness, God, or the after life in this respect all are postulations of what we are trying to describe which is survival of material substance in a given structure or you cannot survive or partake in survival itself or the process or function without an ability to exist or 'Be conscious' especially over vast time spans as it is a requirement of survival itself or existence. The 'Conscious' can be injured but it still has a 'Sub consciousness' or it has not been injured to the point where it is fully disabled, over a long time span if you were still 'Unconscious' say over a 2 week time span or 4 weeks you would not survive without some assistance or someone else making survival possible. So its purpose or why it exists is obviously for survival purposes as are all extensions or physical structures of a biological life form, I think that the only difference possible is that what we call 'consciousness' is linked to behaviour to survive or the disposition is lost within the life form to survive or it cannot function or partake in survival itself if that particular attribute is lost especially over years or months. It will still always be linked to survival in its purpose or why it exists like all components or extensions of the physical structure of biological bio souls or bio conscious entities. Like eyes, ears, noses, teeth, blood, veins, toes, hair, tendons, muscles, hearts, lungs, kidneys, bones and brains our best option for survival. I'm not that surprised that 'consciousness is of the same qualia or quantity like say soul or spirit God or the after life. I think we want to turn or make 'consciousness' into something that it is not or that cannot be measured, so I have the disposition of survival within me and it is physical yet separate.
Consciousness was created as a a buffer for soul and spirit or it has the exact same definition or circular attachment with it which can never be addressed. If you look closely at survival as a definition or descriptive measure it answers or it makes it possible to understand what we mean when we speak of soul, spirit, consciousness, God or the after life, God is immortal or survivor as its disposition or need it survives or exists in the after life where [soul, spirit, or consciousness needs' survival' or continuation to exists so it may survive]. All these postulations are circular and have no meat on the bones survival however which is real and true does not suffer this consequence or circular issue and it describes what we meant when we spoke of soul, spirit, consciousness, God and the after life. Survival is not empty survival is a disposition of material bio logical life, survival has meat on the bones, ,or is physical and can be seen in behaviour, it is attached or is a natural disposition or character of all bio logical life, we can define it, to a reasonable degree, it allows information processing which is secondary to survival or for survival in itself. All body structures or parts are survival in character or disposition.
This should send you on the right path. Now can you elaborate.
If all body parts or extensions in evolutionary terms are built or structured for survival such as eyes, hair, teeth, noses, ears, brains then any phenomena itself would be in relation to the ability or attribute to survive in environment due to behaviour of that particular structure. The problem is that humans do not use historical context in evolutionary terms and take the position of soul, spirit or consciousness, God or the after life to describe survival in essence of a biological structure postulating survival itself in all categories as I've demonstrated. The information required historically is for survival of structure in any given bio logical entity that is what the information historically and present is used for to survive in environment but it is secondary to survival itself as a phenomena or a collection of data for survival of biological life form. What must occur before information is the actual ability to exist then survive then information with regard to survival extension or continuation of bio life forms using the environment to supplement itself. Think of dinosouls and biosouls or all biological life having souls in a historical context combined with evolution and the need to postulate after life or survival of these souls into the after life. Or they could be just survival agents in behaviour and biological structure without the need to postulate or attach a soul, spirit or consciousness to the entity in question. What are soul, spirit, and consciousness trying to describe or achieve in definition or contextualization? And can a biological life form survive without a soul, spirit or consciousness the after life or Gods. Ask yourself why is there so many definitions or words used to describe the same thing throughout history and what do they all have in common which survival does not and which survival does have or meat on the bones with the physical and in an abstract or disposition of character to which biological life must follow or adhere to. What is the physical phenomena and the abstract phenomena to which all biological process in behaviour what is the goal of a biological structure?
Survival has meat on the bones or is within the structure itself, what is meant or postulated in soul, spirit, consciousness the after life is survival itself in a different form or composition, this could explain the confusion.
Do not be fooled I could give you two various reasons why this is wanted not to be so or true and are political in postulations. Many poor souls are brainwashed. Never rely or trust something which cannot be seen or measured, is empty in weight, cannot be observed, is non physical with no correlations, requires survival itself to exist, relies on the after life itself which is survival, requires a God to exist only in the after life which can never be seen unless death occurs or again non survival, and postulations of souls or spirits in other biological life such as dinosouls or all biosouls that have existed, no reference to evolution in the books of knowledge or other biological having souls even though we evolved from historical biological life, Behaviour in relation to availability to after life in early biological life or non survival possible if the after life behaviour is required, good or bad dinosouls, introduction time or first soul or spirit in biological life, the need to discredit evolutuion because of these factors or fake postulates.
Thats a beginning. It makes you think can what history has told us be trusted when it comes to biological survival and what is the result. I have some allowance for ignorance in knowledge but i don't ask others to. Vegetarians.
What do you think. Any good dinosouls around?
Ok, like many who inhabit this Chanel and comment thread, I’ve long held the position that there is no “mind-body” problem that needs solving. The brain is sufficient. We don’t need to posit some magical/mystical non-material state space-within which mind and “qualia” and my subjective experience of the color red, live and breathe.
However, this is the first time I’ve heard a plausible framework that gives credence to the notion that consciousness, and mind, is not solely built by the brain.
It’s not unreasonable to characterize the brain as an extremely sophisticated connection finder, map maker, relational balancer. Instead of the brain being a consciousness generator, it’s an internal world-builder-with all those connections being the basic building blocks.
The mind then lives in the act of connecting the pieces. Sure, it’s still all neural hardware doing the work, BUT, there is no mind without an environment.
@@todrichards1105 Read the above if you want a comprehensive vision of behaviour and relationships to survival in biological structures. I concur with what you have stated although it lacks some substance and clarification which needs addressing. You need to postulate why biological life has these attributes in a historical sense and what it is used for or its purpose or why something exists. Without the material substance itself the disposition within the structure cannot be expressed and therefore the behaviour cannot be determined. This is why the Behaviour' cannot be expressed while lets say 'Unconscious' over months or weeks if you were still 'unconscious' or behaviour was not available due to this fact you would not survive or you would need help to survive.
Soul, spirit, God the after life consciousness are empty, can not be measured, cannot be seen, have nor correlation and are actual postulations or descriptions of survival where as survival itself has meat on the bones and can be seen and shown to exist in other biological life forms by the behaviour they deposit so is true and real.. This is what is meant by these other postulations of soul, spirit, consciousness ,God and the after life all require survival itself of substance to exist or continue.
The behaviour is survival oriented. Eyes, brains, teeth, arms, wings, hearts , lungs, blood, veins, hair, bones, all are expressions of not existence but survival in biological structure or have this disposition or character all without exception. If consciousness was a true value like soul or spirit it would represent survival in its reason for being or existing like all other biological structures or body parts. Very easy. Behaviour.
No complication for the intelligent.😊
Gentlemen, Dr. Wilhelm Reich has written extensively on the mind body connection beginning in the 1930's. As the technical advisor to Sigmund Freud he developed Orgone Therapy. His many books explore scientifically universal questions on how humans function..
Ive got an Orgone Accumulator: th-cam.com/video/DJgMyk5vJ20/w-d-xo.htmlsi=jzFbSAcU6H0XX0TL
Oh no. First we’re bringing back the nonsensical doctrine of illusionism and now the nonsensical view of externalism! 😢 Medieval!
Guy's a Bhuddist 😂
Alva Noe is wrong here.
For example, a blind, deaf and mute person conceptualizes the world ( by being guided by a helper ) exactly like a person with all the sensorial functions intact.
There is a procession and a regression - the Wiseman state, ultimately, that the procession is the regression.
I don't go on about dogma because I value only knowledge, reason, science and wisdom, which scriptures are based on; doesn't matter what other believe. It would save a lot of time in properly realizing this Primordial Cause, we give the appellation of God to. This is not a name but a title, like doctor, commander etc. I understand if religion has put you off concerning God. But realize, it isn't religion doing it, but the fault of man, and it is found everywheres in every avenue from goverment, banking, city and household - this samsara is not what we're ment to change but to embrace and liberate it. Believe it or not: everybody already seeks God; even atheists and nihilists. We all seek the good; that which avails, pleases, bestows well being, and sustains us. That which is good is the goal of all things. Science, theology, religion, physics, metaphysics, theurgy - it's ultimately about the same thing. It's humans who bring in delusion, contention, division, etc.
I'm not the smartest or wisest in the world - but i Know music when i hear it, and I know the difference from what's great, good, and bad. There are some physicists who are incredible, and only if they could remove the impediment; of which all people face despite differences.
Typical philoso-babble
The burden of proof, is on the person who asserts that this video is “typical philoso-babble”. As I see no proof being offered, I will logically reject your claim. God bless.
Too much hand waving for a fundamental theory of the mind.
there is NO mind-body argument
Ah well. Case closed then. Thank you.
I disagree.
What does this even mean
I think you mean mind-body problem. I agree that there is no problem here. Philosophers have a way of inventing problems to solve. We know what water is. We know how it's formed. We know how it interacts with other matter. We don't look at water and go "but what actually gives water it's wetness when it comes into contact with another material"? Someone who parots the mind body problem is the one looking at the scientist going "you explained everything about water at a physics level and yet you never explained where the quality of wetness comes from". It's just an emergent phenomenon of water. It's just another level of linguistic description THAT'S IT. Philosophers rack their brain so hard getting dumbfounded and shocked about the mystery of qualia but there is no mystery. Consciousness is just the subjective experience of all the mechanistic processes going on in the brain. The fact that people get dumbfounded about consciousness iterates it's complexity, it does not show that there is some mystery.
You definitely have a mind problem