The Mind-Body Problem
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2023
- In this episode, I describe the Mind-Body Problem.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Tiktok: @throyphilosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/
I heard an interesting argument from a man who studied philosophy but wasn’t a philosopher. He concluded that thoughts are not self generated but a product of culture and the collectivist nature of it. I think he was partly right, many thoughts are created by media, peers and social pressures. When intention is added things get more complicated. Deliberate thought is different from thought in the default which is like an old radio switching randomly through channels. I don’t know anything but, I find this discussion fascinating. I humor myself that learning and studying philosophy moves me from this default to the realm of deliberate thinking. I may just be trading one delusion for another.
Several theorists in social psychology/ social cognition have discussed the need to attend to "collective consciousness". I don't think many dispute the role of a collective in determining one's thoughts. However, there's also the sense that one can have aspects of their self/ identity that are distinct from the collective. It's moreso *_both and_* than it is *_either or_*
Thanks. Please do much, much more of mind - body videos or podcasts. Not many people do this and you are really good in presenting philosophy in accessible way.
seconded
Thank YOU!
My least favorite problem. Merleau-Ponty curbstomped Descartes on this.
Literally was getting ready to comment this lol.
Not only can you never prove if A.I. is conscious, but you can’t really prove if any person is conscious.
Reminds me of the problem of linking the finite parts of a Mandelbrot set with the infinite. It's clear from the visualisation that they should be connected, but no matter how far you zoom in you just see more of the same, albeit slightly varied. Forgive the random speculation !
I think the mind-body problem is sort of a restricted version of the noumenon-phenomenon relation. In both cases you have a consciousness trying to "escape" itself. Funny thing is that we do that ALREADY everytime, we just want to know exactly HOW does it work. Personally, I am with Kant in thinking that this is a hard limit of human knowledge, and even an instance where describing things with our language (composed entirely of binaries, by the way) becomes treacherous and problematic.
Going out on a leap here, but perhaps it all overlaps in quantum mechanics, quantum biology, Buddhism and Taoism, and ultimately as visualization, goal setting, and meditation as hands on tools for experimentation.
Quantum mechanics states that an observation of a system creates a probabilistic possibility of an outcome.
Quantum biology shows that quantum scale does interact with the realm of “classical” physics.
Buddhism and Taoism show that exercises in human conscious awareness, can bring changes that would qualify as “classical physics” changes to one’s body (stress hormone reduction, increase is hormone cell count etc), mind and environment.
And finally, the watered down version is that modern day visualization, manifestation, and especially goal setting for athletes, and meditation have a detectable and reliable effect on the future outcomes.
Can the mind exist without the body? Short answer, not that we know of. Longer answer, phenomena like Astral Projection do allow the mind to 'be' somewhere else than with the body, but I suspect the body is still necessary for the mind to continue to be connected to this plane.
Always makes me think of Ghost in the Shell
a very important discussion, crucial to psychology & psychiatry.
Oh yes, I came across another interpretation, or say another theory and that was pretty much convincing too.
John Searle puts it in propositions, one supporting the other.
1-Brains cause minds
What we mean by that is that the mental processes that we consider to constitute a mind are caused , entirely caused , by process going on inside the brain. One is realised by the other, they don't exist in each other but they communicate.
2-Syntax is not sufficient for semantics and that means or alludes to difference between something that is purely formal and something that is full of content. To be precise, it says that the signs and symbols that we use to denote certain or every object around us proves the mind, because just forming a chain of words and without knowing the meaning is of no use(this will be further explained in Searle's Chinese room theory)
3-Computer programs are entirely defined by their formal, or syntactical structure. This is derived from proposition 2.
4-Minds have semantic contents. This supports proposition 2.
Hope I make sense😅, that's how I understood his theory or argument, I should say.
Thank you for diving deeper into this topic, it was informative just as any other of your videos, it's a delight to watch them
Please make videos on posthumanism in great detail. Mainly the critical view of posthumanism and posthuman ecology please
What with all these posthuman transhuman identities and entities ? Another equation added to the mind/bodies or is it minds and bodies?
In my understanding, Mind and body are just concepts, which means nothing but viable conctructs, which are viable in every day life, or for what we call staying alive. But because they are just constructs or structures, we can just eliminate them and find better structures.
Yes, I have problems with both my mind and my body.
If you read Nikola Teslas Biography he explain that he can mould and test his inventions in his mind infront of his eyes. This is process so the mind have the ability to create a mentalspace were we can vizualise objects.
If you stop thinking about living things and start considering machines, the mind body problem is just the differentiation between hard and software. Both exist in a different realm and both require the other entity to work. Each word better, if the other is there, ergo they are complementary.
NO but good try
Im not a video expert but this seems really bright or too washed out i guess
I don't think there really is a problem. We have senses. The senses "record" experiences, like the eyes in a sense create video memories. We have an ability to at a later time recall the experience or the video of experiences. Ww also have language functions. We can assign attributes, generate patterns using language. This processing can create all sorts of imaginings. Obviously language is infinitely inventive. So we can think abstractly. We can live in an imagined world. We can contemplate. We can conger up emotions. Think about our dead mom. All this is just an array of integrated functions.
Bro you need to get into phenomenology, the mind/body problem isn’t a problem for someone like Merleau-Ponty especially the stuff you bring up here about trauma it’s something he deals with very very easily in the Phenomenology of perception
See you already have flaws in the ways you apprehend concepts when you talk about the "mind" as something intangible. Everything that's related to the "mind" is tangible. What allows you to memorize, recall, imagine is tangible in your squishy brain