BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Four Objections To Cartesian Dualism
Shawn
post Jan 12, 2004, 07:48 PM
Post #1


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



just something to get this board started (this is from http://www.msu.edu/user/hacheema/lecture9.htm ):


Four Objections to Cartesian Dualism
• (1) Philosophical Objection: Where does interaction occur?

– Two substances must causally interact. But where?
– Spatial vs. Nonspatial interaction
– Contradiction? -- Dualism both requires that interaction must take place, but denies that mental events occur anywhere.




Four Objections cont.

• (2) Philosophical Objection: How does interaction occur?

– Descartes: ‘animal spirits’ convey mind’s influence to body.

– Response: Still leaves same problem. How does nonspatial substance interact with ‘animal spirits’?
Material causation: force is exerted. But force is a product of mass + acceleration. But nothing mental has mass and nothing mental is capable of acceleration. Therefore, if dualism is true, interaction appears impossible.




Four forms of Cartesian causation

• (1) physical-to-mental
• (2) mental-to-mental
• (3) mental-to-physical
• (4) physical-to-physical
• We can understand (4), but Descartes (and other dualists) owe us an explanation for each of (1), (2), and (3).




Four Objections cont.

• (3) Scientific Objection: Occam’s (‘Okham’s) Razor.

– All things being equal, the simpler hypothesis should be preferred.

• (i) Materialist posits 1 substance (1 type of causation)
• (ii) Dualist posits 2 substances (four types of causation)

– Dualist can tell us nothing of the internal constitution of mind-stuff, or of different types of causation.



Four Objections cont.

• (4) Scientific Objection: the Principle of the Conservation of Energy and the ‘causal closure of the empirical world’

The amount of energy in a closed physical system remains constant at all times (energy is neither created nor destroyed). Therefore, there can be no physical events without physical causes.

– mental-->physical / physical-->mental = gain and loss of energy.




One historical attempt to save dualism: Deny that mental-to-physical causation occurs
• Epiphenomenalism
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
Nebulous Inferno
post Jul 26, 2004, 12:40 PM
Post #2


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Member No.: 3089



QUOTE (Rick @ Jul 26, 09:25 AM)
Epiphenominalism eliminates dualism, but renders consciousness useless (acausal) in the functioning of the brain, and there is strong evidence that consciousness is important in the way our minds work. First, consciousness focuses our attention. Consider a motorist talking on his cell phone. His consciousness and attention are on his conversation, so he's driving like a zombie, and presents a documented hazard to other drivers and pedestrians. Second, consciousness is important in memory formation. When our cell phone-using motorist strikes a pedestrian, he will have no memory of driving-related events leading up to the accident, but will probably remember what he was talking about on the phone. So we can rule out epiphenominalism as an explanation based on evidence from consensual reality.

Identity theory is superficially attractive but leaves open the question of unconscious mental activity. Sigmund Freud was so wrong about so many things, but his great contribution was his recognition of the role of the unconsious. Many times I have awakened in the morning with a ready-formed solution to a hard problem I had been pondering the day before. A good explanation is that unconscious mental processes are spun off to go work on problems, either in the background during waking, or during sleep. If identity theory is correct, then why aren't all mental processes conscious? Consciousness seems to move around, illuminating those things that have the attention of the ego. Identity theory might be modified to say that consciousness is identical with only those mental processes that happen to be conscious, but that leaves the question of how it is decided which mental processes are identical to consciousness and which are not.

Nice explanations. To me it seems like epiphenomenalism is an attempt to hide the assumption of dualism - the idea that consciousness is separate from the brain (it is supposedly "caused" by it or "secondary" to it, so it must be separate according to this model).

I think we can consider consciousness to be a certain stream of the software of the brain. This software runs on the machinery of our brains. Our brains are the result of long periods of exaptations (evolution) from our biological ancestors. This history of brain function exaptation led to the exaptation of communication and structured ideas. These structured ideas can be called memes - basically ideas that can be communicated. Our memes are themselves exapted, distinict units, which have evolved in our cultures and minds for thousands of years. These memes are what separate us from animals, allowing us to be moral beings. Without memes, we would not ask the question "what is consciousness?". This type of question requires structured thought developed from culture.

Some people are puzzled by the idea that we *are* the actions of our brains, basically. Some people would answer this puzzlement with something like "why must there be anything else?", but I think another explanation, in the puzzled peoples' language, is in order. What follows is my explanation:

Assume, for a moment, that trees do not feel. At least, trees do not feel in the same way we feel. This is for sake of explanation, so please do not be bothered by this assumption.

Trees do not need to feel, because trees do not need to make the same kinds of choices as we do. If a tree is in great immediate danger, there is not a lot it can do in the short-term. Contrastingly, if a human is in great danger he/she will probably feel this and take necessary actions of avoidance. This feeling is the necessary brain software state which enables the human to avoid danger. It is a simple matter to explain in evolutionary terms why this brain software would have come to exist in such a way.

You may ask, at this point, WHY pain feels so terrible, or sex feels so good. Perhaps the reason pain feels terrible is because it *is* terrible, relative to the rest of the human organism. Since we judge feelings from our subjective feelings, of *course* it feels bad.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
Shawn   Four Objections To Cartesian Dualism   Jan 12, 2004, 07:48 PM
Charise   ok..perhaps I've just leaped right into the fi...   Jan 17, 2004, 12:12 PM
purkinje   this argument seems to pit Monism against Dualism,...   Jan 18, 2004, 12:18 AM
CWUPhilStudent   [FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Or perhaps, it is much likened...   Jan 31, 2004, 02:08 PM
rhymer   What evidence is there for the immortality of the ...   Jan 31, 2004, 02:56 PM
Kip Ingram   I can propose a mechanism for "mental->phy...   Apr 05, 2004, 11:52 AM
Dan   I believe this is referred to as the 'multiver...   Apr 05, 2004, 05:25 PM
Guest   Actually, not quite. The "multiverse" i...   Apr 05, 2004, 07:01 PM
Guest   That last post (7:01 pm) was Kip Ingram again, by ...   Apr 05, 2004, 07:02 PM
Dan   I guess we could call it a 'multiverse until...   Apr 05, 2004, 07:46 PM
Kip Ingram   Yeah, "multiverse until observed" seems ...   Apr 07, 2004, 07:37 PM
Kip Ingram   Also, I don't really like the notion of thinki...   Apr 07, 2004, 07:44 PM
Dan   although all that stuff sounds very reasonable ins...   Apr 07, 2004, 10:23 PM
Kip Ingram   Well, the paradigm that we're all familiar wit...   Apr 08, 2004, 12:28 PM
Guest   Our mind exercises free will by choosing one of th...   Apr 08, 2004, 01:14 PM
Guest   my notion is that said randomness provides a ...   Apr 08, 2004, 01:32 PM
Kip Ingram   I certainly wouldn't try to claim credit for h...   Apr 08, 2004, 02:32 PM
Guest   I don't blame you for sticking to it. It...   Apr 08, 2004, 02:39 PM
Dan   no worries, I've got an M.S. in physics   Apr 12, 2004, 03:26 PM
Kip Ingram   Then I'm curious; how do you explain the res...   Apr 14, 2004, 07:38 PM
Dan   a quantum 'aether', with the nodes spatial...   Apr 14, 2004, 08:13 PM
Guest   Hahaha!!! I can't help but call...   Apr 15, 2004, 04:42 AM
Joesus   If he has an advanced Collegiate degree then he ju...   Apr 15, 2004, 08:35 AM
Kip Ingram   I agree with the last entry; I'd far rather co...   Apr 15, 2004, 10:16 AM
Dan   the 'pilot' wave is not a real wave, but a...   Apr 19, 2004, 04:20 PM
Dan   Hahaha!!! I can't help but call ...   Apr 19, 2004, 04:21 PM
Robert the Bruce   Solid State Physicists like Dr Don Robbins and Tel...   Apr 20, 2004, 05:51 AM
Kip Ingram   Well, if the pilot wave isn't real then how do...   Apr 20, 2004, 02:25 PM
Dan   I'm not saying the pilot wave isn't real, ...   Apr 20, 2004, 06:42 PM
Dan   philosophical, schmilosophical. You can say any...   Apr 20, 2004, 06:47 PM
Rick   This thread started with objections to dualism and...   Jul 26, 2004, 09:25 AM
Nebulous Inferno   Nice explanations. To me it seems like epiphenome...   Jul 26, 2004, 12:40 PM
Nebulous Inferno   To add to my last post: Pain feels terrible becau...   Jul 26, 2004, 01:00 PM
Nebulous Inferno   One more short post for me, then I need to run. A...   Jul 26, 2004, 01:32 PM
Rick   This explains the motivation that channels mental...   Jul 30, 2004, 10:10 AM
Nebulous Inferno   This explains the motivation that channels mental...   Aug 02, 2004, 02:05 PM
Rick   Many brain researchers believe that lower animals...   Aug 19, 2004, 03:17 PM
Unknown   "Many brain researchers believe that lower an...   Aug 19, 2004, 03:22 PM
Rick   Thank you for the reference, dear Mr. Unknown. I h...   Aug 19, 2004, 03:32 PM
Trip like I do   Cosmic Consciousness --------------------------...   Aug 20, 2004, 02:30 AM
Trip like I do   In Richard Maurice Bucke's magnum opus, ...   Aug 20, 2004, 03:06 AM
Robert the Bruce   I was called The Cosmic Kid by the older brother o...   Aug 20, 2004, 04:50 AM
Rick   I think "Platinus" in the above is a typ...   Aug 20, 2004, 07:16 AM


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 02:12 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog