It is a rehash of the Dualism v. Monism debate that really doesn’t add anything new.
I didn’t say that you said that she was lying. When everything that comes from another camp is dismissed as being incorrect it is assumed that one has either accidentally misinterpreted a situation that is being presented as fact (they are wrong) or they are purposefully misrepresenting the case (in which case, they are lying.) The implication of dismissing everything that the other side says is that they are either wrong or they are lying. They either believe that they are correct, but are wrong, or they know that they are wrong and not telling the truth.
These are the implications of these dismissals. Wrong or lying. I have spoken of this to you in the past in private conversations. This is why I have responded in this way. I do not feel (and I have good evidence for feeling this way) that people are taking the discussion seriously. I believe that they are not considering the implications of the things that they are saying. Except, when the shoe is on the other foot. We all see when we are being treated unfairly, and we make note of the injustice, and we articulate the real pain that we feel.
I’m just saying that everyone needs to filter what they say before saying it.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Can you recap or point me to the source? Are you directing this to my comments?
I was merely stating that Ann Gauger’s article is a rehash of the long standing debate between Dualism and Monism. A google search for “Dualism v. Monism” should turn up plenty of sites discussing this very same topic. The points that Ann makes are the same points that have been brought up in many previous discussions and debates on the topic. All I am saying is that it isn’t something new. There is nothing wrong with Ann’s article, but it also fails to advance the long standing debate.
2 Likes
Got it! Thanks very much for the clarification! I’ll search and read.
What do you think? Do you think that the mind is merely the product of the brain plus our experiences? Or do you think that there exists a spirit which is the “self” operating through the brain?
All of the evidence I have seen is consistent with the mind being the emergent product of the physical brain. I am willing to be proven wrong, however.
1 Like
Food for thought . . .
Here is a section from Ann’s article:
For the record, I wouldn’t describe humans as “nothing but meat machines”, so let’s look past the rhetoric and instead look at the meat of the argument.
Ann seems to assume that humans think rationally. But do we always think rationally? Well . . . no we don’t. Human biases and intuitions are notoriously irrational. So how do we determine when we are thinking rationally and irrationally? I would argue that we differentiate between rational and irrational thought by comparing our ideas to external reality.
I also don’t see how the mind being separate from the brain solves the problem of trust. Ann argues that there is no way to determine if minds are rational if they come about through deterministic mechanisms. But how is this problem solved if the mind is independent of the brain? How does that increase our trust in the rationality of our minds? If our minds were intelligent created/designed, there is no guarantee that the creator/designer did not design faults into our minds, faults that we wouldn’t be able to detect.
There seem to be some assumptions that aren’t well founded.
2 Likes
Personally, I tend to take “the mind” to be a metaphor.
In ordinary speech, “the mind” means “the thinking organ”. But there is no such thing as a thinking organ. Thinking is an activity of the person as a whole, not of some distinctive organ.
2 Likes
I actually love the “meat machine” description. I don’t see it in a negative way, at all. But rather am amazed by what the “meat machine” can perform in terms of analysis, data processing, communication, interaction, creativity, etc. But I get what you are saying.
Do you perceive this lack of rational thought (apart from what Ann says) as evidence for the mind and brain being one? To me, your point would more likely lead one to determine that they are, in fact, separate aspects. To me, it would be more likely that a brain/mind would tend to be more rational because everything would be binary (yes/no) and responses would tend to be more automatic.
I really appreciate the points you make and the way that you articulate them. I agree that there is no way to detect those design faults if the mind were designed / created. So, it is a challenging issue to navigate. What do you think about one’s sensibility or intuition over this issue? If we are inclined to believe that we are “dualist” in that our brains process and our “minds” are our being, is there any significance to this?
Or, as Neil says:
For the record, please let me say that I was never intending to call out anyone personally, except that I was truly wondering if @Patrick had read the article. Even that was not intended to call him out, it was out of curiosity. That said, one thing led to the other and I became frustrated with the discussion. I did, and still see, a parallel between what people here complain about (being mistreated and mischaracterized) and how this conversation played out. Though @swamidass and I exchanged words publicly, I was not intending to call him out personally. He was just the unlucky recipient.
I think that this is a universal problem and that the discussion will never become productive unless we are willing to take the step, which will break us out of this habit of non-discussion. Everyone knows what the Golden Rule is… so if we model our discussions in a way that welcome further discussion, debate and engagement, there is a chance that people like Fuz Rana and Ann Gauger will participate. There is no value in stating that something is a bad idea or a baseless claim unless one says why this is so.
I say it time and again, there are brilliant people on all sides and what needs to take place is a discussion. If we don’t foster that discussion, the truth will never be fleshed out and the silly arguments and personal attacks will continue. If my comments have not aided that but have instead hampered it, for that I’m terribly sorry. I think, though, that they have not and that we are all guilty of not engaging enough with one another in real conversation. At the end of the day, Peaceful Science should be the kind of place where these monumental roadblocks are overcome, not reinforced. Apologies to anyone who did not comprehend that from what I wrote.
4 Likes
Thanks for clarifying. I had thought you were saying I was being unfair to her.
1 Like
I don’t think it is evidence in either direction. In my view, Dualism and Monism can both produce irrational human beings, and both could produce rational human beings (or a combination of both).
I tend to think of biology as being full of spectrums and non-binary outcomes, so I guess we differ in this aspect.
I guess it would depend on what you think is significant. For some people, their beliefs include a view of the world where they have a soul and a purpose given to them by a Creator. For other people (like myself), I create purpose in my own life and the existence of a separate mind really doesn’t impact my view of the world that much. Can we really know if we have free will or not? I don’t think we can, at least not at this point in time. Can we really know if reality itself is deterministic? Again, I don’t think we can (a philosophical topic that is still hotly debated in the field of quantum mechanics).
The one thing that does tickle my Skeptic senses is the argument from consequences. This is where you choose a conclusion based on the aesthetics of that conclusion. When someone says that they can’t believe in Monism because it leads to a worldview they don’t like it makes me want to point to the logical fallacy at the foundation of that argument. Ironically, such an argument is irrational. Does that mean Dualism is false? Not at all. All it means is that there are some bad arguments people use to support Dualism.
1 Like
Of course I read the article as I was the one who posted it. My main comments is why can’t the human mind be explained as what happens when a big brain advances with language and culture? Isn’t that what neuroscience and psychology are all about?
1 Like
Interesting, thanks as always. It makes my brain hurt, but isn’t this one of those topics that means that our discussion here may be moot?? 
I agree completely. This is a danger zone and an easy trap in which to fall. It is very easy for each of us to begin with our conclusions and wrap the evidence around it for support. I have seen that even here sometimes, so I try to point it out. I’m sure that I’ve been guilty of it too. I wish that more people were doing what you suggest here, to sharpen the dialog. When people are skeptical of an idea, they have a greater sensitivity to this. I think that if others who are in support of the same position call out such fallacies, they will make the arguments for their position stronger, and the likelihood that those skeptical of them will more likely accept them Do you agree?
You could have posted it after reading the title, knowing it was a potentially hot topic. The reason why I was asking is that I was thinking that you might lead with answers to your questions above. How can neuroscience and psychology explain the mind? A big brain advancing with language and culture is not the cause, it is the result that is being discussed in the article with the cause being unidentified.
Very interesting topic. It is amazing how many aspects of this crazy world have compelling arguments on both sides! Interesting how patients in a trance were told that they would be touched by a red-hot piece of metal. When touched by a pencil, they received blisters at that location. Whatever the mind is, it is a compelling force for sure.
I like this.
1 Like
Thanks. First vote of approval today! So, what do you think @Patrick ? Do you think that it is an issue that needs to be fleshed out? I mean to say, does the current evolutionary theory provide enough explanatory power for these mental faculties pointed out in @Agauger 's article? I’ve read on this page how they were timed with the appearance agriculture, but agriculture would not be causal either. It may be follow the development of the mental faculties, but surely a row of crops don’t translate into Mozart (to use an extreme, and silly, example.) I’m just wondering if you see language and culture as being a challenge to explain as arising on their own.
True enough that I can sort of agree with what you are getting at. We certainly do not know the whole story. A lot of progress has recently been made, and it centers on Chromosome 1, Human Gene for Big Brain - #2 by swamidass.
1 Like