Who are you? What makes you "you"?

[IWantGod]

But then again (I’m literally thinking out aloud here), that heads towards dualism, which I reject completely.

But why?..

 

[Wozza]

Thinker_Doer:

But the memories and mind can be demonstrated in a physical fashion, so there is no need for philosophy, Thomistic or otherwise.

The brain is fundamentally comprised of blind physical activity. Intention cannot be demonstrated as the act of a blind physical process because intention is the very antithesis of a blind physical process. If you were correct, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

But intention is a result of external processes. Which result in processes within us. My intent is to get a glass of water but that is prompted by a desire to drink something becuase the thirst reflex has been triggered. Which starts a chain of physical reactions resulting in a decision to go get the water.

Similarly, but more subtle, is your desire to perhaps respond to this post. To make it easier to understand I could insult you and your reaction would be anger and a natural need to strike back. In this instance by firing off a brusque reply. All physical reactions within your body.

There’s nobody prompting you: ‘Hey, don’t let Wozza get away with that’. Except maybe your subconscious responding to the physical reactions you felt.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

But the debate isn’t about substance dualism

Do you know of any books that just deals with the Thomistic conception of the soul? That would be helpful. Thanks

Not specifically, I do have an introductory philosophy of the mind book by Feser which settles on hylemorphism as the best case, but I don’t know if it goes into the human soul specifically. I also have some books concerned specifically with intellection and knowing, which is a power of the soul/due to a human’s formal cause. But neither I think specifically concern the soul as such.

It just kind of clicked for me after enough stewing that to the Thomist the soul is a formal cause of a thing, and when we say intellection is a power of a soul we’re basically saying it’s not any material part but a power that belongs to the whole as greater than the sum of its parts by virtue of being what it is (which, if you think about it, just is what a formal cause is: that which determines it being this type of thing), which is why we call it a power of the formal cause (soul).

For a Thomist it’s a formal property, but another way of thinking of it from an outsider perspective is as an “emergent” property. I don’t know if that helps at all.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But then again (I’m literally thinking out aloud here), that heads towards dualism, which I reject completely.

But why?..

There’s no ‘little man’ or homunculus or soul. I am entirely happy with all the literature that I have read regarding the mind to believe that it is entirely the result of physical, electrical and chemical responses to external stimulii.

It’s the fact that each of us has different physical experiences that gives us different memories and which makes you ‘you’ and me ‘me’.

And Occams razor always came in handy during the process of me reaching that happy state of affairs.

 

[IWantGod]

Which result in processes within us

But it isn’t just a result of processes, because that would just be a mindless activity. The end goal would be meaningless because moving to anywhere would just be a deterministic process and not by the power of intent. The processes in your brain are not acting with intent. There are just acting.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

Wozza:

But then again (I’m literally thinking out aloud here), that heads towards dualism, which I reject completely.

But why?..

I am entirely happy with all the literature that I have read regarding the mind to believe that it is entirely the result of physical, electrical and chemical responses to external stimulii…

And Occams razor always came in handy during the process of me reaching that happy state of affairs.

Occam’s Razor is all well and good, I agree. Our point of disagreement isn’t in whether it’s a good tool, it’s in whether you haven’t just cut off the fat but some of the substance as well, resulting in an explanation that is no explanation or solution at all.

 

[Wesrock]

Wozza:

Which result in processes within us

But it isn’t just a result of processes, because that would just be a mindless activity. The end goal would be meaningless because moving to anywhere would just be a deterministic process and not by the power of intent. The processes in your brain are not acting with intent. There are just acting.

The problem with philosophical materialism is that, when closely analyzed, it lacks any explanation for actual knowing as opposed to mindlessly responding. Knowing is thus either eliminated or left a mystery to be eventually solved (even though it can’t be solved under a strictly quantitative framework pretty much by definition).

 

[Wozza]

IWantGod:

Wozza:

Which result in processes within us

But it isn’t just a result of processes, because that would just be a mindless activity. The end goal would be meaningless because moving to anywhere would just be a deterministic process and not by the power of intent. The processes in your brain are not acting with intent. There are just acting.

The problem with philosophical materialism is that it, when closely analyzed, lacks any explanation for actual knowing as opposed to mindlessly responding. Knowing is thus either eliminated or left a mystery to be eventually solved (even though it can’t be solved under a strictly quantitative framework pretty much by definition).

Agreed. Knowing (and even consciousness itself) is a mystery to be solved. I’m happy to admit ‘we don’t know’ if asked about it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Which result in processes within us

But it isn’t just a result of processes, because that would just be a mindless activity. The end goal would be meaningless because moving to anywhere would just be a deterministic process and not by the power of intent. The processes in your brain are not acting with intent. There are just acting.

The process is both: Mindless activity and intent. There is no problem in having both.

There is mindless activity in me getting thirsty (to keep it simple). I have no conscious control over that. So there are physical (I’ll propose we accept the chemical and electrical processes as a given) processes involved resulting in a message being sent to the brain ‘Need a drink’. And that prompts further activity which results in muscular activity that takes you to the fridge. Almost all of this is subconscious. I’m sure we’re all familiar with standing in front of the fridge and wondering ‘why’d I come here?’

There is also the conscious you going along for the ride (the rider on the elephant if you are familiar with Jonathon Haidt’s work) mostly realising that all this is happening and feeling quite comfortable that you are totally in charge. Most of that feeling that we are in total control is an illusion.

How much? Not sure. Work in progress.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

Thinker_Doer:

But the memories and mind can be demonstrated in a physical fashion, so there is no need for philosophy, Thomistic or otherwise.

The brain is fundamentally comprised of blind physical activity. Intention cannot be demonstrated as the act of a blind physical process because intention is the very antithesis of a blind physical process. If you were correct, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

But intention is a result of external processes.

Ah, I missed this. Intentionality is another technical term. It’s not unique to Thomism but to philosophy of the mind as a whole. For philosophy of the mind, intentionality refers to the “aboutness” or value content of thoughts. Do thoughts have things in the external world as their object? Or is the only object of thoughts thought itself as representations of external objects?

Philosophical materialism limits itself to blind processes (no purpose, value, or aboutness) meaning it lacks any explanation or vehicle for thoughts being about anything, having any object, or having connection to the electro-chemical impulses and stimuli at all (or the reverse, really, that electro-chemical reactions can have any value content, or that Knowing or intentionality is reducible to physicalism). So we reach an impasse with a materialist philosophy of knowledge.

This deserves a whole book as an explanation and elaboration, of course.

 

[IWantGod]

Knowing is thus either eliminated or left a mystery to be eventually solved

Exactly. The act of knowing is just along for the ride. Given materialism, you might as-well not be there at all.

 

[Wozza]

Wesrock:

Knowing is thus either eliminated or left a mystery to be eventually solved

Exactly. The act of knowing is just along for the ride.

The act of knowing is the conscious rider. On the elephant. Which is the subconscious.

 

[IWantGod]

The process is both: Mindless activity and intent. There is no problem in having both.

I never said there was. I only pointed out that there is a problem in describing intent as only being the natural deterministic almost-inevitable result of a blind natural process. To act with intent towards a thing is the very opposite of a blind natural process in that there is goal direction and a will to an end.

 

[Wozza]

Philosophical materialism limits itself to blind processes (no purpose, value, or aboutness) meaning it lacks any explanation or vehicle for thoughts being about anything…

But there is purpose in me going to the fridge. And there would be even if I were totally unaware of what I was doing (as we sometimes are). And me going to the fridge is the result of physical (name removed by moderator)ut. No thought need come into it.

If I were a mindless zombie and thirsty (assuming zombies need to drink) then I would still go the fridge. And it would be nonsense to deny purpose in that case. And there would be no thought or consciousness involved whatsoever.

 

[Wesrock]

If I were a mindless zombie and thirsty (assuming zombies need to drink) then I would still go the fridge. And it would be nonsense to deny purpose in that case. And there would be no thought or consciousness involved whatsoever.

Well, certain people of a scientism bent might cry foul at seeing a purpose there because it must be reasonably inferred and not measured, but I won’t. But you describe precisely the problem. Physicalism only allows for philosophical zombies (p-zombies: it’s an actual term). It lacks any explanation for knowing or the intentionality of thought. Which leads, as I said before, to materialists either denying that we Know or have minds at all or offer it up as a great mystery which we’ll eventually solve (by somehow finding the qualitative when when the qualitative is strictly forbidden from the method?).

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The process is both: Mindless activity and intent. There is no problem in having both.

I never said there was. I only pointed out that there is a problem in describing intent as only being the natural deterministic almost-inevitable result of a blind natural process. To act with intent towards a thing is the very opposite of a blind natural process in that there is goal direction and a will to an end.

No. We assume intent. You don’t intend to get thirsty. But your body tells you you need water and all you do is make a decision: To get a drink or not. There are other (name removed by moderator)uts at work which will physically prompt that decision one way or the other. The house is on fire so the decision is ‘no’.

You can then go back and say ‘I decided not to go to the fridge’ but all that happened was that some other physical (name removed by moderator)uts overode the original desire.

Now this most definitely works at the lower end of the food chain. Simple decision making. Simple (name removed by moderator)uts. Simple responses. But I have absolutely nothing that tells me that this doesn’t work all the way up to the most complex interactions we have with the world.

 

[Wesrock]

But I have absolutely nothing that tells me that this doesn’t work all the way up to the most complex interactions we have with the world.

Are we having a discussion or is this all just blind physical reactions resulting in ons and offs in a server, lights on a screen, and mechanical pressing of compressable parts?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

The brain is fundamentally comprised of blind physical activity. Intention cannot be demonstrated as the act of a blind physical process because intention is the very antithesis of a blind physical process. If you were correct, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

There is nothing mysterious in the storage of our memories in the brain. Every time we experience something, the neural network changes. If we manipulate the brain using chemical substances or mild electrical current, we can demonstrate that the activity of the brain, AKA the thinking process changes. Our personality is stored in the frontal lobe. Exciting certain parts of the brain will evoke pleasure or pain. All physical “stuff”.

Due to the incredible complexity of the brain, and due to the very short time we have been experimenting there is a LOT we cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint. But to argue that since we don’t know the details, therefore it must be some non-physical activity going on would be just another thinly veiled “God of the gaps” argument.

As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of the brain activity happens in the subconscious, beyond our volitional control.

A gradual replacement would simply have the individual parts incorporated into the original. But if we built an artificial brain that duplicated yours and ‘turned it on’ would there be two of you?

Yes, for a split of a second. As soon as the two entities will be exposed to different stimuli, they will gradually drift apart.

But it isn’t just a result of processes, because that would just be a mindless activity. The end goal would be meaningless because moving to anywhere would just be a deterministic process and not by the power of intent.

One of the basic errors in this argument is that the reality is NOT deterministic. The other - also basic error is the neglect of the emergence of new properties.

The problem with philosophical materialism is that, when closely analyzed, it lacks any explanation for actual knowing as opposed to mindlessly responding.

What is the difference? Consider the navigation in a new town, by following the street signs and the external map. You can get from A to B, just fine. After a while, when you repeat this process many times, all of a sudden the town will “open up”, you internalize - or KNOW - which way to go, how to get from A to B without external help. That would be the equivalent of KNOWING.

 

[Wesrock]

@Thinker_Doer

Let me know if I’m too far off topic or too dominating the discussion direction for this thread. Philosophy of the Mind does seem immediately related to the question of what “you” are, but I’ve taken half the topic up with this particular argument.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The problem with philosophical materialism is that, when closely analyzed, it lacks any explanation for actual knowing as opposed to mindlessly responding.

What is the difference? Consider the navigation in a new town, by following the street signs and the external map. You can get from A to B, just fine. After a while, when you repeat this process many times, all of a sudden the town will “open up”, you internalize - or KNOW - which way to go, how to get from A to B without external help. That would be the equivalent of KNOWING.

Do you think? I’m not asking if there are electro-chemical impulses in the brain. I’m asking if you have an experience of knowing, thinking, intending, understanding concepts.