PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real

[Peter Holmes]

When we say 'I feel this in my heart', or make a 'heartfelt response', I assume we agree that this is to speak metaphorically. We would think it odd to look for feelings in the heart. It's just an organic pump. But is to recognise this to deny the existence of feelings?

Actually the heart has a large number of neurons

Recent findings: Dr. Armour, in 1991, discovered that the heart has its "little brain" or "intrinsic cardiac nervous system." This "heart brain" is composed of approximately 40,000 neurons that are alike neurons in the brain, meaning that the heart has its own nervous system. In addition, the heart communicates with the brain in many methods: neurologically, biochemically, biophysically, and energetically. The vagus nerve, which is 80% afferent, carries information from the heart and other internal organs to the brain. Signals from the "heart brain" redirect to the medulla, hypothalamus, thalamus, and amygdala and the cerebral cortex. Thus, the heart sends more signals to the brain than vice versa. Research has demonstrated that pain perception is modulated by neural pathways and methods targeting the heart such as vagus nerve stimulation and heart-rhythm coherence feedback techniques. The heart is not just a pump. It has its neural network or "little brain." The methods targeting the heart modulate pain regions in the brain. These methods seem to modulate the key changes that occur in the brain regions and are involved in the cognitive and emotional factors of pain. Thus, the heart is probably a key moderator of pain.

As does the gut...

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... o%20little.

The neurons in the heart and the gut are not just there to pump or digest and have very complicated relationships with the brain and endocrine systems, emotions also.

All very interesting. The heart isn't just an organic pump. So should we look for thoughts, feelings, emotions or moods in the heart? (Wittgenstein joked about thinking with our hands when we write.)

The amazing complexity of the physical interactions going on our bodies isn't the issue. I'm pointing out the metaphorical nature of talk about minds containing or consisting of mental things and event. That we can identify the mind with even the whole body makes no difference.

[Skepdick]

All very interesting. The heart isn't just an organic pump. So should we look for thoughts, feelings, emotions or moods in the heart? (Wittgenstein joked about thinking with our hands when we write.)

The amazing complexity of the physical interactions going on our bodies isn't the issue. I'm pointing out the metaphorical nature of talk about minds containing or consisting of mental things and event. That we can identify the mind with even the whole body makes no difference.

What's with all this metaphorical talk of "issues"?

Where should we look for "issues" exactly?

[Iwannaplato]

I think there were even cases where people reported to have acquired feelings and preferences they didn't have before, after organ transplants.

Yes, and I believe this, but it's not generally accepted (yet).

Anyway that's beside the point now, the problem is the denial of the reality of experiences themselves. One pretends that they don't have a reality of their own, and just refers to them metaphorically or not even that (which thinking is, ironically, just a different kind of real experience).

[Atla]

I think there were even cases where people reported to have acquired feelings and preferences they didn't have before, after organ transplants.

Yes, and I believe this, but it's not generally accepted (yet).

Anyway that's beside the point now, the problem is the denial of the reality of experiences themselves. One pretends that they don't have a reality of their own, and just refers to them metaphorically or not even that (which thinking is, ironically, just a different kind of real experience).

What do you mean?I think at least 90% of humanity treats experiences as real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think there were even cases where people reported to have acquired feelings and preferences they didn't have before, after organ transplants.

Yes, and I believe this, but it's not generally accepted (yet).

Anyway that's beside the point now, the problem is the denial of the reality of experiences themselves. One pretends that they don't have a reality of their own, and just refers to them metaphorically or not even that (which thinking is, ironically, just a different kind of real experience).

I read about this very long ago;

• https://www.heartmath.com/
  For more than 25 years, HeartMath Institute has been researching the heart-brain connection and learning how the heart influences our perceptions, emotions, intuition and health.
  HeartMath helps you tap into the power and intelligence of your heart – your heart’s intuition – which awakens you to the best version of yourself.

Many of the claims from the HeartMath Institute are now supported by scientific research.

[Atla]

I think there were even cases where people reported to have acquired feelings and preferences they didn't have before, after organ transplants.

Yes, and I believe this, but it's not generally accepted (yet).

Anyway that's beside the point now, the problem is the denial of the reality of experiences themselves. One pretends that they don't have a reality of their own, and just refers to them metaphorically or not even that (which thinking is, ironically, just a different kind of real experience).

Ah you meant the transplants.

[Iwannaplato]

All very interesting. The heart isn't just an organic pump. So should we look for thoughts, feelings, emotions or moods in the heart? (Wittgenstein joked about thinking with our hands when we write.)

Look for them there? That's your odd metaphor. Like go digging with surgical tools or take MRI images? No. I was reacting to your reduction of the heart to only one of its functions - which you did - and since you brought up the function, it seemed like an implicit 'see it has nothing to do with anything related to emotions, etc. If you weren't arguing that, then there was no need to speak about heart function.

And then you went on with an appeal to incredulity here....

Of course, that's not to say that a strong emotional response may not manifest as a pain in the region of the heart, or in the chest - which may be the origin of the metaphor. Perhaps we feel things in our ribs or intercostal muscles. We certainly talk about knowing things in our bones.

So, it seems like it does matter to you the issue of which parts of the body are associated with emotions and cognition.

The physicalist would say the experiencing of these things is some facet of physical processes in the brain or if they are more up to date in other organs also and or the whole body a la Candace Pert. That is if they are a physicalist that grants that there is experiencing are emotions. There are some who do not think there are these things. That they are somehow illusions, whatever that would mean.

The amazing complexity of the physical interactions going on our bodies isn't the issue. I'm pointing out the metaphorical nature of talk about minds containing or consisting of mental things and event. That we can identify the mind with even the whole body makes no difference.

I'll happily take on what I consider unnecessary reductions one at a time, despite categories.

One difference between you and me is that you presume monism and see criticisms of your positions as assertions of dualism. I see both substance claims as unsupported, and I suppose also restricting.

But you do believe we experience things?
That we have emotions, feelings, thoughts.

I've been told you don't think we experience things. (not, here, meaning that bodies don't, say, experience impacts from cars, but being aware of things, being conscious of things) Is this true? That you don't believe in consciousness? What word that isn't a mind mental word do you use for consciousness or awareness?

[Iwannaplato]

I think there were even cases where people reported to have acquired feelings and preferences they didn't have before, after organ transplants.

Yes, and I believe this, but it's not generally accepted (yet).

Anyway that's beside the point now, the problem is the denial of the reality of experiences themselves. One pretends that they don't have a reality of their own, and just refers to them metaphorically or not even that (which thinking is, ironically, just a different kind of real experience).

Ah you meant the transplants.

Bingo

[Veritas Aequitas]

All very interesting. The heart isn't just an organic pump. So should we look for thoughts, feelings, emotions or moods in the heart? (Wittgenstein joked about thinking with our hands when we write.)

Despite all the above discussion, you still cannot grasp the essential and diverted to a Wittgenstein's joke which is out-dated. Since W's days there has been a lot of advancement in the knowledge of human nature.

The amazing complexity of the physical interactions going on our bodies isn't the issue. I'm pointing out the metaphorical nature of talk about minds containing or consisting of mental things and event. That we can identify the mind with even the whole body makes no difference.

It is an issue.
It is "the amazing complexity of the physical interactions going on our bodies" [you are ignorant of] that enable the existence of an objective physical mind within the physical brain.

Suggest you do research into,
"the amazing complexity of the physical interactions going on our bodies"
before you blurt out your next assertion based on ignorance.

[Iwannaplato]

Why should the claim that talk about minds containing mental things and events is metaphorical entail denial of the existence of minds? What is the thing, 'mind', that does or doesn't exist?

[/quote]
Note: I am not promoting dualism nor accepting monism

If we want to literally refer to awareness how do we do that and what physical thing can replace that word with?
Can you give an example an assertion about, say, dreams, that is not metaphorical and not a dead metaphor or a word that is used as a batching of many experiences (awarenesses).

I would argue that since we give words meanings based on our experiences of them: iow how our primate bodies and senses experience some object X - then any word is metaphorical. It's always describing our experiences (our idiosyncratic, if to some degree species wide, primate experiencing of those things. We have the experiences, which yes we can repeat, and we use our experiences to describe the thing.

Scientists tend to assume that consciousness arises when some organism gets complicated enough. But the best they've managed to show is that cognitive functions - like memory or thought - arise in certain life forms, but nowhere have we shown where the bottom of consciousness is (and there is now a lot of evidence plants should be considered conscious), nor that consciousness is dependent on organic matter patterns. It's just assumed. and in fact in science it was assumed for a long time that only humans were conscious and it could mess up your career if you athropomophized animals as being experiencers, with emotions, intentions, etc.

This does not mean, as I said, that there is dualism. In fact I think both the dualists and the monists are making interesting claims but that neither has demonstrated they are correct.

I black box substance claims in any discussion where they become the center. I think substance axioms have probably been useful for many people are a variety of fields of study. But mainly that they give a base to get moving. I don't think anyone has demonstrated either positions or the others.

[Flannel Jesus]

...nor that consciousness is dependent on organic matter patterns. It's just assumed. and in fact in science it was assumed for a long time that only humans were conscious and it could mess up your career if you athropomophized animals as being experiencers, with emotions, intentions, etc.

This does not mean, as I said, that there is dualism.

I would hope not! Plenty of monists think that consciousness is not dependent on organic matter.

[Iwannaplato]

...nor that consciousness is dependent on organic matter patterns. It's just assumed. and in fact in science it was assumed for a long time that only humans were conscious and it could mess up your career if you athropomophized animals as being experiencers, with emotions, intentions, etc.

This does not mean, as I said, that there is dualism.

I would hope not! Plenty of monists think that consciousness is not dependent on organic matter.

In a world of billions I am sure there are many, but I'm not sure it's a large group 5-wise. (which is not an ad populum put-down, many of my positions are low %)

[Flannel Jesus]

In a world of billions I am sure there are many, but I'm not sure it's a large group 5-wise. (which is not an ad populum put-down, many of my positions are low %)

You think a very low percent of monists think consciousness is not dependent on organic matter?

I think, if we only focus on the part of the population that cares enough to really think about, a really sizable chunk of monists would take a substrate-independent approach here. Maybe not most, but potentially something like 20, 30%

[Iwannaplato]

In a world of billions I am sure there are many, but I'm not sure it's a large group 5-wise. (which is not an ad populum put-down, many of my positions are low %)

You think a very low percent of monists think consciousness is not dependent on conscious matter?

I assume you mean organic matter here. If I have interpreted your sentence correctly it sounds like we are talking about monists who think that some or all non-organic matter is conscious. This would include people following animist/pantheist/panpsychist type systems of belief, though I have some question about whether they don't see all matter as organic. But then people not in their groups would consider them to be thinking consciousness can be based in inorganic matter. And anyone who thinks that AI will become (or has become conscious). I guess I'd sort of forgotten about that last group, which is now growing.

[Flannel Jesus]

In a world of billions I am sure there are many, but I'm not sure it's a large group 5-wise. (which is not an ad populum put-down, many of my positions are low %)

You think a very low percent of monists think consciousness is not dependent on conscious matter?

I assume you mean organic matter here. If I have interpreted your sentence correctly it sounds like we are talking about monists who think that some or all non-organic matter is conscious. This would include people following animist/pantheist/panpsychist type systems of belief, though I have some question about whether they don't see all matter as organic. But then people not in their groups would consider them to be thinking consciousness can be based in inorganic matter. And anyone who thinks that AI will become (or has become conscious). I guess I'd sort of forgotten about that last group, which is now growing.

I meant organic matter, thanks for the correction.

I wasn't thinking panpsychist-types, though that's a good shout. Substrate-independence thought pattern is indeed the sort of thought pattern that would lead a monist to think AI might, in the future, be able to attain consciousness (very few people think it has already).

I estimated earlier 20-30% of monists think something like this, but I imagine that number shoots up drastically if we only consider monists who publish papers around this topic. Whether they be philosophers, ai researchers or neuro scientists, monists who are published in their field of study are probably mostly of the substrate independence variety.