compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Just wondering, are you saying that mental states are physical?

I'm saying that I don't have a reason to suppose that the mind is not a direct consequence of the physical world.

As far as I can tell, we are in complete agreement here.

Cool!

Still wish I knew how consciousness actually worked, it's one of the most, if not the most, interesting problems in the world. I'll probably die without a satisfactory answer.

[BigMike]

Ah I see.

I still don't see it as fundamentally implausible that two modes of existence could have a small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other, which is what I suppose dualists think, right? There's a mind-realm and our physical realm, synced time-wise and having a small casual relationship with each other, apparently exclusively in the brain.

I don't think it's correct, and I don't think it actually solves any philosophical problems, but the idea of it seems on the surface at least not internally contradictory or inherently not possible.

Newton's first law, also known as the law of inertia, states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. In the case of nerve signals, the electrical impulses that transmit information throughout the nervous system can be thought of as objects in motion.

To initiate a thought or action that would not otherwise have occurred, would require to initiate or change the electric impulses in at least one neuron. That, according to Newton. would require and external force. But there are only four fundamental forces in the known universe, and they are all interactions between two (or more) physical objects.

Therefore, anything that alters the physical state of the brain must be physical; a nonphysical mental state cannot do so. There is no "small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other", between "the two modes of existence", that is.

[Flannel Jesus]

My main problem with the idea is not that it implies any sort of exception to any known laws of physics - that doesn't bother me at all in fact. My main problem with it is it requires a certain level of coordination between the two realms - physical and mind - that has some problems.

A mind dualist is proposing a model of the world where this mind realm is somehow aware, or notified, when a new brain is created, and then it somehow attaches a mind to a brain, tethers the two things casually somehow.

And that's the problem: that there needs to be some sort of fundamental concept of a brain - which is a pretty big thing, composed of many many atoms. It implies a sort of non-local strongly emergent awareness of what matter counts as "brain" compared to what matter counts as "non-brain", and I just think a distinction like that is unlikely to be operating at any level, I think locality as a pattern in nature is probably very fundamental, I don't think there's anything in the universe deciding what is and isn't a brain and tethering a "mind" to it based on these non-local determinations. Strong emergence, of anything, seems inherently very unlikely to me. And the idea that the universe cares about brains in particular as well.

[Iwannaplato]

Ah I see.

I still don't see it as fundamentally implausible that two modes of existence could have a small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other, which is what I suppose dualists think, right? There's a mind-realm and our physical realm, synced time-wise and having a small casual relationship with each other, apparently exclusively in the brain.

I don't think it's correct, and I don't think it actually solves any philosophical problems, but the idea of it seems on the surface at least not internally contradictory or inherently not possible.

Newton's first law, also known as the law of inertia, states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. In the case of nerve signals, the electrical impulses that transmit information throughout the nervous system can be thought of as objects in motion.

To initiate a thought or action that would not otherwise have occurred, would require to initiate or change the electric impulses in at least one neuron. That, according to Newton. would require and external force. But there are only four fundamental forces in the known universe, and they are all interactions between two (or more) physical objects.

Therefore, anything that alters the physical state of the brain must be physical; a nonphysical mental state cannot do so. There is no "small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other", between "the two modes of existence", that is.

What does the word physical mean?
How do you know that two substances cannot be intercausal?
How do you know there is not some other way to interact?
If we ruled out things going on what we know so far, we are closing a door that well need to be opened. Of course, this pattern has happened with regularity in science and other ways of gaining knowledge.

[BigMike]

My main problem with the idea is not that it implies any sort of exception to any known laws of physics - that doesn't bother me at all in fact. My main problem with it is it requires a certain level of coordination between the two realms - physical and mind - that has some problems.

A mind dualist is proposing a model of the world where this mind realm is somehow aware, or notified, when a new brain is created, and then it somehow attaches a mind to a brain, tethers the two things casually somehow.

And that's the problem: that there needs to be some sort of fundamental concept of a brain - which is a pretty big thing, composed of many many atoms. It implies a sort of non-local strongly emergent awareness of what matter counts as "brain" compared to what matter counts as "non-brain", and I just think a distinction like that is unlikely to be operating at any level, I think locality as a pattern in nature is probably very fundamental, I don't think there's anything in the universe deciding what is and isn't a brain and tethering a "mind" to it based on these non-local determinations. Strong emergence, of anything, seems inherently very unlikely to me. And the idea that the universe cares about brains in particular as well.

Imagine nerve impulses traveling from the organs of perception to the brain, and then to the muscles and glands. This is, in principle, how the afferent, central, and efferent nerve systems are interconnected and operate.

Imagine for a moment that we could magically turn off all incoming signals, effectively silencing the senses. At least for a limited amount of time, feedback loops would continue to cause neuronal activity in the brain and could potentially cause muscle movements as well.

I assume that "isolated" brain activity is in some way related to what the majority of people would call consciousness. Perception is another aspect of consciousness, in my opinion. The blueness of the sky is created in the mind, as it is neither present in the light that strikes the retina nor in the optical nerves or nerve signals.

That is how far I have come in my own speculation regarding consciousness; not very far, as you can tell.

[Belinda]

My main problem with the idea is not that it implies any sort of exception to any known laws of physics - that doesn't bother me at all in fact. My main problem with it is it requires a certain level of coordination between the two realms - physical and mind - that has some problems.

A mind dualist is proposing a model of the world where this mind realm is somehow aware, or notified, when a new brain is created, and then it somehow attaches a mind to a brain, tethers the two things casually somehow.

And that's the problem: that there needs to be some sort of fundamental concept of a brain - which is a pretty big thing, composed of many many atoms. It implies a sort of non-local strongly emergent awareness of what matter counts as "brain" compared to what matter counts as "non-brain", and I just think a distinction like that is unlikely to be operating at any level, I think locality as a pattern in nature is probably very fundamental, I don't think there's anything in the universe deciding what is and isn't a brain and tethering a "mind" to it based on these non-local determinations. Strong emergence, of anything, seems inherently very unlikely to me. And the idea that the universe cares about brains in particular as well.

Imagine nerve impulses traveling from the organs of perception to the brain, and then to the muscles and glands. This is, in principle, how the afferent, central, and efferent nerve systems are interconnected and operate.

Imagine for a moment that we could magically turn off all incoming signals, effectively silencing the senses. At least for a limited amount of time, feedback loops would continue to cause neuronal activity in the brain and could potentially cause muscle movements as well.

I assume that "isolated" brain activity is in some way related to what the majority of people would call consciousness. Perception is another aspect of consciousness, in my opinion. The blueness of the sky is created in the mind, as it is neither present in the light that strikes the retina nor in the optical nerves or nerve signals.

That is how far I have come in my own speculation regarding consciousness; not very far, as you can tell.

If by "consciousness" you refer to waking awareness, then not only is the blueness of the sky created by a certain brain state, but also we can't objectively observe our own brain states. I mean, we can objectively observe a spinal reflex or a voluntary action and at least in theory and with some clinical instrumentation we can correlate what our liver appears to be doing with how we feel our liver. But we can't normally correlate memory and neural activity. I believe the latter has been done by brain surgeons in cooperation with conscious patients (brains don't hurt!) however we don't carry a brain surgeon around in our handbag. Unlike livers and knee joints, brains lack feedback mechanisms.

[BigMike]

Ah I see.

I still don't see it as fundamentally implausible that two modes of existence could have a small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other, which is what I suppose dualists think, right? There's a mind-realm and our physical realm, synced time-wise and having a small casual relationship with each other, apparently exclusively in the brain.

I don't think it's correct, and I don't think it actually solves any philosophical problems, but the idea of it seems on the surface at least not internally contradictory or inherently not possible.

Newton's first law, also known as the law of inertia, states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. In the case of nerve signals, the electrical impulses that transmit information throughout the nervous system can be thought of as objects in motion.

To initiate a thought or action that would not otherwise have occurred, would require to initiate or change the electric impulses in at least one neuron. That, according to Newton. would require and external force. But there are only four fundamental forces in the known universe, and they are all interactions between two (or more) physical objects.

Therefore, anything that alters the physical state of the brain must be physical; a nonphysical mental state cannot do so. There is no "small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other", between "the two modes of existence", that is.

What does the word physical mean?

By physical object, I mean something with properties such as energy (including mass), linear momentum, electric charge, and angular momentum, or any of the six quantities governed by the conservation laws. Interactions between physical objects result in the exchange and transfer of some of their conserved properties, and are defined by this exchange and transfer. If no such transfer occurs, there is no interaction.

How do you know that two substances cannot be intercausal?

I don't think I ever said that.

How do you know there is not some other way to interact?

I don't. I just don't have any reason to think there is some other way.

If we ruled out things going on what we know so far, we are closing a door that well need to be opened. Of course, this pattern has happened with regularity in science and other ways of gaining knowledge.

Indeed, as soon as new evidence becomes available, I will gladly revise my worldview as necessary.

[Flannel Jesus]

How do you know that two substances cannot be intercausal?

I don't think I ever said that.

How do you know there is not some other way to interact?

I don't. I just don't have any reason to think there is some other way.

I think he's looking at the words you said here:

Therefore, anything that alters the physical state of the brain must be physical; a nonphysical mental state cannot do so. There is no "small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other", between "the two modes of existence", that is.

[BigMike]

How do you know that two substances cannot be intercausal?

I don't think I ever said .

How do you know there is not some other way to interact?

I don't. I just don't have any reason to think there is some other way.

I think he's looking at the words you said here:

Therefore, anything that alters the physical state of the brain must be physical; a nonphysical mental state cannot do so. There is no "small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other", between "the two modes of existence", that is.

I still don't get it. Which two substances did I say cannot interact causally? Or does he define a nonphysical mental state as a substance?

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't think I ever said .

I don't. I just don't have any reason to think there is some other way.

I think he's looking at the words you said here:

Therefore, anything that alters the physical state of the brain must be physical; a nonphysical mental state cannot do so. There is no "small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other", between "the two modes of existence", that is.

I still don't get it. Which two substances did I say cannot interact causally? Or does he define a nonphysical mental state as a substance?

That is apparently what he's talking about, as far as I can tell.

[BigMike]

I think he's looking at the words you said here:

I still don't get it. Which two substances did I say cannot interact causally? Or does he define a nonphysical mental state as a substance?

That is apparently what he's talking about, as far as I can tell.

In that case my response to his first question regarding what physical means, and in particular my point about conservation laws: Interactions are the exchange and transfer of some properties. If no such transfer occurs, there is no interaction. A nonphysical substance has no energy, momentum, or anything else to transfer and can therefore not cause or change anything.

[Iwannaplato]

By physical object, I mean something with properties such as energy (including mass)

There are massless particles.

linear momentum,

some have this, some don't

electric charge,

Some things don't

and angular momentum,

Ibid

or any of the six quantities governed by the conservation laws.

I think it's more than six.

So, when something is considered physical it will have some of these qualities at least. Now, that is. What would have been considered physical earlier in time would have been described different.

We find new things or find old things and realize...things like, oh, they don't have mass. But we think they are real and so we call them physical, even if we have to open up the definition of physical to include them. This has been happening for a while.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are considered real, even though we don't know what they're made of. It's possible that they will have new qualities or lack many or all the qualities you listed above. But once they are localized REGARDLESS of their qualities, they will be called physical, by physicalists anyway.

How do you know there is not some other way to interact?

I don't. I just don't have any reason to think there is some other way.

That's different from ruling it out. It seemed like you were ruling it out.

Indeed, as soon as new evidence becomes available, I will gladly revise my worldview as necessary.

Sure, my point is not you should believe X, but rather I'm critical of....

Therefore, anything that alters the physical state of the brain must be physical; a nonphysical mental state cannot do so. There is no "small surface area of bi-directional casualty with each other", between "the two modes of existence", that is.

[phyllo]

However, according to determinism, non-physical mental states cannot cause or even influence physical states.

That's not a requirement of determinism.

Determinism can be purely physical, purely non-physical or a combination or physical and non-physical.

The only requirement is that prior events/states produce a necessary effect.

One can say that a book is physical but the message contained in the book is non-physical. A person reacts to the message, not the physical book.

In fact, it's counterproductive to try to link this reaction to physical forces and subatomic particles.

[BigMike]

However, according to determinism, non-physical mental states cannot cause or even influence physical states.

That's not a requirement of determinism.

Determinism can be purely physical, purely non-physical or a combination or physical and non-physical.

The only requirement is that prior events/states produce a necessary effect.

One can say that a book is physical but the message contained in the book is non-physical. A person reacts to the message, not the physical book.

In fact, it's counterproductive to try to link this reaction to physical forces and subatomic particles.

Are you implying that visual experiences, such as reading a book, are not physical and do not involve the exchange of energy that excites photosensitive cones and rods in the retina, resulting in the transmission of an electric nerve pulse (action potential) via neurons to the brain?

[iambiguous]

Our Nietzschean Future
Paul O’Mahoney considers the awful fate Nietzsche predicts for humanity.

The Future of Philosophy

There is no doubt that the renunciation of the idea of freedom would represent an irreversible debasement of humanity as traditionally understood, inducing a kind of vertigo in our species. That such a renunciation might be inevitable, and belief in freedom irrecoverable, is however not at all difficult to imagine. How might a person orient themselves in this vertiginous climate?

Again, however, how far is he going with Nietzsche and determinism?

To wit...

"Here, the conviction that a human being cannot realistically be held accountable for their actions is the norm. This would be a world in which there is no longer any concept of criminal responsibility. No longer would blame or merit be possible. The task confronting humanity as a whole is to wrestle with and reckon with the consequences of this new conventional wisdom. There are good reasons to believe that humanity, confronted with this refutation of its most cherished and sustaining illusions, would ultimately destroy itself."

Think this through as I do...

If we cannot be held accountable for our actions, and our actions are a result of what we think and feel, then how is the task confronting humanity not the same thing? We carry out the task but we are not accountable -- responsible -- for doing that either. And did the author and Nietzsche bring determinism all the way back to themselves? The author wrote this article and Nietzsche wrote those aphorisms only because they were never able not to? And we are reading them because we were never able not to?

The quandary at the heart of it all?

It must first be said that, despair-inducing though this future scenario might seem, it is likely also, after some period of adjustment, to be a spur to liberation – from responsibility, from hierarchy, and from fear.

Yeah, it can always work both ways. Despair because we must. But because we must despair it comes back to the illusion of despair. The matter that is my brain compels me to despair. But it's all embedded in the mystery of my mind itself. I despair in my dreams. It's all a chemical and a neurological despair. I'm sound asleep, not really feeling despair at all as I might in the waking world. But what of that despair in the waking world? Is that too all just the brain doing its thing in a wholly, totally inevitable world?

That's the part I can never untangle in my head. That's the part I can never be absolutely certain is a bona fide option for me.

Unafraid, more willing to wager the self on an action, in this future many human beings will come by default into possession of those Nietzschean virtues of daring and honesty that mark them as ascending types. That no attitude or action will be accounted their own choice, or worthy of praise or merit, will only sharpen the sense of fearlessness and commitment.

Again, the part where the author imagines this somehow in sync with a world "where human beings cannot realistically be held accountable for their actions"...a world where "no longer would blame or merit be possible."

Okay, an individual becomes one of the Übermensch...or an individual becomes one of the Last Men. So what? He can no longer embrace the merit of one or accept the blame for the other because merit and blame themselves are but inherent manifestations of the only possible world.