Philosophy Now Forum

Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

I think people have the most misunderstanding about property dualism/panpsychism - I remember talking to some of my fellow philosophy students in a master's program - and when I mentioned my interest in property dualism, I was accused of being interested in it because, they said, if it was true, then humans would be immortal. I don't think they quite got the distinction between property vs substance dualism. It looks to me like - if property dualism or panpsycism is the case, then humans are not immortal. At least I don't see how property dualism or panpsychism would lead to immortality.

if the mind wasn't connected to the brain, lobotomies wouldn't work...

psychotropic/psychoactive drugs wouldn't either

-Imp

anonymous66 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:17 pm Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

In each case all that is really being referred to are just 'thoughts', and/or 'thinking', itself

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:28 pm if the mind wasn't connected to the brain, lobotomies wouldn't work...

psychotropic/psychoactive drugs wouldn't either

-Imp

I'm going to look into how modern day proponents of substance dualism deal with this problem. Presumably there is a way around this obstacle. I don't find substance dualism to be appealing, but I know many people do.

I did find this on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy under "Dualism and Mind": "These problems involved in mind-body causality are commonly considered decisive refutations of interactionism. However, many interesting questions arise in this area. We want to ask: 'How is mind-body interaction possible? Where does the interaction occur? What is the nature of the interface between mind and matter? How are volitions translated into states of affairs? Aren’t minds and bodies insufficiently alike for the one to effect changes in the other?'

It is useful to be reminded, however, that to be bewildered by something is not in itself to present an argument against, or even evidence against, the possibility of that thing being a matter of fact. To ask 'How is it possible that . . . ?' is merely to raise a topic for discussion. And if the dualist doesn’t know or cannot say how minds and bodies interact, what follows about dualism? Nothing much. It only follows that dualists do not know everything about metaphysics. But so what? Psychologists, physicists, sociologists, and economists don’t know everything about their respective disciplines. Why should the dualist be any different? In short, dualists can argue that they should not be put on the defensive by the request for clarification about the nature and possibility of interaction or by the criticism that they have no research strategy for producing this clarification."

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:56 pm

anonymous66 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:17 pm Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

In each case all that is really being referred to are just 'thoughts', and/or 'thinking', itself

This appears to be a problem for materialism. I understand materialism to be saying that everything can be defined and explained in terms of its physical properties. If so, then what is the mass of a thought? How much space does it take up?

anonymous66 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 6:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:56 pm

anonymous66 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:17 pm Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

In each case all that is really being referred to are just 'thoughts', and/or 'thinking', itself

This appears to be a problem for materialism. I understand materialism to be saying that everything can be defined in terms of its physical properties. If so, then what is the mass of a thought? How much space does it take up?

Thoughts can be the consequence of material processes, rather than just "material things". A process doesn't have to have a weight right?

anonymous66 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:17 pm Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

If consciousness is an illusion, then brain states aren't mind states because there are no mind states. Also, matter doesn't exist as such, it's just another idea to describe reality. Materialism doesn't explain much of anything.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

There is zero evidence for a substance dualism, or any kind of dualism.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

Both panpsychism and property dualism subscribe to dualisms, there is zero evidence for any kind of dualism.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory

Information is just an abstract concept, IIT is just one big reification fallacy.

and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

Neutral monism and panpsychism are a step in the right direction, but they are not there yet. However this is where Western philosophy ends, we hit the wall.

anonymous66 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 6:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:56 pm

anonymous66 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:17 pm Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

In each case all that is really being referred to are just 'thoughts', and/or 'thinking', itself

This appears to be a problem for materialism. I understand materialism to be saying that everything can be defined and explained in terms of its physical properties. If so, then what is the mass of a thought? How much space does it take up?

Maybe as much as light, itself.

How is light, itself, defined and explained in terms of its physical properties, exactly?

Is there a so-called 'problem' for so-called 'materialism', here?

If yes, then how, why, and what, exactly?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 6:41 pm

anonymous66 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 6:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:56 pm

In each case all that is really being referred to are just 'thoughts', and/or 'thinking', itself

This appears to be a problem for materialism. I understand materialism to be saying that everything can be defined in terms of its physical properties. If so, then what is the mass of a thought? How much space does it take up?

Thoughts can be the consequence of material processes, rather than just "material things". A process doesn't have to have a weight right?

Thoughts are the consequences of material processes, are they not?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:28 pm if the mind wasn't connected to the brain, lobotomies wouldn't work...

psychotropic/psychoactive drugs wouldn't either

-Imp

Why not? And have lobotomies ever worked?

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:51 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:28 pm if the mind wasn't connected to the brain, lobotomies wouldn't work...

psychotropic/psychoactive drugs wouldn't either

-Imp

Why not? And have lobotomies ever worked?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -networks/

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:28 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:51 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:28 pm if the mind wasn't connected to the brain, lobotomies wouldn't work...

psychotropic/psychoactive drugs wouldn't either

-Imp

Why not? And have lobotomies ever worked?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -networks/

-Imp

For fuck sake. I asked YOU. You are the one who keeps making this same claim as if it's some kind of profound 'gotcha'. I'm not interested in what 'scientific' american has to say about anything.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:28 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:51 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:28 pm if the mind wasn't connected to the brain, lobotomies wouldn't work...

psychotropic/psychoactive drugs wouldn't either

-Imp

Why not? And have lobotomies ever worked?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -networks/

-Imp

That link doesn't use the word lobotomy once

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 6:04 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:28 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:51 pm

Why not? And have lobotomies ever worked?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -networks/

-Imp

That link doesn't use the word lobotomy once

Exactly. I ended up having a look against my better judgement. I doubt if he read it himself