I would like to request that this video not be marked private. When I watched it a few months ago, I found it a lucid distillation of substance dualism and I wish to show it to other people.
I would like to argue that the arbitrary contains no physical substance (such as words, information, ideas), yet it is existent. Perhaps the observer is an arbitrary piece of living information. So to speak.
If the point is not seen, then one must ask it explicitly - we know 'where' the story of ourselves exists: in our brains - but that does not answer the question: 'What of the story of ourselves? What kind of 'thing' is that?'
There are some problems with this video. Firstly, we have to look at the rules of the 'game'. We can make a rule that says 'to be a separate type of substance, it must have no causal basis in physical substances.' But that rigs the outcome by preventing us from considering nonsubstances. What then of stories? Where is a story, which comes from physical sources, but has no physical existence? It would be a category error to think that words, paper, film, CDs are where stories 'exist'.
"It would be a category error to think that words, paper, film, CDs are where stories 'exist'."
I absolutely agree, Cactusroute. In my opinion, stories would be considered mental (representational) phenomena, occasionally present in consciousness. So asking 'what are stories?' would be similar to asking about the nature of other mental / conscious phenomena (ie the very subject under discussion) though I see no valid basis for saying they couldn't be based in physical processes.
If you were to teleport, would you have a continuation of consciousness? Or would an identical being with your brain and memories be born at that instant, and you would die at the moment of teleportation?
wait who said energy and vibrations are phisical...there not made of matter. is'nt energy and vibration a non-phisical force that moves or influence phisical matter/substance. thus explaining what a non-phisical substance is.
@kiminbushwick I honestly don't know. Maybe none of them capture what's really going on. I think the best investigation of this relationship comes from experiencing directly, without beliefs or ideas. I only asked out of curiousity. What's yours?
"what philosophical view do you believe in, if any?"
Hi, Brian. Broadly, the most persuasive view for me is that consciousness is a 1st person phenomenon equating to representational brain processes. I agree with Max Velmans' distinction between 'the world' and 'the world as perceived' and his inclusion of the latter category within consciousness. I also agree with Dennett and others that consciousness is illusory in the sense of not being what we 'feel' it to be.
What about conceptual phenomenon? The brain it's self might go through physical processes in order to become aware of concepts but concepts themselves are completely non-physical yet are subject to laws much like the physical world is. For instance 1 + 1 would still = 2 even if there was no physical person calculating that equation.
Sometimes there are physical energies and electromagnetic or mechanical waves that do influence our minds, only we don't directly perceive them but have evolved to react to them. Just because we don't see those PHYSICAL things doesn't mean they don't exist and they's no reason to erroneously think that they are non physical.
Although I'm a strong atheist, the first part of this video is seriously flawed as it presupposes a positivist epistemology of meaning:
To say a non-material substance is an oxymoron is to simply dogmatically assert that if a substance is not matter it is not a substance. But you have not proved that but simply asserted it. You beg the question in a horrific early-20th Century manner.
The same point has been raised against QualiaSoup before to no avail. I've not seen any evidence he even recognises any of his own assumptions as being thus.
It is hard to believe someone is presenting arguments in line with a viewpoint that is something like 80 years out of date - and the validity of which has been seriously knocked down.
I raised the very same point not long ago myself. Most students of philosophy should know that substance is the subject of predication, and this does not necessarily connote material (or for that matter, immaterial) being. Despite what QualiaSoup might say, this is a perfectly transparent definition. And despite noting this twice, QS is yet to address this in a coherent manner.
"And despite noting this twice, QS is yet to address this in a coherent manner."
No, jlke45. Despite me reminding you twice that philosophical substance cannot be divorced from that to which it refers, you yet again try to isolate it as the subject of predication, when substance dualism is not about predicates but independently existing, causally efficacious underlying substance/stuff.
This is exactly my point, you really don't seem to understand what's wrong with this argument. Substance is the SUBJECT of predication, and given predicates (physical or otherwise) are irrelevant to what it means to be a substance. It's as if you were trying to define "vertebrate" as "feathered animal" When someone points out that vertebrate is a much wider category, you note that you're talking about birds, and then turn around to claim that "featherless vertebrate" is an incoherent concept.
Substance does not mean what you want it to mean for the sake of your argument. You're trying to equivocate a genus with its species. No one with any grasp of logic is going to let that slip.
"You're trying to equivocate a genus with its species."
No, the confusion arises because in this case both genus and species have been referred to with the same word. In this video I was getting into the meat and bones of the claims being made and the thing that consciousness was being claimed to be. However, a positive has arisen from what you've said here. When I return to this subject, it will be one point that's worthy of clarification.
In order to meaningfully discuss dualism we must necessarily assume Substance Theory. Yet in order to assume ST we must first understand it. Without this common frame of understanding all discussion fast devolves into Beckettian babble.
It is the irony of philosophy that because this is so transparent, it is often overlooked.
"In order to meaningfully discuss dualism we must necessarily assume Substance Theory"
AstralSockPuppet, that is simply wrong. Dualists also refer to the philosophy as denoting 2 kinds of 'stuff', and stuff is not a philosophical term for the subject of predication. The common framework of understanding is that dualists are claiming the existence of 2 kinds of stuff/substance/entity/thing that are independently existing / functioning, with one physical and one non-physical.
I refer to substance as a physical concept simply because without a coherent account of the non-physical, any 'substance' to which 'philosophical' substance is referring in this case, can't be conceptualised outside the physical. It isn't 'horrific question begging'. It's a call for coherence rather than theoretical assertion. *If* coherence is ever achieved, I'd anticipate a need for entirely new terminology.
Btw, what do you mean by strong atheist? That you know there are no gods?
Don't you know that the people who once held the epistemological view you espouse denounced it themselves in the 1950s? A. J. Ayer being a prime example.
Do you actually believe that a word referring to something 'outside the physical' 'can't be conceptualised'? So much for justice, truth, science, grammar, qualia, intentionality! You don't understand how language works at all.
"Do you actually believe that [justice, truth, science, grammar, qualia, intentionality] can't be conceptualised'?"
Hold on just one second, Ontologistics. Who has claimed that these things you list have their own independent, causally efficacious existence? This video is about consciousness, which is claimed to have its own independent existence *and* be non-physical.
Don't tell me what I don't understand if you haven't even understood that.
Language does not work by a word referring to something. Read Wittgenstein for starters. Think about subjective conditionals and prepositions, for example.
Yours is not a call for coherence but an incoherent call which is out of date. It's not rational.
Ontologistics, I'd absolutely agree that language doesn't always work by a word referring to something. Your examples of prepositions etc. are indeed apt.
However, that's not what I'm suggesting. Nor do I align myself with positivists, Ayer etc. I'm making the (hardly controversial) point that theories purporting to account for a phenomenon must use concepts that are intelligible; that it's not good enough merely to label a proposed independently existing entity 'non-physical'.
Incidentally, there is no shortage of dissenting opinion in my comments section. However when I notice that someone has created a YouTube account purely to leave time-wasting comments on one of my videos, I do not indulge them - especially if they give their age as 108.
As I suggested earlier, (admittedly in an overly sarcastic and unnecessary way), what you should do is read a textbook or take a class on pyschology. It couldn't hurt.
P.S. I would honestly love to see the studies you mentioned about how normal people can treat mentally ill patients as well as trained therapists.
We know that space/time has certain properties. We know it can be bent and distorted under high gravity.How do you quantify space/time? Clearly it has no mass or form but we know it exists because it can be affected by huge and even smaller masses
that's ok you guys can still live on the fringe of society pretending that there is magic as the world's progress leaves you way behind. get yourselves a nice cave, grow a beard
You want to know how lame you look? First you replied to me by directly addressing something I spoke about, then you claim that I'm incoherent. That's the immensity of your brilliance
If there were any other parts of my posts that you couldn't comprehend, then elevate your intellect because that's what is required for you to comprehend
Please excuse me for 1 more post. I'll make it brief. I simply wish to explain the root cause of the materialist's errors
Science is a fantastic tool. However, it is limited in it's scope & applicability. In recognizing only that which is scientifically demonstrable, the Materialist has determined that the whole of existence or reality, is determined by the limitations of the man made tool we call "science"
If you follow it logically correct to its ends, that suggests man's power is unlimited
If you wish to remain consistent & prove to not predetermine ends, being guided by ideology. Then, as a monist, you should advocate the abolition of Psychotherapy. For from the Monists view, the mind & the brain are one & the same or the brain gives rise to the mind. Therefore all psychological abnormalities should be treatable by neurologists or brain specialists of some kind
For it should be absurd to the Monist but not necessarily to the Dualist, that one can speak illness into remission
If you actually knew anything about psychotherapy, you couldn't reasonably make the assertions you are making. Many psychotherapists understand that their therapies do not act on some immaterial mind, but that talking through problems helps to re-wire neurons in the brain, a physical process. Therapy is especially usefull for depression or other problems that can be treated by simply re-routing thought patterns in the brain.
"If I actually knew anything about Psychotherapy"? Tell me then, what is there within your reply that demonstrates that Psychotherapy approaches the situation from a medical standpoint...besides nothing?
Can a untrained layperson substitute for a surgeon? Of course not. However, studies have been conducted in which they sent people seeking therapy to a group of psychotherapists & other people to a group of untrained laypersons. The laypersons had as much success as the therapists
I'm not going to oppose what you said about "talking through problems" because thats precisely why the laypersons did as well as the therapists. My point is that when it comes to needing good advise for life its not required that one receive it from a "expert in the field". Such a field doesn't even exist. The reason why the field of Psychotherapy exists is because they've determined that the situation can be approached from a "scientific medical" point of view. Thats where the problem lay
But if you actually knew what you should know about Psychotherapy I wouldn't have to be explaining it to you. I don't claim that every Psychotherapist is automatically, inescapably wrong. YouTube search "Psychetruth channel & look for Psychology PhD John Breeding videos. You can start with the video "The Truth about Mental Health Disorders - Psychology"
You said in your post that for monists, "all psychological abnormalities should be treatable by neurologists or brain specialists of some kind" and suggested that psychotherapists work as if they are treating a mind as a non-physical substance. I demonstrated that they most certainly do treat the mind as a physcial substance and that therapists do have a role in treating mental illnesses.
By the way, saying I look lame was an ad hominum and did not address my points.
{I demonstrated that they most certainly do treat the mind as a physcial substance}
You "demonstrated" no such thing. You merely asserted it is what you did
{saying I look lame was an ad hominum}
It was not ad hominem because I correctly explained precisely the reason why you indeed "looked lame". You claimed I was incoherent, yet, you had addressed my statements. Thus, you obviously comprehended what I wrote. Thats "lame"!
Back to the subject of the video - Simply the fact that
this Monist vs Dualist debate even exists is ridiculous. Thats simply because the Monist's position is entirely founded upon predetermination. Monists are Materialists. The brain is material. The word "Monism" is obviously from mono - "singular". If consciousness was truly a mono/singular phenomena, then why does the word "mind" exist as well as "brain"? That makes a distinction between two different things. 2 is "Dualism". We win, you lose!
Why do two words exist for any one meaning? They just do. That doesn't make you 'win' in any way, nor does it make anyone 'lose'. You decided there is a distinction, and what it's meaning is. The amount of words that describe the subject of discussion doesn't tie into the argument itself: the meaning of the words. Language just develops over generations. Nothing about it claims anything, you make the distinction, it is your own assertion, and the point you raised is no way to back it up.
You said "the term non physical substance is literally meaningless". In making that argument, you either have to claim the mind is comprised of physical substance or deny its existence. The fact that the mind is truly existent without having physical properties is the sole reason why the dualism/monism debate even exists. Think about it, if it were physical or non existent then what would there be to argue. It's physical existence would be as obvious as the brain's
be precisely the one which is the reason for which Monists "predetermine" their monist position. That argument being the one of "origins"... created or evolved? The fact that you made the fallacious argument which claims the Dualist is wrong for asserting the existence of non physical substance (mind) is evidential of your predetermined ends, for the Monist also recognizes that the mind is non physical. Which is precisely why it's ridiculous that the Monists attempt to explain its existence in
materialist terms. That ridiculousness is what lead to your hypocrisy of having turned the tables by asserting that Dualism's "non physical" position is ridiculous when the Monist must recognize it also
Finally, the fact that most within academia are Monists is for the same reason that most are Evolutionists... they're committed secular humanists whom despite the science, continue to hold to Evolution & it's resultant Monism from their predeterminations
that most Psychotherapists are dualists of another kind. Their field is dependent on the non physical existence of the mind. Yet, the majority of them are materialists. To maintain such a duality (split or multiple personality) is possible only within their pseudo (deluded) world. For fiction is compatibly receptive of more fiction since anything is possible within fiction. Its how everything is falsely interpreted then appended to evolution as the theory continues to morph & evolve, unlike life
I've never heard anyone say that mental substance is like anything physical. Not ever. Where is he getting this from? Where he mentions that mental substance is like sound waves travelling through a TV set I suspect he's getting mixed up with the transmission theory of consciousness. And what are we to say physical substance is like? Not like anything physical unless the substance is just like its properties! This video really is complete and total nonsense!
oh man i suggest you pick up a neurology book, the electricity neurons use to communicate is energy, which is physical.
i suggest you look at a pbs program called nova science now (google it, the episodes are online), in the last episode they read the brainwaves of fruit flies to study the role of sleep on living organisms. what they saw was the same electric impulses being played back during the fly's sleep as when it was awake, fly was reviewing it's day in it's sleep.
"Where he mentions that mental substance is like sound waves travelling through a TV set..."
I didn't 'mention mental substance is like sound waves'. I recounted how someone tried to support the idea of consciousness being non-physical by likening it to sound waves. It had nothing to do with the transmission theory of consciousness.
"what are we to say physical substance is like?"
We have examples all around us of what physical substances are like. That's an utterly disingenuous argument.
Consciousness is qualitatively different from all other things and processes in the world. The former is characterised by "raw" experiences or qualia, the latter by structure and dynamics. Therefore regardless of whether brains produce consciousness, it is not useful to describe consciousness as material or physical (as then we have 2 differing types of physical things in the world).
"Consciousness is qualitatively different from all other things and processes in the world."
you can't say that for certain, what? does thought not have structure? does it not have dynamics? are YOU SURE??? information is obviously not material. it's an abstract representation, but you can't say that it's not physical. in the same way that an electrical network can store information in the brain, it can do so inside a microchip and we're about to do it at quantum levels
We no more directly perceive p substance than we do m substance. We visual perceive certain colours and shapes, we have certain tactile sensations when we reach out our hands. We hypothesis enduring physical objects to account for our qualia. "I" have many varied experiences. I hypothesis that there is a real I or self to which these various conscious experiences are attributes. I hypothesis "my" conscious experiences require an experiencer to account for my feeling as an enduring entity.
there is no concensus that qualia even exists, sure you may say ohh it's so abstract that i can even feel blablablabla...
get over yourself, it's information being stored and processed. how can subjectivity even exist? it's created by the arrangement of the neurological network. what's pain? it's an alarm telling you that something's wrong
what's perception of color? information about an object based upon the visible section of the EM spectrum.
i think your problem is in accepting that free will can be something physical, but it's what you would expect from evolution, an organism capable of making choices would be much more fit.
philosophy is cute but it's best trying to understand the world by observation, testing and experimentation, you could speculate that 2=3 and probably get away with it in philosophy.
you should have your own tv show! Imagine how many people you could reach. You'd probably have to dumb down your stuff but still, you could teach loads of people loads of things.
In interesting video, but the first part is problematic. You define substance as material and from there infer that mental substance is an incoherent concept, but substance is typically defined as the subject of predication, and does not necessarily connote matter. Material objects may be paradigm cases of substance, but not logically the only ones. Really, you're just begging the question.
Now, I'm not advocating substance dualism, but in intellectual all honesty, I have to point this out.
@jlke45 it does, necessarily, connote matter. if you are not talking about matter, you are talking about something that is not matter, therefore, immaterial. and how something immaterial can cause a material event? doesnt make sense at al.
Ah, but you're smuggling causation in there, aren't you? There could well be causally inert substances, so we aren't compelled to say substances are *by necessity* material. Now this doesn't help mental causation, of course, your other point (I think). How can something immaterial cause a material event? I don't know, but I can't rule it out a priori, either. Even material causation is a bit murky, after all. By this argument, there's no logical pressure rule out immaterial substance.
@jlke45 plato(.)stanford(.)edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/ material causation is not murky. is murky when you start to imagine (create) elements that doesn't effect empirical examination of phenomena. there is no logical pressure to rule out immaterial substance (and what ever you can IMAGINE IT CAN BE) because... YOU CAN IMAGINE IT. not because it is empirical verifiable and mensurable.
@jlke45 godel's theorem shows that the human brain can sustain inconsistencies by definition. just because you can imagine something immaterial being (lets play with words) mensurable, something immaterial causing a material, it doesn't mean that this is true or in fact happens. substance dualism creates potentially unnecessary elements just because they can be imagined
@jlke45 immaterial things arent being ruled out a priori by logic or imagination: you can imagine immaterial (what ever that is) things causing material events. playing with words and with the elastic capacity of the human imagining and subjective concepts creation, it makes logical sense and looks consistent in its subjectivity.
@jlke45 immaterial things are, in fact, being ruled, by parsimony, by empirical data. what you can imagine, conceptualize, *subjectively*, can *make sense in your mind*. but *that*, *alone*, cant be used in a objective way, neither be mensurable empirically. thats the point the video makes: substance dualism is not scientifically approachable, nor even useful, but a masturbation of the imagination.
Yet we're not doing natural science here, but philosophy. Not every philosophical idea need be held ransom to empirical verification to be considered valid. Now, first of all I think you dismiss introspection too hastily; but more importantly I don't think you can dispense with immaterial substance (mental or otherwise) with just parsimony. Minds, for example, have properties that matter cannot in any intelligible sense be said to possess (intentionality, for instance).
Now, let me say again, I'm not advocating substance dualism myself (though I think naive materialism is almost as wrong as dualism)--I'm simply pointing out presenting substance as material by definition is question-begging, and here it's used for little more than to reinforce something the author already believes. That's not philosophy. That's the *real* mental masturbation.
I don't, jlke45. I say that substance - in the sense intended here - is a physical concept, ie. one we understand through physical definitions. Philosophical 'substance' cannot be divorced from what it's referring to: in this case, an independently existing substance/entity/agent claimed to affect the physical realm.
The important point is that the notion of a non-physical consciousness-substance is incoherent.
"I say that substance - in the sense intended here - is a physical concept, ie. one we understand through physical definitions."
How is this anything but defining substance as physical? Substance is a logico-ontological concept, the subject of predication, and there's no necessary implication of being physical. Smuggling in "in the sense intended here" doesn't do much more than beg the question. If you're going to talk about substance proper, you have to talk about its genus.
Again, 'substance' is not divorced in philosophy from what it refers to, and in this case it's referring to an actual 'substance' / 'stuff' claimed to affect the physical realm. We have no understanding of these concepts (the real meat and bones of what the substance dualist is claiming to exist) except through our experience of the physical. Until there's a coherent account of the non-physical, our concept of the actual substance to which 'philosophical' substance refers, remains physical.
That intentionality is a property of consciousness should literally be the most obvious thing in the world. If you're conscious at all, you have immediate and intuitive knowledge of intentionality. Can you really make sense of a physical process being "about" something?
what's consciousness to you? is it being capable of abstract thought? or just reacting to your environment? "It seems probable to me that any organism that is sensitive in some way to its environment has a degree of interior experience, Many single-celled organisms are sensitive to physical vibration, light intensity, or heat."
"In Darwinian evolution, consciousness would have occurred initially some 200 million years ago in relation to the primitive cerebral cortices of evolving mammals. It would give global experiences of a surrounding world for guiding behavior beyond what is given by the unconscious operation of sensory cortical areas per se. conscious experiences would give mammals evolutionary advantage over the reptiles, which lack a neocortex giving consciousness."
responding to your last comment, if you accept consciousness as just reacting to your environment then a single celled organism is conscious but unaware of intentionality.
intentionality is a property that is only present in birds and mammals
Actually, yes. That knowledge that I (or anyone) can't breathe underwater is grasped a posteriori, while intentionality is intuitive and obvious through first-person introspection. And I'm speaking to human consciousness. I really think you're just being disingenuous here.
"That... doesn't mean matter *cannot* possess intentionality..."
Are seriously suggesting that (say) combustion or star formation might possess intentionality?
Well, that's a huge qualification for a start, jlke45. Before, you just said, "If you're conscious at all", which could apply to any conscious animal. Don't accuse me of being disingenuous when you simply didn't make yourself clear.
And even so, we're conscious as babies long before we're capable of the kind of introspection that allows us to understand relatively obscure concepts such as intentionality and even consciousness.
I'm sorry you don't approve of my prose style, I'll try to more precise in the future.
Regardless, these epistemic issues are trivial to the argument at hand. I'm honestly very surprised that you would doubt the existence of intentionality or a person's ability to grasp it directly and intuitively. If it puts you at easy, *I* have intentionality.
"I'm honestly very surprised that you would doubt the existence of intentionality"
Where have I said I doubt the existence of intentionality, jlke45?
"or a person's ability to grasp it"
I've already given the example of people with brain damage, who may not be able to introspect, the activity through which you say we acquire knowledge of intentionality. Introspection is a relatively advanced activity. You had said we have knowledge of intentionality if we're 'conscious at all'.
"Are seriously suggesting that (say) combustion or star formation might possess intentionality?"
And you accuse me of being disingenuous, jlke45? You made the extreme claim that matter cannot possess intentionality. We only need one example of it doing so to prove that wrong. We already have a candidate: *brain* matter. We do not need combustion or star formation to possess intentionality. If you do not wish to discuss this in a disciplined way, I suggest you move on.
Here I actually have to give ground. Looking back I realize that I phrased my comments in a way that might suggest a Cartesian argument, though that was not my intention (though I won't completely rule out epiphenomenalism or some sort of mental substance ontologically dependent on the brain). Still, I think it stands to reason even with property dualism that qualia a different from and not reducible to physical entities.
"I think it stands to reason ... that qualia a different from and not reducible to physical entities."
By no means does it stand to reason, jlke45. And we were talking about intentionality, not qualia, so you've changed the argument. Also, if you survey the breadth of literature on this subject, many regard qualia as illusory, and many argue that consciousness is reducible to the physical. You may not agree, but there's no 'standing to reason' about matters like this.
about brain matter, if you watch the latest ted talk, qualiasoup, there's a guy trying to explain the nature of technology and he makes a good case for energy matter and information to be aspects of the same thing
"That knowledge that I (or anyone) can't breathe underwater is grasped a posteriori, while intentionality is intuitive and obvious through first-person introspection"
Actually, no. Throw a baby into water and it instinctively holds its breath. This intuitive knowledge occurs long before we are capable of grasping concepts like 'aboutness'. Also, a human with brain damage may be conscious but unable to introspect. Your claims about the 'obviousness' of intentionality are indefensible.
You confuse knowledge with instinctive reflexes. Sort the two out, and this argument dissolves. After all, you wouldn't call it knowledge when the doctor taps your knee and makes it kick, would you? As for the second argument, that's a big "may be," and I suspect it turns on a dubious notion of consciousness.
Actually, my analogy is apt. Wouldn't the first act of holding our breath tell us 'intuitively' that we can't breathe water? You speak of 'intuitive knowledge' of intentionality, yet we have first to be aware that we are conscious in order to attribute consciousness with intentionality. It is not the case, as you assert, that one is a posteriori, and the other isn't.
And my second argument is not a big 'may be'. Consciousness is not synonymous with self-consciousness.
We cannot rule out the possibility of something we cannot test.
The narrator speaks of such massive ideas and topics so fast and is so curt in judgement that I dont trust him. And some of his ideas are obtaiined by such contrived means that I dont trust the logic.
if you think it's logic is flawed then you have something, and you might have something to argue. "i don't trust logic" is something i'd expect to hear from kent hovind
He said "I dont trust the logic," not "I don't trust logic." Those are two very different ideas. By the context it's obvious he means that he thinks the logic is flawed. Don't jump down his throat, christ.
This is where i disagree with you the transmitter is higher realms of existence. So what supports the receiver theory?, well first it's compatiable with all of the evidence that neuroscience has uncovered as well as consistent with the evidence from parapsychology and survival of bodily death evidence.
It's not compatible with any evidence from neuroscience. None. Not one little bit.
I know a fair bit about neuroscience, so your invoking "evidence" from this discipline to support your argument is, frankly, insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence who has put even a modest bit of time into studying the matter.
If you insist otherwise, I'll have to insist that you cite peer-review papers in support.
your transmitter/receiver theory fails to explain why cognitive functions are affected in a senior person with alzheimer's either, or why the mind of a child is more prone to learning new things more easily, how would this "higher realm" know your age? it's beyond stupid. the brain just deteriorates and changes and so do cognitive functions with it
Of course cognitive functions are going to be affected the brain confines and limits consciousness. If you can show that consciousness ceases to exist at the point of death then it would show that mind is probably produced by the brain. You may be interested in this study which patients with advanced dementia recover their memories shortly before death and have mental clarity.
I never said that the higher realm would know anything about a person. The brain and mind yes have a tight relationship in life but that relationship breaks down completely when nearing death.
sure and you might say well it's the receiver that deteriorates and the signal gets scrambled or something like that, but in that case an adult would be more stupid and irrational than a child and that's not the case, children only have that advantage of quicker learning which is just what you would expect if consciousness is subject to a developing brain
and sure you might say well demented persons are conscious so it doesn't affect their consciousness, but i said affect it not take it away completely. if you want to play like that how about we liquefy your brains and see if you can remain conscious... you'd be as conscious as a rock.
im pretty sure it's not the same as just dying, because perharps we can keep a brainless body alive with machines and stuff but it would be like a plant
this new finding helps refute substance dualism even more because now we know that the mind is material, if it wasn't it would be impossible to decode it with a machine.
Your misusing the substance dualist stance here they say that mind is information and consciousness is a immaterial soul. If the brain is a receiver for consciousness it's not surprise that we are able to decode the information from the brain.
0:13 into the video he calls mind a non physical substance.
also consciousness is just a process of mind, not something else the brain receives.... we can detect which parts of the brain are at work when a conscious subject things about different things in a MRI scanner, if it was non physical why would consciousness need to rely on the architecture of the brain like that?
furthermore, if it IS non physical what mechanism binds the brain to consciousness, how does it act as a receiver for it? due to the neurons or the folds in gray matter?? then if it can interact with physical substance akin to a machine it is physical
There are good books discussing the transmission theory of consciousness one of them is the irreducible mind i suggest you read it.Just typing in Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century.
to finish you might want to explain why damage in certain areas of the brain affect consciousness itself, brain damage may result in a loss of empathy, dementia or withdrawal from the outer world
Well if i damage certain areas of a television i am going to affect the information greatly such as the channels. That doesn't show that the channels themselves are produced by the television. And that is the source of the tv channels the tv only acts as a medium.
maybe i am misunderstanding your position here though, what you're saying is that the brain has some sort of device that receives hokus pokus magical non physical energies? how does it manage to do so please, elaborate. we don't know of ANYTHING physical that can receive non physical "stuff"
an example would go a long way to prove your hypothesis. you can't say a tv or lightning rod because electromagnetism is physical energy
What i am saying is the brain is the receiver for the mind , the mind is information, the transmission is the higher realms of existence beyond this one.
cute story but all evidence seems to point out that mind is a material SYSTEM of electromagnetical impulses, which properties are dictated by the way the brain is laid out. there's no need to add a higher realm of existence, why do you do it? findings suggest neurons not only communicate at the molecular/chemical but also at the subatomic level using quantum interactions, this has shown that a single neuron is more powerful than we previously thought. magic is unnecessary
your idea is as untestable and fictional as the concept behind gandalf's staff.
how did you come up with that conclusion? did you go and study neurological interactions? my guess is that you just assume it is that way because that's what you'd like to believe, i'm not trying to be hostile here but tell me why the brain can't develop consciousness by itself without tapping into magicland? you theorize without data, you start with your preset conclusion twisting the facts to suit your theory
If the brain is a "receiver", then there must be a "transmitter". There must also be an energy signal. Transmitters transmit energy that receivers receive.
There is no evidence whatsoever that anything is either transmitted or received from outside the brain during conscious or unconscious thought.
Your thoughts are generated within the brain and stay there. Except if you communicate in one of the usual ways, speech, written word, sign language, screaming in pain, etc etc.
please watch on youtube: "dr. michio kaku: the world in 2030" and skip forward to minute 36:40.
they have really found a way to see thoughts through external examination (aided by a magnetic resonance machine though) but external nonetheless, nothing was introduced to the skull and the head wasn't cut open.
QUALIASOUP, about the conversation we had a month ago, according to michio kaku, in youtube video: "michio kaku, the world in 2030" the japanese have done it, they decoded MRI brain scans of a patient looking at a horseshoe and decoded his thoughts in a computer to show a render of what he had in mind, the next step for them at kyoto university will be to photograph dreams
I don't see how bashing substance dualism gives any kind of answer to the phenomenon of consciousness. Proving an idea to be stupid doesn't mean one has the answers. This video lacks any hint of an attempt to answer the question of 'What is Mind?' - it even lacks the ability to understand just how complex the question really is. It is the emperors new robe of reasoning. 'Follow otherwise you will be considered a fool!' Well don't! Keap questioning - for the love of god people!
amabodie, that wasn't the point of the video. Its purpose was to address substance dualism and explain why it is incorrect.
The video had a clearly stated purpose so it's ridiculous to complain about it not addressing a different subject. If you were looking for a video to explain consciousness, you should have known within the first minute that this video wasn't going to do that.
By the way, the narrator of the video explicitly states that other theories, which take an evidence-based approach to explaining consciousness, will be the subject of another video. Apparently QualiaSoup has not yet posted that video.
But substance, reality, etc, have multiple meanings. The only meaning these words have is the meaning you create for them. Therefore the only solvable paradox is one YOU CHOOSE to solve, not one that is by nature profound, justified, or understood. If it is profound, it is because YOU create its profundity.
No, gabriel. If you choose the definition of your words, and dont use any standard at all, your words mean NOTHING to ANYONE else, so you can not communicate ANY meaninful information. If you make up meanings for all your words, no one else can correct your mistakes, which means you are living in ignorance... have fun!
A standard is simply a tool set. Using that tool set is entirely voluntary. For me 'gravity' only has meaning if we agree to it having meaning.
Meaning is voluntary. The only way you can get me to agree to the meaning of any particular word without me volunteering to use the same meaning, is through the use of force.
You have not proven that language and meaning are absolute. You have simply stated that they are the 'standard'. And I agree they are useful, but not absolute.
I agree - these dismissals of non-physical because they are described by eliminative terms are based upon aggressive word ownership.
If I say something is 'not hot' just what am I ruling out and what remains within the universe of discourse? Simply cold? Or tepid, cool, warm, etc... A infinite variety infact.
Like so if I say non-physical just what am I ruling out and what remains? Jumping to the conclusion that 'nothing' remains is like insisting on 'hot or cold' allowing nothing else.
Not entirely... It's also about people who assert the non-existence of nonphysical objects - itself an game of eliminative word ownership.
What a physicalist considers a 'coherent account' is usually so restrictive as it rules out anything but physical things before the game begins.
Besides not having a coherent account doesn't exclude the possibility of it existing... If that is so - what is your business in calling it 'incoherent'?
Your 'not hot' idea can't be compared to 'nonphysical'. We have a coherent understanding of concepts like cold, tepid, cool and warm. There aren't any coherent accounts of what nonphysical objects are. It's a totally false analogy. This isn't about "aggressive word ownership" as you put it. It's about people who assert the existence of nonphysical objects not ever being able to come up with the goods and explain what they mean.
A dictionary should be one of the first things a logical person would consult before they argue something ... you can not argue with someone if you are talking about something different than them ... logic doesnt work in another language, and if you agree on the definition of what you are arguing about, you are better able to make arguments that will apply to your opposition
I agree, language and logic are very useful tools and most if not all of us can benefit from agreeing to their terms. But their terms are not binding, unless the use of force binds us to them.
For all intents and purposes, it pays of majorly to have a standard of thought and communication. But the only purpose I can see behind using any particular standard as the absolute standard is in order to coerce.
seriously? im trying to make you use my language so i can control you ... you are right ... i just want to control you somehow by making all my words mean the same thing as your words because if they were different you would have more control over your life.
Words are power. They are weapons. They are tools for achieving desired goals. Nothing more. without us, words would NOT exist. They are there for us to employ and utilize. Mere abstractions.
To support your argument you would have to prove to me that there would be a benefit to agreeing on meanings if I wasn't here. But since I am alive, I can see the benefit, so it is beneficial. Without my subjective valuation of truth and meaning, words would be irrelevant.
Ill say it again one last time incase you missed it the first three ... language is our main means of COMMUNICATION. I am not arguing that words wouldnt exist without us, im not arguing that words are solid things, im not arguing that you HAVE TO USE MY WORDS im arguing that if you DONT use any words that I understand, then I CANT UNDERSTAND what you are saying. that is why we use a standard, that is why ALL languages have rules that EVERYONE follows, or fails to communicate clearly.
I am not arguing that language is not our main means of communication. I am not arguing that it is not our standard. I am arguing that whether or not we use that standard is voluntary.
if you think you have an idea for a word, explain its definition and what you think it should be called, and if other people agree that its a good idea then yes, you can use it ... but there is NO point in making up words for yourself
I agree. It is all about the point. Words are useless without their potential to help me achieve my desires.
They are tools. Not absolutes. The have no inherent value. Their value is entirely subjective. Facts, truths, absolutes are all matters of personal, subjective values.
Thus, if I did not apply meaning to words, they would have no meaning. Therefore truth is simply what I make of it. I decide what the truth is. Reality is by consensus, and mob rule.
cool story bro. true the real world is only as real as you make it, but seriously. go pick up a girl or try to start a business and talk to your customers like that. welcome to reality.. GG
Reality is what I percieve to be useful. Since I like girls, I can benefit from flirting with them. Therefore I flirt with them and hopefully get laid. But my desire to get laid is entirely subjective. Not everyone is turned on by girls, or sex in general. Therefore there is nothing 'absolute' about the 'reality' of talking to girls. It is simply about what my desires and goals are. I form the reality to serve my purposes.
0:40 Misinterpretation of relatively chosen words to describe a relatively percievable concept with infinitely different possible interpretations...
You take the definition that a "substance" has to be physical. What if you define it differently, by example if you consider an "information" to be a substance. In fact, quantum physics is subject to the uncertainity principle... so "energy" and "information" are completely dissociated...
"You take the definition that a "substance" has to be physical. What if you define it differently, by example if you consider an "information" to be a substance."
Does that mean that you believe that information can exist without any physical carrier (ie brain, book, hard drive etc.)? If that is the case - How would that work?
@celljackingjr perhaps you should check your definition of what a substance actually is. I dont see anywhere that a substance can be anything other than physical. If you check the dictionary on information, nowhere does it appear to have even the slightest connection to anything physical, aside from the fact that physical things can transfer information. Information itself is not physical. if i give you the answer to a boolean (eg coin flip) then i give you some information, but nothing physical
So you are saying that you would like to create a word for something that we have no way of sensing, measuring, experiencing or observing? sounds like nothing to me ... the point of this video is that there is nothing that has shown to exist on its own without any substance, hence, no non physical substance ... making up a new word for it doesnt suddenly make it exist
Complex numbers, maths and logical principles aren't claimed to have their own independent effectual existence. The kind of substance you're talking about isn't relevant here. That's made very clear in the video.
That's not entirely true. The ontological status of mathemathical objects is hotly debated. If mathematical objects are said to exist within the human brain then they are contingent to it, however the factual precision of maths is necessary - arguing against them being constructs of the brain.
Search for 'On the Ideas of Quine: Section 2'. Quine fails to explain this cogently.
I'm saying mathematical objects aren't floating around having a life of their own and having their own causal effects on other things, and I wouldn't squander my time arguing with anyone who said otherwise.
Hey Qualia, I have a question that's been bugging me. It seems to me that logic could be an example of a non-physical substance. For example "This statement is false" (A!=A) has no logical substance (other than it's use in iconifying other similar lacks of substance) whereas "It is what it is" (A=A) is the building block of existence. The words or thoughts of "A is A" only came along with humans but the substance of A=A vs A!=A is a quality of reality? Or is that just idealism rephrased... hmm
Can't speak for Qualiasoup, but I would answer this by pointing out that basic laws of logic ARE expressed, in very practical term, in every physical thing that exists. An apple = an apple. Why would the the language representation of this fact be somehow more valid than the actual physical manifestation of the apple? Is not the apple itself as much a representation of it as the thought? (cont.)
(cont.) Further, the language representation, the thought itself is a physical thing - that we do not see the electrochemical pattern in the neurons of our brains that constitute the thought makes it too easy to erranously think that thought is somehow separate from material things. I would say that logic is a fundamental property of existence itself, and represented, in some form, in everything that exists; an explicit representation in thought isn't necessary for logic to be implicit in matter
I would like to request that this video not be marked private. When I watched it a few months ago, I found it a lucid distillation of substance dualism and I wish to show it to other people.
Carollnn 1 year ago
Comment removed
Carollnn 1 year ago
I would like to argue that the arbitrary contains no physical substance (such as words, information, ideas), yet it is existent. Perhaps the observer is an arbitrary piece of living information. So to speak.
Tannerthomas 1 year ago
If the point is not seen, then one must ask it explicitly - we know 'where' the story of ourselves exists: in our brains - but that does not answer the question: 'What of the story of ourselves? What kind of 'thing' is that?'
Cactusroute 1 year ago
There are some problems with this video. Firstly, we have to look at the rules of the 'game'. We can make a rule that says 'to be a separate type of substance, it must have no causal basis in physical substances.' But that rigs the outcome by preventing us from considering nonsubstances. What then of stories? Where is a story, which comes from physical sources, but has no physical existence? It would be a category error to think that words, paper, film, CDs are where stories 'exist'.
Cactusroute 1 year ago
"It would be a category error to think that words, paper, film, CDs are where stories 'exist'."
I absolutely agree, Cactusroute. In my opinion, stories would be considered mental (representational) phenomena, occasionally present in consciousness. So asking 'what are stories?' would be similar to asking about the nature of other mental / conscious phenomena (ie the very subject under discussion) though I see no valid basis for saying they couldn't be based in physical processes.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
excellence...almost orgasmic clarity.
AdPrimum 1 year ago
If you were to teleport, would you have a continuation of consciousness? Or would an identical being with your brain and memories be born at that instant, and you would die at the moment of teleportation?
fruityfirebat 1 year ago
wait who said energy and vibrations are phisical...there not made of matter. is'nt energy and vibration a non-phisical force that moves or influence phisical matter/substance. thus explaining what a non-phisical substance is.
deadkip 1 year ago
The clue that energy and vibrations are physical is that we can detect and quantify them
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
Physical is all that can be mesured. Just accept as fact that you have no soul. It is clear that you will never be able to understand why anyway.
tubetubetube 1 year ago
I realize this is breaking the mood.
But do you ever listen to Radio XFM with Ricky Gervais, Steven Merchant, and Karl Pilkington?
I just have a feeling you do :)
roflpancakes 1 year ago
Qualiasoup: what philosophical view do you believe in, if any?
brianv00 1 year ago
Why have only one? The world isn't flat, right?
kiminbushwick 1 year ago
@kiminbushwick I should clarify that I'm only talking about the philosophy he believes in that accounts for the relationship between mind and body.
brianv00 1 year ago
Ah, I see. So what is your philosophy about the relationship between mind and body?
kiminbushwick 1 year ago
@kiminbushwick I honestly don't know. Maybe none of them capture what's really going on. I think the best investigation of this relationship comes from experiencing directly, without beliefs or ideas. I only asked out of curiousity. What's yours?
brianv00 1 year ago
"what philosophical view do you believe in, if any?"
Hi, Brian. Broadly, the most persuasive view for me is that consciousness is a 1st person phenomenon equating to representational brain processes. I agree with Max Velmans' distinction between 'the world' and 'the world as perceived' and his inclusion of the latter category within consciousness. I also agree with Dennett and others that consciousness is illusory in the sense of not being what we 'feel' it to be.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
What about conceptual phenomenon? The brain it's self might go through physical processes in order to become aware of concepts but concepts themselves are completely non-physical yet are subject to laws much like the physical world is. For instance 1 + 1 would still = 2 even if there was no physical person calculating that equation.
rivalviral 1 year ago
Sometimes there are physical energies and electromagnetic or mechanical waves that do influence our minds, only we don't directly perceive them but have evolved to react to them. Just because we don't see those PHYSICAL things doesn't mean they don't exist and they's no reason to erroneously think that they are non physical.
xSilverPhinx 1 year ago
Although I'm a strong atheist, the first part of this video is seriously flawed as it presupposes a positivist epistemology of meaning:
To say a non-material substance is an oxymoron is to simply dogmatically assert that if a substance is not matter it is not a substance. But you have not proved that but simply asserted it. You beg the question in a horrific early-20th Century manner.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
The same point has been raised against QualiaSoup before to no avail. I've not seen any evidence he even recognises any of his own assumptions as being thus.
It is hard to believe someone is presenting arguments in line with a viewpoint that is something like 80 years out of date - and the validity of which has been seriously knocked down.
AstralWink 1 year ago
What are you referring to?
kiminbushwick 1 year ago
I raised the very same point not long ago myself. Most students of philosophy should know that substance is the subject of predication, and this does not necessarily connote material (or for that matter, immaterial) being. Despite what QualiaSoup might say, this is a perfectly transparent definition. And despite noting this twice, QS is yet to address this in a coherent manner.
jlke45 1 year ago
"And despite noting this twice, QS is yet to address this in a coherent manner."
No, jlke45. Despite me reminding you twice that philosophical substance cannot be divorced from that to which it refers, you yet again try to isolate it as the subject of predication, when substance dualism is not about predicates but independently existing, causally efficacious underlying substance/stuff.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
This is exactly my point, you really don't seem to understand what's wrong with this argument. Substance is the SUBJECT of predication, and given predicates (physical or otherwise) are irrelevant to what it means to be a substance. It's as if you were trying to define "vertebrate" as "feathered animal" When someone points out that vertebrate is a much wider category, you note that you're talking about birds, and then turn around to claim that "featherless vertebrate" is an incoherent concept.
jlke45 1 year ago
Substance does not mean what you want it to mean for the sake of your argument. You're trying to equivocate a genus with its species. No one with any grasp of logic is going to let that slip.
jlke45 1 year ago
"You're trying to equivocate a genus with its species."
No, the confusion arises because in this case both genus and species have been referred to with the same word. In this video I was getting into the meat and bones of the claims being made and the thing that consciousness was being claimed to be. However, a positive has arisen from what you've said here. When I return to this subject, it will be one point that's worthy of clarification.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
"No, the confusion arises because in this case both genus and species have been referred to with the same word."
Wherein lies the fallacy....
jlke45 1 year ago
"Wherein lies the fallacy.... "
If I'm talking about the species, when others insist I can only be talking about the genus, they are indeed operating with a fallacy.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
Which would be true enough, but you are indeed speaking of the genus when you set out to define substance simpliciter.
jlke45 1 year ago
Correct again jlke45 .
In order to meaningfully discuss dualism we must necessarily assume Substance Theory. Yet in order to assume ST we must first understand it. Without this common frame of understanding all discussion fast devolves into Beckettian babble.
It is the irony of philosophy that because this is so transparent, it is often overlooked.
AstralWink 1 year ago
"In order to meaningfully discuss dualism we must necessarily assume Substance Theory"
AstralSockPuppet, that is simply wrong. Dualists also refer to the philosophy as denoting 2 kinds of 'stuff', and stuff is not a philosophical term for the subject of predication. The common framework of understanding is that dualists are claiming the existence of 2 kinds of stuff/substance/entity/thing that are independently existing / functioning, with one physical and one non-physical.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
I refer to substance as a physical concept simply because without a coherent account of the non-physical, any 'substance' to which 'philosophical' substance is referring in this case, can't be conceptualised outside the physical. It isn't 'horrific question begging'. It's a call for coherence rather than theoretical assertion. *If* coherence is ever achieved, I'd anticipate a need for entirely new terminology.
Btw, what do you mean by strong atheist? That you know there are no gods?
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
@QualiaSoup
Don't you know that the people who once held the epistemological view you espouse denounced it themselves in the 1950s? A. J. Ayer being a prime example.
Do you actually believe that a word referring to something 'outside the physical' 'can't be conceptualised'? So much for justice, truth, science, grammar, qualia, intentionality! You don't understand how language works at all.
Truth extend beyond knowledge.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
"Do you actually believe that [justice, truth, science, grammar, qualia, intentionality] can't be conceptualised'?"
Hold on just one second, Ontologistics. Who has claimed that these things you list have their own independent, causally efficacious existence? This video is about consciousness, which is claimed to have its own independent existence *and* be non-physical.
Don't tell me what I don't understand if you haven't even understood that.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
@QualiaSoup
Language does not work by a word referring to something. Read Wittgenstein for starters. Think about subjective conditionals and prepositions, for example.
Yours is not a call for coherence but an incoherent call which is out of date. It's not rational.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
Ontologistics, I'd absolutely agree that language doesn't always work by a word referring to something. Your examples of prepositions etc. are indeed apt.
However, that's not what I'm suggesting. Nor do I align myself with positivists, Ayer etc. I'm making the (hardly controversial) point that theories purporting to account for a phenomenon must use concepts that are intelligible; that it's not good enough merely to label a proposed independently existing entity 'non-physical'.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
Incidentally, there is no shortage of dissenting opinion in my comments section. However when I notice that someone has created a YouTube account purely to leave time-wasting comments on one of my videos, I do not indulge them - especially if they give their age as 108.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
As I suggested earlier, (admittedly in an overly sarcastic and unnecessary way), what you should do is read a textbook or take a class on pyschology. It couldn't hurt.
P.S. I would honestly love to see the studies you mentioned about how normal people can treat mentally ill patients as well as trained therapists.
bathory714 1 year ago
Non-physical can be compared to "space/time".
We know that space/time has certain properties. We know it can be bent and distorted under high gravity.How do you quantify space/time? Clearly it has no mass or form but we know it exists because it can be affected by huge and even smaller masses
samik83 1 year ago
that's ok you guys can still live on the fringe of society pretending that there is magic as the world's progress leaves you way behind. get yourselves a nice cave, grow a beard
mazdaplz 1 year ago
Chuichupachichi's arguments are as incoherent as the substance dualists' explanations of non-physical substance.
By the way, great video!
bathory714 1 year ago
You want to know how lame you look? First you replied to me by directly addressing something I spoke about, then you claim that I'm incoherent. That's the immensity of your brilliance
If there were any other parts of my posts that you couldn't comprehend, then elevate your intellect because that's what is required for you to comprehend
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Please excuse me for 1 more post. I'll make it brief. I simply wish to explain the root cause of the materialist's errors
Science is a fantastic tool. However, it is limited in it's scope & applicability. In recognizing only that which is scientifically demonstrable, the Materialist has determined that the whole of existence or reality, is determined by the limitations of the man made tool we call "science"
If you follow it logically correct to its ends, that suggests man's power is unlimited
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
If you wish to remain consistent & prove to not predetermine ends, being guided by ideology. Then, as a monist, you should advocate the abolition of Psychotherapy. For from the Monists view, the mind & the brain are one & the same or the brain gives rise to the mind. Therefore all psychological abnormalities should be treatable by neurologists or brain specialists of some kind
For it should be absurd to the Monist but not necessarily to the Dualist, that one can speak illness into remission
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@ Chuichupachichi
If you actually knew anything about psychotherapy, you couldn't reasonably make the assertions you are making. Many psychotherapists understand that their therapies do not act on some immaterial mind, but that talking through problems helps to re-wire neurons in the brain, a physical process. Therapy is especially usefull for depression or other problems that can be treated by simply re-routing thought patterns in the brain.
bathory714 1 year ago
@bathory714
"If I actually knew anything about Psychotherapy"? Tell me then, what is there within your reply that demonstrates that Psychotherapy approaches the situation from a medical standpoint...besides nothing?
Can a untrained layperson substitute for a surgeon? Of course not. However, studies have been conducted in which they sent people seeking therapy to a group of psychotherapists & other people to a group of untrained laypersons. The laypersons had as much success as the therapists
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
I'm not going to oppose what you said about "talking through problems" because thats precisely why the laypersons did as well as the therapists. My point is that when it comes to needing good advise for life its not required that one receive it from a "expert in the field". Such a field doesn't even exist. The reason why the field of Psychotherapy exists is because they've determined that the situation can be approached from a "scientific medical" point of view. Thats where the problem lay
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
But if you actually knew what you should know about Psychotherapy I wouldn't have to be explaining it to you. I don't claim that every Psychotherapist is automatically, inescapably wrong. YouTube search "Psychetruth channel & look for Psychology PhD John Breeding videos. You can start with the video "The Truth about Mental Health Disorders - Psychology"
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuich
You said in your post that for monists, "all psychological abnormalities should be treatable by neurologists or brain specialists of some kind" and suggested that psychotherapists work as if they are treating a mind as a non-physical substance. I demonstrated that they most certainly do treat the mind as a physcial substance and that therapists do have a role in treating mental illnesses.
By the way, saying I look lame was an ad hominum and did not address my points.
bathory714 1 year ago
@bathory714
{I demonstrated that they most certainly do treat the mind as a physcial substance}
You "demonstrated" no such thing. You merely asserted it is what you did
{saying I look lame was an ad hominum}
It was not ad hominem because I correctly explained precisely the reason why you indeed "looked lame". You claimed I was incoherent, yet, you had addressed my statements. Thus, you obviously comprehended what I wrote. Thats "lame"!
Back to the subject of the video - Simply the fact that
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
this Monist vs Dualist debate even exists is ridiculous. Thats simply because the Monist's position is entirely founded upon predetermination. Monists are Materialists. The brain is material. The word "Monism" is obviously from mono - "singular". If consciousness was truly a mono/singular phenomena, then why does the word "mind" exist as well as "brain"? That makes a distinction between two different things. 2 is "Dualism". We win, you lose!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Chuichupachichi said: "If consciousness was truly a mono/singular phenomena, then why does the word "mind" exist as well as "brain"?"
Man, it's hard to tell whether Poe's Law is in action or not these days, anyway if you happen to be serious...
People like poetry and nice sounding language. Have you have felt gratitude "from the bottom of your heart?". Literally?
When I say to you "USE YOUR HEAD!", or let's "brainstorm", am I not implying that you should use what is inside your head?
Mattnesss 1 year ago
Why do two words exist for any one meaning? They just do. That doesn't make you 'win' in any way, nor does it make anyone 'lose'. You decided there is a distinction, and what it's meaning is. The amount of words that describe the subject of discussion doesn't tie into the argument itself: the meaning of the words. Language just develops over generations. Nothing about it claims anything, you make the distinction, it is your own assertion, and the point you raised is no way to back it up.
Yony42 1 year ago
You said "the term non physical substance is literally meaningless". In making that argument, you either have to claim the mind is comprised of physical substance or deny its existence. The fact that the mind is truly existent without having physical properties is the sole reason why the dualism/monism debate even exists. Think about it, if it were physical or non existent then what would there be to argue. It's physical existence would be as obvious as the brain's
Thus, the only argument would
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
be precisely the one which is the reason for which Monists "predetermine" their monist position. That argument being the one of "origins"... created or evolved? The fact that you made the fallacious argument which claims the Dualist is wrong for asserting the existence of non physical substance (mind) is evidential of your predetermined ends, for the Monist also recognizes that the mind is non physical. Which is precisely why it's ridiculous that the Monists attempt to explain its existence in
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
materialist terms. That ridiculousness is what lead to your hypocrisy of having turned the tables by asserting that Dualism's "non physical" position is ridiculous when the Monist must recognize it also
Finally, the fact that most within academia are Monists is for the same reason that most are Evolutionists... they're committed secular humanists whom despite the science, continue to hold to Evolution & it's resultant Monism from their predeterminations
Perhaps, the greatest ridiculousness is
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
that most Psychotherapists are dualists of another kind. Their field is dependent on the non physical existence of the mind. Yet, the majority of them are materialists. To maintain such a duality (split or multiple personality) is possible only within their pseudo (deluded) world. For fiction is compatibly receptive of more fiction since anything is possible within fiction. Its how everything is falsely interpreted then appended to evolution as the theory continues to morph & evolve, unlike life
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
magnificent : )
rise1931 1 year ago
in other words, insects and reptiles can't even realize that they're thinking.
mazdaplz 1 year ago
I've never heard anyone say that mental substance is like anything physical. Not ever. Where is he getting this from? Where he mentions that mental substance is like sound waves travelling through a TV set I suspect he's getting mixed up with the transmission theory of consciousness. And what are we to say physical substance is like? Not like anything physical unless the substance is just like its properties! This video really is complete and total nonsense!
CosmicHorizon2 1 year ago
@CosmicHorizon2
oh man i suggest you pick up a neurology book, the electricity neurons use to communicate is energy, which is physical.
i suggest you look at a pbs program called nova science now (google it, the episodes are online), in the last episode they read the brainwaves of fruit flies to study the role of sleep on living organisms. what they saw was the same electric impulses being played back during the fly's sleep as when it was awake, fly was reviewing it's day in it's sleep.
mazdaplz 1 year ago
non-sequitur
CosmicHorizon2 1 year ago
"Where he mentions that mental substance is like sound waves travelling through a TV set..."
I didn't 'mention mental substance is like sound waves'. I recounted how someone tried to support the idea of consciousness being non-physical by likening it to sound waves. It had nothing to do with the transmission theory of consciousness.
"what are we to say physical substance is like?"
We have examples all around us of what physical substances are like. That's an utterly disingenuous argument.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
Consciousness is qualitatively different from all other things and processes in the world. The former is characterised by "raw" experiences or qualia, the latter by structure and dynamics. Therefore regardless of whether brains produce consciousness, it is not useful to describe consciousness as material or physical (as then we have 2 differing types of physical things in the world).
CosmicHorizon2 1 year ago
@CosmicHorizon2
"Consciousness is qualitatively different from all other things and processes in the world."
you can't say that for certain, what? does thought not have structure? does it not have dynamics? are YOU SURE??? information is obviously not material. it's an abstract representation, but you can't say that it's not physical. in the same way that an electrical network can store information in the brain, it can do so inside a microchip and we're about to do it at quantum levels
mazdaplz 1 year ago
We no more directly perceive p substance than we do m substance. We visual perceive certain colours and shapes, we have certain tactile sensations when we reach out our hands. We hypothesis enduring physical objects to account for our qualia. "I" have many varied experiences. I hypothesis that there is a real I or self to which these various conscious experiences are attributes. I hypothesis "my" conscious experiences require an experiencer to account for my feeling as an enduring entity.
CosmicHorizon2 1 year ago
@CosmicHorizon2
there is no concensus that qualia even exists, sure you may say ohh it's so abstract that i can even feel blablablabla...
get over yourself, it's information being stored and processed. how can subjectivity even exist? it's created by the arrangement of the neurological network. what's pain? it's an alarm telling you that something's wrong
what's perception of color? information about an object based upon the visible section of the EM spectrum.
mazdaplz 1 year ago
@CosmicHorizon2
i think your problem is in accepting that free will can be something physical, but it's what you would expect from evolution, an organism capable of making choices would be much more fit.
philosophy is cute but it's best trying to understand the world by observation, testing and experimentation, you could speculate that 2=3 and probably get away with it in philosophy.
mazdaplz 1 year ago
you should have your own tv show! Imagine how many people you could reach. You'd probably have to dumb down your stuff but still, you could teach loads of people loads of things.
YoeriYoeri 1 year ago
In interesting video, but the first part is problematic. You define substance as material and from there infer that mental substance is an incoherent concept, but substance is typically defined as the subject of predication, and does not necessarily connote matter. Material objects may be paradigm cases of substance, but not logically the only ones. Really, you're just begging the question.
Now, I'm not advocating substance dualism, but in intellectual all honesty, I have to point this out.
jlke45 1 year ago
@jlke45 it does, necessarily, connote matter. if you are not talking about matter, you are talking about something that is not matter, therefore, immaterial. and how something immaterial can cause a material event? doesnt make sense at al.
includao 1 year ago
Ah, but you're smuggling causation in there, aren't you? There could well be causally inert substances, so we aren't compelled to say substances are *by necessity* material. Now this doesn't help mental causation, of course, your other point (I think). How can something immaterial cause a material event? I don't know, but I can't rule it out a priori, either. Even material causation is a bit murky, after all. By this argument, there's no logical pressure rule out immaterial substance.
jlke45 1 year ago
@jlke45 plato(.)stanford(.)edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/ material causation is not murky. is murky when you start to imagine (create) elements that doesn't effect empirical examination of phenomena. there is no logical pressure to rule out immaterial substance (and what ever you can IMAGINE IT CAN BE) because... YOU CAN IMAGINE IT. not because it is empirical verifiable and mensurable.
includao 1 year ago
@jlke45 godel's theorem shows that the human brain can sustain inconsistencies by definition. just because you can imagine something immaterial being (lets play with words) mensurable, something immaterial causing a material, it doesn't mean that this is true or in fact happens. substance dualism creates potentially unnecessary elements just because they can be imagined
includao 1 year ago
@jlke45 immaterial things arent being ruled out a priori by logic or imagination: you can imagine immaterial (what ever that is) things causing material events. playing with words and with the elastic capacity of the human imagining and subjective concepts creation, it makes logical sense and looks consistent in its subjectivity.
includao 1 year ago
@jlke45 immaterial things are, in fact, being ruled, by parsimony, by empirical data. what you can imagine, conceptualize, *subjectively*, can *make sense in your mind*. but *that*, *alone*, cant be used in a objective way, neither be mensurable empirically. thats the point the video makes: substance dualism is not scientifically approachable, nor even useful, but a masturbation of the imagination.
includao 1 year ago
Yet we're not doing natural science here, but philosophy. Not every philosophical idea need be held ransom to empirical verification to be considered valid. Now, first of all I think you dismiss introspection too hastily; but more importantly I don't think you can dispense with immaterial substance (mental or otherwise) with just parsimony. Minds, for example, have properties that matter cannot in any intelligible sense be said to possess (intentionality, for instance).
jlke45 1 year ago
Now, let me say again, I'm not advocating substance dualism myself (though I think naive materialism is almost as wrong as dualism)--I'm simply pointing out presenting substance as material by definition is question-begging, and here it's used for little more than to reinforce something the author already believes. That's not philosophy. That's the *real* mental masturbation.
jlke45 1 year ago
"You define substance as material"
I don't, jlke45. I say that substance - in the sense intended here - is a physical concept, ie. one we understand through physical definitions. Philosophical 'substance' cannot be divorced from what it's referring to: in this case, an independently existing substance/entity/agent claimed to affect the physical realm.
The important point is that the notion of a non-physical consciousness-substance is incoherent.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
"I say that substance - in the sense intended here - is a physical concept, ie. one we understand through physical definitions."
How is this anything but defining substance as physical? Substance is a logico-ontological concept, the subject of predication, and there's no necessary implication of being physical. Smuggling in "in the sense intended here" doesn't do much more than beg the question. If you're going to talk about substance proper, you have to talk about its genus.
jlke45 1 year ago
Again, 'substance' is not divorced in philosophy from what it refers to, and in this case it's referring to an actual 'substance' / 'stuff' claimed to affect the physical realm. We have no understanding of these concepts (the real meat and bones of what the substance dualist is claiming to exist) except through our experience of the physical. Until there's a coherent account of the non-physical, our concept of the actual substance to which 'philosophical' substance refers, remains physical.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
"Minds ... have properties that matter cannot in any intelligible sense be said to possess (intentionality, for instance)."
How is this not question-begging, jlke45?
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
That intentionality is a property of consciousness should literally be the most obvious thing in the world. If you're conscious at all, you have immediate and intuitive knowledge of intentionality. Can you really make sense of a physical process being "about" something?
jlke45 1 year ago
@jlke45
what's consciousness to you? is it being capable of abstract thought? or just reacting to your environment? "It seems probable to me that any organism that is sensitive in some way to its environment has a degree of interior experience, Many single-celled organisms are sensitive to physical vibration, light intensity, or heat."
mazdaplz 1 year ago
@jlke45
"In Darwinian evolution, consciousness would have occurred initially some 200 million years ago in relation to the primitive cerebral cortices of evolving mammals. It would give global experiences of a surrounding world for guiding behavior beyond what is given by the unconscious operation of sensory cortical areas per se. conscious experiences would give mammals evolutionary advantage over the reptiles, which lack a neocortex giving consciousness."
this is the origin of abstract thought
mazdaplz 1 year ago
@jlke45
responding to your last comment, if you accept consciousness as just reacting to your environment then a single celled organism is conscious but unaware of intentionality.
intentionality is a property that is only present in birds and mammals
mazdaplz 1 year ago
But I distinguish consciousness from perception. I don't entirely see what you're getting at.
jlke45 1 year ago
"That intentionality is ... should literally be the most obvious thing in the world."
More obvious than 'I can't breathe water'? Exaggerated nonsense.
"If you're conscious at all, you have ... knowledge of intentionality."
Again, *wildly* undisciplined, jlke45. Where's your evidence that dogs can grasp 'intentionality'?
"Can you ... make sense of ...?"
That you can't presently make sense of it doesn't mean matter *cannot* possess intentionality in any intelligible sense, as you claim.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
"More obvious than 'I can't breathe water'?"
Actually, yes. That knowledge that I (or anyone) can't breathe underwater is grasped a posteriori, while intentionality is intuitive and obvious through first-person introspection. And I'm speaking to human consciousness. I really think you're just being disingenuous here.
"That... doesn't mean matter *cannot* possess intentionality..."
Are seriously suggesting that (say) combustion or star formation might possess intentionality?
jlke45 1 year ago
"And I'm speaking to human consciousness"
Well, that's a huge qualification for a start, jlke45. Before, you just said, "If you're conscious at all", which could apply to any conscious animal. Don't accuse me of being disingenuous when you simply didn't make yourself clear.
And even so, we're conscious as babies long before we're capable of the kind of introspection that allows us to understand relatively obscure concepts such as intentionality and even consciousness.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
I'm sorry you don't approve of my prose style, I'll try to more precise in the future.
Regardless, these epistemic issues are trivial to the argument at hand. I'm honestly very surprised that you would doubt the existence of intentionality or a person's ability to grasp it directly and intuitively. If it puts you at easy, *I* have intentionality.
jlke45 1 year ago
"I'm honestly very surprised that you would doubt the existence of intentionality"
Where have I said I doubt the existence of intentionality, jlke45?
"or a person's ability to grasp it"
I've already given the example of people with brain damage, who may not be able to introspect, the activity through which you say we acquire knowledge of intentionality. Introspection is a relatively advanced activity. You had said we have knowledge of intentionality if we're 'conscious at all'.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
"Are seriously suggesting that (say) combustion or star formation might possess intentionality?"
And you accuse me of being disingenuous, jlke45? You made the extreme claim that matter cannot possess intentionality. We only need one example of it doing so to prove that wrong. We already have a candidate: *brain* matter. We do not need combustion or star formation to possess intentionality. If you do not wish to discuss this in a disciplined way, I suggest you move on.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
Here I actually have to give ground. Looking back I realize that I phrased my comments in a way that might suggest a Cartesian argument, though that was not my intention (though I won't completely rule out epiphenomenalism or some sort of mental substance ontologically dependent on the brain). Still, I think it stands to reason even with property dualism that qualia a different from and not reducible to physical entities.
jlke45 1 year ago
"I think it stands to reason ... that qualia a different from and not reducible to physical entities."
By no means does it stand to reason, jlke45. And we were talking about intentionality, not qualia, so you've changed the argument. Also, if you survey the breadth of literature on this subject, many regard qualia as illusory, and many argue that consciousness is reducible to the physical. You may not agree, but there's no 'standing to reason' about matters like this.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
@QualiaSoup :
about brain matter, if you watch the latest ted talk, qualiasoup, there's a guy trying to explain the nature of technology and he makes a good case for energy matter and information to be aspects of the same thing
mazdaplz 1 year ago
"That knowledge that I (or anyone) can't breathe underwater is grasped a posteriori, while intentionality is intuitive and obvious through first-person introspection"
Actually, no. Throw a baby into water and it instinctively holds its breath. This intuitive knowledge occurs long before we are capable of grasping concepts like 'aboutness'. Also, a human with brain damage may be conscious but unable to introspect. Your claims about the 'obviousness' of intentionality are indefensible.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
You confuse knowledge with instinctive reflexes. Sort the two out, and this argument dissolves. After all, you wouldn't call it knowledge when the doctor taps your knee and makes it kick, would you? As for the second argument, that's a big "may be," and I suspect it turns on a dubious notion of consciousness.
jlke45 1 year ago
Actually, my analogy is apt. Wouldn't the first act of holding our breath tell us 'intuitively' that we can't breathe water? You speak of 'intuitive knowledge' of intentionality, yet we have first to be aware that we are conscious in order to attribute consciousness with intentionality. It is not the case, as you assert, that one is a posteriori, and the other isn't.
And my second argument is not a big 'may be'. Consciousness is not synonymous with self-consciousness.
QualiaSoup 1 year ago
@QualiaSoup
watch?v=GS1xL1qcBa4
mazdaplz 1 year ago
We cannot rule out the possibility of something we cannot test.
The narrator speaks of such massive ideas and topics so fast and is so curt in judgement that I dont trust him. And some of his ideas are obtaiined by such contrived means that I dont trust the logic.
qarf1 1 year ago
Care to elaborate?
stovetop32 1 year ago
@qarf1
"i don't trust the logic"
LOL!. logic is not to be trusted or distrusted.
it either works or it doesn't.
an idea/concept is either logical or illogical.
if you think it's logic is flawed then you have something, and you might have something to argue. "i don't trust logic" is something i'd expect to hear from kent hovind
mazdaplz 1 year ago
He said "I dont trust the logic," not "I don't trust logic." Those are two very different ideas. By the context it's obvious he means that he thinks the logic is flawed. Don't jump down his throat, christ.
jlke45 1 year ago
This is where i disagree with you the transmitter is higher realms of existence. So what supports the receiver theory?, well first it's compatiable with all of the evidence that neuroscience has uncovered as well as consistent with the evidence from parapsychology and survival of bodily death evidence.
bigguy200 1 year ago
Nothing supports the "receiver" theory.
It's not compatible with any evidence from neuroscience. None. Not one little bit.
I know a fair bit about neuroscience, so your invoking "evidence" from this discipline to support your argument is, frankly, insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence who has put even a modest bit of time into studying the matter.
If you insist otherwise, I'll have to insist that you cite peer-review papers in support.
Parapsychology is crap not-science.
middlekk 1 year ago
your transmitter/receiver theory fails to explain why cognitive functions are affected in a senior person with alzheimer's either, or why the mind of a child is more prone to learning new things more easily, how would this "higher realm" know your age? it's beyond stupid. the brain just deteriorates and changes and so do cognitive functions with it
mazdaplz 1 year ago
@mazdaplz
Of course cognitive functions are going to be affected the brain confines and limits consciousness. If you can show that consciousness ceases to exist at the point of death then it would show that mind is probably produced by the brain. You may be interested in this study which patients with advanced dementia recover their memories shortly before death and have mental clarity.
bigguy200 3 months ago
Respond to this video...
I never said that the higher realm would know anything about a person. The brain and mind yes have a tight relationship in life but that relationship breaks down completely when nearing death.
bigguy200 3 months ago
@bigguy200
sure and you might say well it's the receiver that deteriorates and the signal gets scrambled or something like that, but in that case an adult would be more stupid and irrational than a child and that's not the case, children only have that advantage of quicker learning which is just what you would expect if consciousness is subject to a developing brain
mazdaplz 1 year ago
and sure you might say well demented persons are conscious so it doesn't affect their consciousness, but i said affect it not take it away completely. if you want to play like that how about we liquefy your brains and see if you can remain conscious... you'd be as conscious as a rock.
im pretty sure it's not the same as just dying, because perharps we can keep a brainless body alive with machines and stuff but it would be like a plant
mazdaplz 2 years ago
this new finding helps refute substance dualism even more because now we know that the mind is material, if it wasn't it would be impossible to decode it with a machine.
just a collection of electrical impulses
mazdaplz 2 years ago
@mazdaplz
Your misusing the substance dualist stance here they say that mind is information and consciousness is a immaterial soul. If the brain is a receiver for consciousness it's not surprise that we are able to decode the information from the brain.
bigguy200 2 years ago
@bigguy200
0:13 into the video he calls mind a non physical substance.
also consciousness is just a process of mind, not something else the brain receives.... we can detect which parts of the brain are at work when a conscious subject things about different things in a MRI scanner, if it was non physical why would consciousness need to rely on the architecture of the brain like that?
mazdaplz 2 years ago
@bigguy200
furthermore, if it IS non physical what mechanism binds the brain to consciousness, how does it act as a receiver for it? due to the neurons or the folds in gray matter?? then if it can interact with physical substance akin to a machine it is physical
mazdaplz 2 years ago
@mazdaplz
There are good books discussing the transmission theory of consciousness one of them is the irreducible mind i suggest you read it.Just typing in Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century.
bigguy200 3 months ago
@bigguy200
to finish you might want to explain why damage in certain areas of the brain affect consciousness itself, brain damage may result in a loss of empathy, dementia or withdrawal from the outer world
mazdaplz 2 years ago
Respond to this video...
Well if i damage certain areas of a television i am going to affect the information greatly such as the channels. That doesn't show that the channels themselves are produced by the television. And that is the source of the tv channels the tv only acts as a medium.
bigguy200 3 months ago
sorry that's THINKS about different things
mazdaplz 2 years ago
@bigguy200
maybe i am misunderstanding your position here though, what you're saying is that the brain has some sort of device that receives hokus pokus magical non physical energies? how does it manage to do so please, elaborate. we don't know of ANYTHING physical that can receive non physical "stuff"
an example would go a long way to prove your hypothesis. you can't say a tv or lightning rod because electromagnetism is physical energy
mazdaplz 2 years ago
@mazdaplz
What i am saying is the brain is the receiver for the mind , the mind is information, the transmission is the higher realms of existence beyond this one.
bigguy200 2 years ago
@bigguy200
cute story but all evidence seems to point out that mind is a material SYSTEM of electromagnetical impulses, which properties are dictated by the way the brain is laid out. there's no need to add a higher realm of existence, why do you do it? findings suggest neurons not only communicate at the molecular/chemical but also at the subatomic level using quantum interactions, this has shown that a single neuron is more powerful than we previously thought. magic is unnecessary
mazdaplz 2 years ago
your idea is as untestable and fictional as the concept behind gandalf's staff.
how did you come up with that conclusion? did you go and study neurological interactions? my guess is that you just assume it is that way because that's what you'd like to believe, i'm not trying to be hostile here but tell me why the brain can't develop consciousness by itself without tapping into magicland? you theorize without data, you start with your preset conclusion twisting the facts to suit your theory
mazdaplz 2 years ago
If the brain is a "receiver", then there must be a "transmitter". There must also be an energy signal. Transmitters transmit energy that receivers receive.
There is no evidence whatsoever that anything is either transmitted or received from outside the brain during conscious or unconscious thought.
Your thoughts are generated within the brain and stay there. Except if you communicate in one of the usual ways, speech, written word, sign language, screaming in pain, etc etc.
middlekk 1 year ago
please watch on youtube: "dr. michio kaku: the world in 2030" and skip forward to minute 36:40.
they have really found a way to see thoughts through external examination (aided by a magnetic resonance machine though) but external nonetheless, nothing was introduced to the skull and the head wasn't cut open.
mazdaplz 2 years ago
QUALIASOUP, about the conversation we had a month ago, according to michio kaku, in youtube video: "michio kaku, the world in 2030" the japanese have done it, they decoded MRI brain scans of a patient looking at a horseshoe and decoded his thoughts in a computer to show a render of what he had in mind, the next step for them at kyoto university will be to photograph dreams
mazdaplz 2 years ago
I don't see how bashing substance dualism gives any kind of answer to the phenomenon of consciousness. Proving an idea to be stupid doesn't mean one has the answers. This video lacks any hint of an attempt to answer the question of 'What is Mind?' - it even lacks the ability to understand just how complex the question really is. It is the emperors new robe of reasoning. 'Follow otherwise you will be considered a fool!' Well don't! Keap questioning - for the love of god people!
amabodie 2 years ago
amabodie, that wasn't the point of the video. Its purpose was to address substance dualism and explain why it is incorrect.
The video had a clearly stated purpose so it's ridiculous to complain about it not addressing a different subject. If you were looking for a video to explain consciousness, you should have known within the first minute that this video wasn't going to do that.
leafytaco 2 years ago
By the way, the narrator of the video explicitly states that other theories, which take an evidence-based approach to explaining consciousness, will be the subject of another video. Apparently QualiaSoup has not yet posted that video.
leafytaco 2 years ago
Thanks leafytaco, I have to say you are right, I guess was being unfare. I look forward to to QualiaSoups evidence-based approach to conciousness.
amabodie 2 years ago
But substance, reality, etc, have multiple meanings. The only meaning these words have is the meaning you create for them. Therefore the only solvable paradox is one YOU CHOOSE to solve, not one that is by nature profound, justified, or understood. If it is profound, it is because YOU create its profundity.
landgabriel 2 years ago
No, gabriel. If you choose the definition of your words, and dont use any standard at all, your words mean NOTHING to ANYONE else, so you can not communicate ANY meaninful information. If you make up meanings for all your words, no one else can correct your mistakes, which means you are living in ignorance... have fun!
Th3Shadow0fDeath 2 years ago
Shadow,
A standard is simply a tool set. Using that tool set is entirely voluntary. For me 'gravity' only has meaning if we agree to it having meaning.
Meaning is voluntary. The only way you can get me to agree to the meaning of any particular word without me volunteering to use the same meaning, is through the use of force.
You have not proven that language and meaning are absolute. You have simply stated that they are the 'standard'. And I agree they are useful, but not absolute.
landgabriel 2 years ago
I agree - these dismissals of non-physical because they are described by eliminative terms are based upon aggressive word ownership.
If I say something is 'not hot' just what am I ruling out and what remains within the universe of discourse? Simply cold? Or tepid, cool, warm, etc... A infinite variety infact.
Like so if I say non-physical just what am I ruling out and what remains? Jumping to the conclusion that 'nothing' remains is like insisting on 'hot or cold' allowing nothing else.
BucketOfMe 2 years ago
I agree.
landgabriel 2 years ago
@prer0gative
Not entirely... It's also about people who assert the non-existence of nonphysical objects - itself an game of eliminative word ownership.
What a physicalist considers a 'coherent account' is usually so restrictive as it rules out anything but physical things before the game begins.
Besides not having a coherent account doesn't exclude the possibility of it existing... If that is so - what is your business in calling it 'incoherent'?
BucketOfMe 2 years ago
@BucketOfMe
Your 'not hot' idea can't be compared to 'nonphysical'. We have a coherent understanding of concepts like cold, tepid, cool and warm. There aren't any coherent accounts of what nonphysical objects are. It's a totally false analogy. This isn't about "aggressive word ownership" as you put it. It's about people who assert the existence of nonphysical objects not ever being able to come up with the goods and explain what they mean.
prer0gative 2 years ago
Dittos!
fairguynova 2 years ago
A dictionary should be one of the first things a logical person would consult before they argue something ... you can not argue with someone if you are talking about something different than them ... logic doesnt work in another language, and if you agree on the definition of what you are arguing about, you are better able to make arguments that will apply to your opposition
Th3Shadow0fDeath 2 years ago
I agree, language and logic are very useful tools and most if not all of us can benefit from agreeing to their terms. But their terms are not binding, unless the use of force binds us to them.
For all intents and purposes, it pays of majorly to have a standard of thought and communication. But the only purpose I can see behind using any particular standard as the absolute standard is in order to coerce.
landgabriel 2 years ago
seriously? im trying to make you use my language so i can control you ... you are right ... i just want to control you somehow by making all my words mean the same thing as your words because if they were different you would have more control over your life.
Th3Shadow0fDeath 2 years ago
Words are power. They are weapons. They are tools for achieving desired goals. Nothing more. without us, words would NOT exist. They are there for us to employ and utilize. Mere abstractions.
To support your argument you would have to prove to me that there would be a benefit to agreeing on meanings if I wasn't here. But since I am alive, I can see the benefit, so it is beneficial. Without my subjective valuation of truth and meaning, words would be irrelevant.
landgabriel 2 years ago
Ill say it again one last time incase you missed it the first three ... language is our main means of COMMUNICATION. I am not arguing that words wouldnt exist without us, im not arguing that words are solid things, im not arguing that you HAVE TO USE MY WORDS im arguing that if you DONT use any words that I understand, then I CANT UNDERSTAND what you are saying. that is why we use a standard, that is why ALL languages have rules that EVERYONE follows, or fails to communicate clearly.
Th3Shadow0fDeath 2 years ago
I don't understand what we are arguing about. All I am saying is that it is entirely up to the individual to use that standard, to follow the rules.
Thus language is inseparable from preference and subjective value.
landgabriel 2 years ago
I am not arguing that language is not our main means of communication. I am not arguing that it is not our standard. I am arguing that whether or not we use that standard is voluntary.
landgabriel 2 years ago
if you think you have an idea for a word, explain its definition and what you think it should be called, and if other people agree that its a good idea then yes, you can use it ... but there is NO point in making up words for yourself
Th3Shadow0fDeath 2 years ago
I agree. It is all about the point. Words are useless without their potential to help me achieve my desires.
They are tools. Not absolutes. The have no inherent value. Their value is entirely subjective. Facts, truths, absolutes are all matters of personal, subjective values.
Thus, if I did not apply meaning to words, they would have no meaning. Therefore truth is simply what I make of it. I decide what the truth is. Reality is by consensus, and mob rule.
landgabriel 2 years ago
cool story bro. true the real world is only as real as you make it, but seriously. go pick up a girl or try to start a business and talk to your customers like that. welcome to reality.. GG
HammeredRacoon 2 years ago
Reality is what I percieve to be useful. Since I like girls, I can benefit from flirting with them. Therefore I flirt with them and hopefully get laid. But my desire to get laid is entirely subjective. Not everyone is turned on by girls, or sex in general. Therefore there is nothing 'absolute' about the 'reality' of talking to girls. It is simply about what my desires and goals are. I form the reality to serve my purposes.
landgabriel 2 years ago
« Not everyone is turned on by girls »
Christ, I hope not. I want to get laid sometime this half of the century.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
0:40 Misinterpretation of relatively chosen words to describe a relatively percievable concept with infinitely different possible interpretations...
You take the definition that a "substance" has to be physical. What if you define it differently, by example if you consider an "information" to be a substance. In fact, quantum physics is subject to the uncertainity principle... so "energy" and "information" are completely dissociated...
1 star. Fake intellectualism.
celljackingjr 2 years ago
@celljackingjr
"You take the definition that a "substance" has to be physical. What if you define it differently, by example if you consider an "information" to be a substance."
Does that mean that you believe that information can exist without any physical carrier (ie brain, book, hard drive etc.)? If that is the case - How would that work?
Faidros62 2 years ago
@celljackingjr perhaps you should check your definition of what a substance actually is. I dont see anywhere that a substance can be anything other than physical. If you check the dictionary on information, nowhere does it appear to have even the slightest connection to anything physical, aside from the fact that physical things can transfer information. Information itself is not physical. if i give you the answer to a boolean (eg coin flip) then i give you some information, but nothing physical
Th3Shadow0fDeath 2 years ago
I agree with you.
That is why I suggest to review the definition of substance.
Or maybe we could use another word?
Anyway, the idea is there and its the same... :P
celljackingjr 2 years ago
So you are saying that you would like to create a word for something that we have no way of sensing, measuring, experiencing or observing? sounds like nothing to me ... the point of this video is that there is nothing that has shown to exist on its own without any substance, hence, no non physical substance ... making up a new word for it doesnt suddenly make it exist
Th3Shadow0fDeath 2 years ago
What if everything you sense, measure, experience or observe as a substance was finally just an illusion?
By cogito, Im only sure that I exist and that everything else might be an illusion/dream/matrix/information.
Complex numbers exist, thats an information. Mathematics and logics has substance to me.
celljackingjr 2 years ago
@celljackingjr
Complex numbers, maths and logical principles aren't claimed to have their own independent effectual existence. The kind of substance you're talking about isn't relevant here. That's made very clear in the video.
prer0gative 2 years ago
That's not entirely true. The ontological status of mathemathical objects is hotly debated. If mathematical objects are said to exist within the human brain then they are contingent to it, however the factual precision of maths is necessary - arguing against them being constructs of the brain.
Search for 'On the Ideas of Quine: Section 2'. Quine fails to explain this cogently.
BucketOfMe 2 years ago
That should be: 'On the Ideas of Quine: Section 3'
BucketOfMe 2 years ago
@BucketOfMe
I'm saying mathematical objects aren't floating around having a life of their own and having their own causal effects on other things, and I wouldn't squander my time arguing with anyone who said otherwise.
prer0gative 2 years ago
Cool video. New to me. Thanks.
huyked 2 years ago
A class dedicated to viewing and discussing QualiaSoup's videos should be required in order to receive a high school diploma.
I'm tired of meeting people who can complete advanced crosswords yet are unable to solve a simple sudoku puzzle or understand evolution.
Knowing facts without comprehending them is like owning tools without ever using them.
HumanMan1234 2 years ago
This made a lot of sense neat video!!
nickharvey7 2 years ago
Hey Qualia, I have a question that's been bugging me. It seems to me that logic could be an example of a non-physical substance. For example "This statement is false" (A!=A) has no logical substance (other than it's use in iconifying other similar lacks of substance) whereas "It is what it is" (A=A) is the building block of existence. The words or thoughts of "A is A" only came along with humans but the substance of A=A vs A!=A is a quality of reality? Or is that just idealism rephrased... hmm
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
Can't speak for Qualiasoup, but I would answer this by pointing out that basic laws of logic ARE expressed, in very practical term, in every physical thing that exists. An apple = an apple. Why would the the language representation of this fact be somehow more valid than the actual physical manifestation of the apple? Is not the apple itself as much a representation of it as the thought? (cont.)
ThinkingSkeptically 2 years ago
(cont.) Further, the language representation, the thought itself is a physical thing - that we do not see the electrochemical pattern in the neurons of our brains that constitute the thought makes it too easy to erranously think that thought is somehow separate from material things. I would say that logic is a fundamental property of existence itself, and represented, in some form, in everything that exists; an explicit representation in thought isn't necessary for logic to be implicit in matter
ThinkingSkeptically 2 years ago