The Mind-Body Problem: Three Thought Experiments

[willbirful]

really informative and interesting

[Stayupfl]

Whatever the outcome may be, the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[AnduinX]

Every so many years all of the matter that composes us is replaced - there is nothing inherently 'you' about the matter that composes you and you should be able to swap it freely. Experiment #1 and #2 could be viewed as a kind of accelerated version of what happens to us naturally, but without the aging component.

[math989]

@AnduinX With #1, yes, because you replace each atom one by one; but not with #2 since you start from nothing and then add atoms.

[AnduinX]

@math989: When you say #1 is the same person, but #2 is not would I be correct in assuming that your belief is that the whole must be preserved during the transfer? If so, what if you kept speeding up the process until the point where the whole matter swap happened in an instant? That would bare more similarity to a new body suddenly bumping theirs out of existence than a conventional swap. Would that still be them in your eyes?

[math989]

@AnduinX From a materialist point of view, I agree.

But from my point of view, if it is swap in a way that the mind stop existing for a moment (ex.: swap very fast?), than it becomes a new person, otherwise it doesn't.

[AnduinX]

@math989: Well that is a materialist point of view, is it not? If you believe the swap could stop the existence of the mind you're saying that the mind is essentially something physical.

[math989]

@AnduinX I'm saying the mind NEEDS something physical to exist, I'm not saying it IS something physical.

[AnduinX]

@math989: I get it, thanks for the clarification. I'll respectfully disagree though. If one is to go so far as to say that the mind is not physical, then I see no reason as to why the mind should require something physical in order to exist.

[AnduinX]

In the end you conclude the answer must be no to one of the first two thought experiments, because if it were not, experiment three would not make sense to the materialist model of consciousness. If you do not make the fundamental assumption that consciousness MUST be a product of the brain, then experiment three is no longer a problem. Consciousness would only occur in one of the two, the other would have no consciousness.

[math989]

I think that if you change all atoms one by one, then the mind could stay in the brain, but if we were to change all of them at once, then it would be a new mind; it would be identical, but it wouldn't be the same.

[AnduinX]

@math989: Why? From a materialist perspective there is absolutely no reason why the speed at which the particles are exchanged should have any effect on the outcome.

[math989]

@AnduinX I wasn't refering to the speed, I was refering to the concept of continuity. If you kill someone and then make a person exactly identical to this someone when s/he was alive, you still have kill someone. That new person is not the same even if s/he is identical. At least, this is the way I see it.

[AnduinX]

@math989: "If you kill someone and then make a person exactly identical to this someone when s/he was alive, you still have kill someone." -I would certainly agree with that, as I don't believe consciousness to be a production of the brain, but from a conventional materialist perspective I see no reason why matter would not be completely interchangeable.

[mentalphysicalism]

There is no mind brain problem. Mental and physical are both concepts of

the world we perceive in our consciousness. Mind and brain are different ways

of perceiving different aspects of the same thing(mind/brain). Consciousness and

matter are both real and both are objects of our consciousness. The problem is

that most people think that the only thing that is real is the objects of our consciousness we perceive thru our outer/physical senses which is called

physicalism.

[Spetsop]

For thought experiment 1) Yes, even if you replace the entire brain, it's not the material that matters. What matters is two things a) will it be able to function the same way the current material does (i.e. conduct electricity to form action potentials [APs]), and 2) will it be arranged in the same way. If both are true, you will have the same mind, because 1) forming APs is essential to make the brain function and 2) it's the pattern of these APs that makes you who you are!

[Loustrikesagain]

This is trash.

[smawshot]

The first experiment does occur via aging. Cells do die and are replaced by newer ones and the mind is still the same yet.

[Spetsop]

@smawshot

Neurons don't get replaced in the CNS. With aging their number actually decreases, but they don't regenerate unless they are covered by Shwann cells, which are part of PNS. In the case of the brain, the saying "if you don't use it, you lose it" has that exact literal meaning to it.

[smawshot]

@Spetsop Yes, as of late that is something I did learn. A misconception that has put teethmarks on my own foot.

Cheers.

[AnduinX]

@smawshot: Actually, the first experiment does still occur. It is true that there are cells that remain with us for our entire lives, but the atoms and molecules that compose those cells do not. All of the atoms and molecules that compose our body are replaced, so the matter swap still takes place.

[hareeshgnair]

Interesting.. I would put that even if you create another mind very similar to the other.. with same atoms (all in same states) if its possible then also both mind will behave differently due to Heinsbergs uncertainity principle.

I would also go along with Quantum Mechanics which says.. there are no identical particles.. if they are same.. they are one.

[humansaretheworld]

The problem with these experiments is that it is based upon physicalism where only the outer world is real. Mind and matter are both real and they are objects of our consciousness. Matter is the world as we perceive it thru our outer senses. The mind is an inner perception. There is no mind and matter problem because they both are real. The problem is created when one thinks that only one of them is real.

[humansaretheworld]

The mind and body are both objects of our consciousness. Mind and body are both part of the mind-body with the difference being one of perception. An analogy

 would be an explosion producing light and sound waves. Even though we perceive both light and sound waves they are both aspects of a more basic entity called an explosion. The difference between mind and body is inner and outer perceptions.

[chubbypenguin0810]

we had a debate like this way back in my 2nd year college.. im on the side of mind is a seperate entity from the brain, thus they are two different thing..

[dfpolis]

Identity is defined by looking not at material constituents in isolation, but at dynamic continuity. I am the same person that was conceived in my mother's womb because there is a dynamic continuity (my life) linking my present self to my former self. Breaking continuity breaks identity. There is no reason to think the mind is solely material. Thus, moving atoms is not the same as moving the mind.

[gmsherry1953]

#1 Yes, same mind -- in fact this happens during our lifetimes. The patterns and relationships in the brain survive the gradual replacement. #2 No, just a dead body. The mind can't survive being taken apart like that; it can't function being split in two. So #3 the original mind is intact and the 2nd one is dead. Each particle is not mind; that's the wonder. Each particle is just a switch, on-off, like in a computer. Only working together are they a mind. That's my answer, at least.

[WhiteDragon103]

I don't think you can avoid using numeric identity in the quest to solve the puzzle of continuity and consciousness, as you seemed to have tried near the end of this video. Even if you were to suggest that the brain's parts each could have their own identity, you couldn't avoid the need to physically explain how identity is possible.

If you suggested that each fundamental building block had their own identity, that wouldn't resolve the problem of continuity since we never have the same atoms.

[Inannawhimsey]

Maybe the thing is to stop thinking in terms of nouns/objects and start thinking in terms of relationships. Thus the colour green of grass is a transaction between our neurology and a certain wavelength of light that also includes such things as the strength of the EM force, the big bang needing to occur, plants needing to occur, etc etc.

[seanotube85]

I think it has already been determined by physicists that matter is constantly flowing from place to place even within our own bodies. Not sure if this is sub-atomic or not, but I'm pretty sure it's constantly happening. Also this makes me think of a teleportation device which was invented that can teleport atoms by first destroying them, but an exact replica appears elsewhere. They could eventually do this with humans possibly, which raises fundamental questions of existence similar to yours.

[college12003]

Are you suggesting then that consciousness is an illusion?

[SentiencePhysics]

@college12003 Not necessarily that consciousness is an illusion, but that some common assumptions about the mind may be wrong.

I should mention that some of my thoughts on the matter discussed in this video have recently changed. These changes are connected to the idea from quantum mechanics that all fundamental particles of the same type (e.g. electrons) are, in a sense, the same particle. In any case, the thought experiments are still relevant.

[college12003]

@SentiencePhysics Interesting...How has the single-particle concept changed your view of consciousness?

[SentiencePhysics]

@college12003 It has given me doubts about the solution I mentioned in the video to the problem that the three thought experiments present. However, I haven't really thought about it or read enough to develop any strong views about what a good alternative might me.

[JohananRaatz]

@SentiencePhysics Might it make sense to resolve this problem by arguing that perhaps patterns are more fundamental than atoms?

[SentiencePhysics]

@JohananRaatz Yes, I think that the solution might be something along those lines.

[AnduinX]

@JohananRaatz: That doesn't strike me as a solution to the problem. If you bring patterns more fundamental than atoms into the picture then the question simply shifts to a more fundamental scale, does it not? (E.g. What would happen if you swapped all of the fundamental units that compose you with identical fundamental units?)

[JohananRaatz]

@AnduinX No because it gets rid of the reductivism. You're thinking in terms of "smallest bits" that can be replaced and interchanged. When it may be the other way around, where you have large patterns stacking up to produce what is seen as small bits.

Think like the holographic principle concept coming from physics now. If you cut it in pieces each part contains info about the whole. By stacking these patterns up in Fourier series you can produce tiny details in the patterns.

[AnduinX]

@JohananRaatz: I understand now, that's an interesting possibility.

[oicub2]

The Taste of Life.

Oh to hear time or see 3D

to smell the light or feel gravity.

Or Not.. ?

12 / 04 / 2009