• Solaris
    5
    The interaction problem is a problem for Dualism, the view of the mind that humans have two parts, an immaterial mind and the body
    I will state it as it follows:

    1-The mind and body are two separate substances, and have no shared properties

    2-two substances need one shared property to interact

    3-the mind and body cannot interact

    However, the mind and body do clearly act. Whether you are a materialisti, Idealist or whatever, you most likely believe that your thoughts cause your actions. You need to drop either one or two.

    Two can be supported by the fact it has wide confirmation: a hammer and a nail have the property of being physical, and ideas that interact with each other have the property of being ideas. So, one has to be dropped, the mind and the body are not two separate substances
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    It could be though that matter and mind are two properties of the same stuff, which is a kind of unified dualism, contrary as that might seem. The inside of matter can be called the mindside, like electric charge, and the outside the matter side. In our inside, the mental resides (brain world) and on the outside, we are our body, which again lies between our inner mental world, and the outer, matterside of the physical world around us, and the other living bodies we encounter. We, being our bodies, are the connection between our inner world and the matterside of the physical world (containing a mindside).
  • 180 Proof
    8.4k
    Here's a link to a thread titled "Substance Dualism versus Property Dualism Debate" from last year (2021) which may interest you.

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11335/substance-dualism-versus-property-dualism-debate/p1

    Welcome to TPF, Solaris!

    (Btw, great name from a great novel (& 1972 film adaptation))
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia!

    A Scandal in Bohemia (Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson).

    Divine Fallacy!
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    (Btw, great name from a great novel (& 1972 film adaptation))180 Proof

    In both versions it remained unclear what the mechanism was used by Solaris. Lem offered some half-baken, immature, almost childish means, but we can't really blame him. Neutrinos were new and still ghos-tlike. The second version offered a similar proposition, based on physically more recent fantasies. It was shown to us in the so-called objective context of the knowing scientist, but in the heart of the matter and in hindsight this was just a propagand move.
  • chiknsld
    195
    The interaction problem is a problem for Dualism, the view of the mind that humans have two parts, an immaterial mind and the bodySolaris

    If you disagree, then point us to the material of the mind? :snicker:
  • Harry Hindu
    4.8k
    It seems that some definitions are in order. What is a substance and what is a property?

    The OP lays out the problem of substance dualism well enough. I agree that it is obvious that mind and matter interact.

    The problem with property dualism is that it appears to me that there are much more than just two properties, and that asserting that mind is a property has just as many issues as asserting that matter is a property. There are properties of size, mass, location, time, dimension, color, shape, temperature, etc.
    all of which exist in some form or another in the mind and in the world. For instance, temperature can be the property of internal energy within a physical system or the feeling of hot or cold in a mental system. One might point to this as the nature of property dualism but science seems to inform us that mind has only just recently come into existence in a universe that has been only physical for most of its existence. So mind is really just an outcome of complex physical interactions. For property dualism to be valid there must have been some aspect of mind that has existed since the beginning with the physical, but what would that even look like? Why do physicists only describe physical properties and interactions when explaining the Big Bang? What are the mental properties of the Big Bang?

    It also seems to be, at least slightly, anthropomorphic to assert mind as being a fundamental property of the universe.

    My view is that the universe is not physical or mental. It is a process. All physical states and mental states are processes. Objects are really the outcome of mental processes in how minds objectify external processes. Think of how a computer can translate an analog signal into a digital signal. In this view brains are the mental representations (representation is a process) of other minds (processes).
  • Solaris
    5
    What is a substance and what is a property?

    substances are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality.so if you believe that there are two fundamental entities of reality, mind and physical, then the argument is aimed at that.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Does matter carry mind?
  • bert1
    1.2k
    I agree with your argument. It's an oldie and a goodie. Most famously made by Spinoza I suppose.
  • Harry Hindu
    4.8k
    substances are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality.so if you believe that there are two fundamental entities of reality, mind and physical, then the argument is aimed at that.Solaris

    1-The mind and body are two separate substances, and have no shared properties

    2-two substances need one shared property to interact

    3-the mind and body cannot interact
    Solaris

    Is "fundamental" a property of all substances? Why or why not?

    What is it about the property, "fundamental", that prevents two substances from interacting? If two substances (mind and physical) both share the property of being "fundamental" then why couldn't they interact?
  • Solaris
    5


    A substance is fundamental if everything else is made up by it. So if you believe that everything that exists is made up of mind, and matter at the most fundemental layer, then mind is fundemental and matter is also fundemental.
    .
    If you believe that they are both fundamental, then they cannot be made up of the same thing(s) otherwise that thing would be the fundemental thing, that grounds all of reality.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    If you believe that they are both fundamental, then they cannot be made up of the same thing(s) otherwise that thing would be the fundemental thing, that grounds all of reality.Solaris

    A medal can have two sides. One fundamental can have two properties. For example, an elementary particle can have charge (content).
  • Agent Smith
    4.4k
    Ghosts don't exist. Yet, alone, in a dark room, if you're the type, you experience the full gamut of emotions that would be evoked if ghosts were real! Interaction problem! :snicker:
  • Relativist
    1.7k
    I don't think "the mind" is a thing; rather, its an abstraction of all the processes that we categorize as mental.
  • Jackson
    938
    I don't think "the mind" is a thing; rather, its an abstraction of all the processes that we categorize as mental.Relativist

    As Hume said, the mind is a heap of perceptions.
  • Gnomon
    2.3k
    It could be though that matter and mind are two properties of the same stuff, which is a kind of unified dualism, contrary as that might seem.Hillary
    That is the conclusion of the Enformationism thesis. The "stuff" or "substance" in this case is what Aristotle defined as the "form" or "essence" of a thing. On the leading edge of modern science, that essential something is now identified with Integrated (unified) Information (power to enform). In that case, there is no interaction problem, only an integration function. Just as Water & Ice are different forms of the same thing, Matter & Mind are functional forms of Energy. :nerd:

    Substance :
    Aristotle acknowledges that there are three candidates for being called substance, and that all three are substance in some sense or to some degree. First, there is matter, second, form and third, the composite of form and matter.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

    An integration of integrated information theory with fundamental physics :
    IIT considers consciousness to be an intrinsic property of matter, as fundamental as mass, charge or energy.
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00063/full

    Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
    In his proposed conception of the world, information is truly fundamental and is comprised of dual aspects—corresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world.
    https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

    Is Information Fundamental? :
    Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
    https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

    Shape shifting Information :
    Information is the power to enform, to create, to cause change, to convey meaning. It's the essence of human consciousness & awareness. Therefore, it plays various roles in different contexts.
    BothAnd Blog post 123
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    Considering matter and mind, information is, in all humble humbleness, is not the determining property. True, particles interact with one another to form structures, forms, in form, but its the content of matter that allows these patterns to occur. Particles are small pieces of mind combining because their charges allow them to couple via the medium of the quantum vacuum between them. The pieces of mind combine into more and more complex minds in matter with bodies to reach out and interact, i.e., living beings!
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.