I'm employing the standard definitions as they appear in the relevqnt wikipedia pages — TheMadFool

Mind posting them?

my concerns are specific to mind — TheMadFool

You are assuming that the physical and nonphysical are of different kinds, leading to a paradox.

However, if one assumed that the physical and nonphysical are two aspects of the same thing, there would be no paradox. For example, spatial and temporal relationships cannot fully be explained as being either purely physical or purely nonphysical.

hypothesis — Wayfarer

Both hypotheses, i) that a physical mind is different in kind to a nonphysical mind and ii)
that a physical mind and a nonphysical mind are two aspects of the same thing, would be difficult to prove.

Yet hypothesis ii) has the advantage that it does not involve a paradox.

Either physicalism is true or nonphysicalism is true! — TheMadFool

TMF! Nice post.

Why can't both be true?

You’ve used “different aspects of the same thing” several times, but without exposition of what the same thing would be. Is it spatial/temporal relations? But then, of what are they aspects?

By definition in physics, and general logical inference in metaphysics, it seems unlikely for physical and non-physical conditions to have a condition in common, which would tend to solve the paradox if such should be the case, but perhaps at the expense of necessarily creating another.

Just wondering if you had something in mind......

TMF! Nice post.

Why can't both be true? — 3017amen

It's not my position but I'm merely toeing the official lines as it were. By the way, we're talking about the mind only and it can't be both physical and nonphysical, right? That would be a contradiction!

:up:

TMF! Nice post.

Why can't both be true? — 3017amen
It's not my position but I'm merely towing the official lines as it were. By the way, we're talking about the mind only and it can't be both physical and nonphysical, right? That would be a contradiction! — TheMadFool

Hahaha! How'd you guess :joke:

Yes of course TMF, towing the official lines is good as a starting point, but we're continental/post modernist's :yikes:

Maybe that's yet another Kantian thing that's beyond pure reason! Or perhaps we should throw SK and Existentialism in there too!

if physicalism is true, something physical (the mind) is trying to connect as it were with that which it is not, the nonphysical. — TheMadFool

You can't see the fool ishness of this? If physicalism is true, there is nothing that is nonphysical.

Another basic mistake, of the sort that make up most of your posts.

:up:

This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate. I think it's safe to say that the only people interested in it are those who think it has some bearing on religious faith; either those who wish to justify religion or those who wish to refute it. Either way, it's a fool's errand! — Janus

I beg to differ with your over-simplified religion-versus-science characterization of this perennial Mind-Matter "debate". For those who are not interested in metaphysical philosophy, discussions about Mind/Body distinctions may indeed be "tedious" --- probably because it questions their basic assumptions (or prejudices) about the world. But for many professional Quantum physicists, who are not concerned about "religious faith", the Mind-Matter Paradox is of vital interest. Wouldn't you agree that reveals a third category of far-from-foolish "people", who are vitally interested in the metaphysical aspects of Reality?

For example, I'm currently reading the latest book by atheist physicist Carlo Rovelli, HELGOLAND, in which he discusses the fundamental elements of reality, From the beginning, he makes it clear that the matter we see & touch is not fundamental. Instead, it's the conceptual functions of the "mind" that do the conscious seeing and touching. More specifically, he calls those elementary, presumably "out-there", realities : "relationships" or "relative information" or "meaning". And he also notes that, what we call "relationships", are mental attributions of non-physical connections between physical things. Yet, he insists that his position is not a Cartesian dichotomy of spiritual Mind in a physical Body. Instead, he says it unites those phenomena into a single Reality.

In one chapter, Rovelli recounts debates among mostly atheist-materialist leaders of the Russian communist revolution. Ironically, they accuse each other of "unjustified metaphysical assumptions". That's just one of many instances where the philosophical term "metaphysics" is used in a non-religious sense. Moreover, it seems that a keen interest in Meta-Physics is the primary distinction between an empirical Scientist, and a theoretical Philosopher. Yet, in their "physics envy", many philosophers today are forced to disguise their "metaphysical assumptions" with alternative terminology. However, metaphysics by any other name would smell as sweet, because sweetness is in the mind, not the body. :smile:


Embracing the relational nature of existence :
The success of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics and The Order of Time has made theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli a household name. In his new book, Helgoland, Rovelli offers to the general public his interpretation of quantum mechanics, arguing that it solves the theory’s paradoxes by so profoundly redefining our notion of reality that it erases the ineffable mind-body dichotomy. . . . . Simply put, Rovelli argues—correctly, I believe—that we must abandon our belief in a cosmos populated by objects moving through space and time.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2021/06/08/helgoland/

Relational quantum mechanics :
The physical content of the theory has not to do with objects themselves, but the relations between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
Note -- relations are not material objects, but mental or mathematical evaluations. Some may think of math ratios as "physical", but only in the sense that they are usually associated with physical objects. But not always. Sometimes relationships are between immaterial abstractions, between mental ideas apart from physical things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

From the beginning, [Rovelli] makes it clear that the matter we see & touch is not fundamental. Instead, it's the conceptual functions of the "mind" that do the conscious seeing and touching. More specifically, he calls those elementary, presumably "out-there", realities : "relationships" or "relative information" or "meaning". And he also notes that, what we call "relationships", are mental attributions of non-physical connections between physical things. — Gnomon

:up:

The richest prescientific articulation of the alternative worldview came in the second century BCE writings of the Indian Mahayana Buddhist thinker Nagarjuna. His doctrine of sunyata, or emptiness, says that nothing exists entire unto itself but only in relation to other things. This was not quantum theory avant la lettre, but Rovelli argues that Nagarjuna’s Middle Way provides the right framework for understanding “a reality made up of relations rather than objects".

So it’s not true that quantum theory requires us to accept the absurdity that the properties of objects change depending on whether they are observed or not. Rather, the properties of an object always depends on what it is interacting with. Think of how a vibration of air can be invisible to one ear and an intolerable screech to another. Hence it’s not that looking at reality has a special power to alter it but that “any interaction between two physical objects can be seen as an observation”.

Quantum entanglement is similarly explained. The moment a third party — in this case, the observer — enters the picture, it’s not that the picture changes but that we’re looking at a different picture. — FT Review of Helgoland

(Although I would add that pictures naturally imply observers.)

Sometimes relationships are between immaterial abstractions, between mental ideas apart from physical things. — Gnomon

Logic is the relationship between ideas, pure and simple. Of course all the physicalists will then say that such ideas are 'in' or 'correlated with' neural events, but you have to be able to use logic to understand what a 'neural event' is. ;-)

I've always seen this idea as a deliberate separation of things that are meant to exist in unison. I believe that the spiritual and material are both true and have value. We are not mindless zombies, nor are we floating ghosts. We are humans. — Kasperanza

Reality certainly appears to have a spiritual and material aspect.

Mind posting them? — Olivier5

The physical world is quantized, ideal mathematical concepts are imaginary exclusions of quantization, equivalent to a unicorn or a leprechaun for pure thought. They are not a nonphysical substance, but rather fictions that prove extremely functional because they optimize precision. — Enrique

To both of the above two esteemed forum members:

Physicalism: Everything is matter & energy

Nonphysicalism: Physicalism is false (some things are not just matter and energy)

You can't see the fool ishness of this? If physicalism is true, there is nothing that is nonphysical — Banno

I'm not saying the nonphysical exists. My bad, poor choice words - "connect". What I really mean to say is how something physical (mind) can even conceive of the the nonphysical. The mind is even confused about what it is (physical/nonphysical) - that's the very essence of the physicalism/nonphysicalism debate.

Let me spell it out for you:

Physicalism is true. Check.

1. A physical thing (mind) can conceive of the nonphysical (what it is not). Marvel of marvels!

2. A physical thing (mind) is unsure about whether it's physical or nonphysical. Will wonders never cease!

Another basic mistake, of the sort that make up most of your posts. — Banno

Hey! :sad:

Hahaha! How'd you guess :joke:

Yes of course TMF, towing the official lines is good as a starting point, but we're continental/post modernist's :yikes:

Maybe that's yet another Kantian thing that's beyond pure reason! Or perhaps we should throw SK and Existentialism in there too! — 3017amen

I had to start somewhere! Too, the paradox that I speak of encompasses both physicalism & nonphysicalism. If the former is true then we have, I just discovered, a physical object (mind) uncertain of its own physicality and if the latter is true, a nonphysical object (mind) is in two minds about its nonphysicality. Isn't that odd? That's the paradox! How can one kind of thing conflate itself with another kind of thing? Unless...as you suggested, it's both (physical & nonphysical). Hmmm. :chin: That's a contradiction iff I speak of the mind as a whole but it could be part physical, part nonphysical. Hence explaining the confusion! Mind weighing in on this? Thanks!

Let me spell it out for you:

Physicalism is true. Check.

1. A physical thing (mind) can conceive of the nonphysical (what it is not). Marvel of marvels!

2. A physical thing (mind) is unsure about whether it's physical or nonphysical. Will wonders never cease! — TheMadFool

There's nothing here.

There's nothing here. — Banno

:lol: You need to see a shrink!

Physicalism: Everything is matter & energy

Nonphysicalism: Physicalism is false (some things are not just matter and energy) — TheMadFool

So it all hinges on the definition of 'matter and energy'. And no one knows what matter is, exactly... so we haven't made much progress.

Like, is Beethoven's 5th symphony composed of matter and energy? And how many grams does the number 5 weight?

Reality certainly appears to have a spiritual and material aspect. — RogueAI

And now here is my secret, a very simple secret; it is only with the heart that one sees rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye.
-- the fox in The Little Prince

:up:

For those who are not interested in metaphysical philosophy, discussions about Mind/Body distinctions may indeed be "tedious" --- probably because it questions their basic assumptions (or prejudices) about the world. — Gnomon

The debate is tedious precisely because of unwarranted assumptions about the nature of mind and matter, of the metal and physical. So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience.

I don't have any vested interest, and I believe those who do are usually either religious apologists; people seeking empirical or epistemological justification for religious belief, or on the other side, atheists or haters of religion who seek empirical or epistemological justification for rejection of religious belief.

So it all hinges on the definition of 'matter and energy'. And no one knows what matter is, exactly... so we haven't made much progress.

Like, is Beethoven's 5th symphony composed of matter and energy? And how many grams does the number 5 weight? — Olivier5

Matter is anything that has mass and volume.

Matter is anything that has mass and volume. — TheMadFool

So what is the weight of the number 5, then? Or the letter A?

Logic is the relationship between ideas, pure and simple. Of course all the physicalists will then say that such ideas are 'in' or 'correlated with' neural events, but you have to be able to use logic to understand what a 'neural event' is. ;-) — Wayfarer

:up:

Mr. Black was a very important man. In fact that was a meiosis - Mr. Black was not just a very important man, he was the most important man, not just on earth, not just in the solar system, not just in the galaxy or the local cluster or the universe but in the entire infinity of the multiverse.

He was the key to unlocking the secrets of the multiverse. Mr. Black was the cosmic library as it were - all knowledge, past, present, and future were locked up inside his, oddly, tiny head. We had to get our hands on what he knew. It was the key to the survival of all life across the multiverse - we would find cures for diseases, ways of stopping wars, methods to grass tasty, you know the whole enchilada.

Mr. Black was a shrewd fellow. He realized long long ago that what he knew would change the entire multiverse - transform it into an eternal paradise inhabited by beings perfect in every sense of the word. Thus, realizing his own cosmic significance and how fragile a physical body is, he wisely downloaded his knowledge onto a flash drive and decided to hand it over to the Guardians Of The Multiverse.

The Guardians kept their word and arrived at the designated time the next day. No words were exchanged, Mr. Black simply stuck his hand out through the half-open door, the flash drive between his index finger and thumb. The Guardians took the flash drive, Mr. Black heard a collective sigh of relief, and off the Guardians went, disappearing into the fog.

Back at the HQ, the Guardians immediately went to work. Before they did anything, they had to make sure, the data was not corrupted. "You can't be too careful you know", said one. "Failure isn't an option" said another. They very carefully inserted the flash drive into a flash drive slot and after the customary virus scan, they clicked on the right icon. There was a single document - they clicked on it. The initial excitement and joy they felt for being the first people other than Mr. Black to set eyes on the secrets of the multiverse instantly gave way to dismay, confusion, and disappointment. What was on the screen was complete gibberish - they'd never seen any of the symbols let alone make out a word or sentence.

Commotion ensued and while everyone was shouting at each other - "did you drop the flash drive?" "is there a virus?" and so on - one of the Guardians offered a more plausible alternative, "maybe it's code! Mr. Black must've forgotten about it. we need to get the key." Suddenly, the noise was replaced by pin drop silence.

The next day. The Guardians were slowly but steadily walking along the winding path along the mountain's sides, the path that would take them...to...Mr. Black!

You’ve used “different aspects of the same thing” several times, but without exposition of what the same thing would be. Is it spatial/temporal relations? But then, of what are they aspects? — Mww

In saying that the physical brain and nonphysical mind are two aspects of the same "thing", what is my understanding of this "thing" ?

Mysterianism
As Colin McGinn said, consciousness is "a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel". Mysterianism is the philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by present human understanding, though may be comprehensible with future advances of science and technology. For example, our understanding of the deeper problems of reality may be no more than that of a horse being explained the allegories within Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, an understanding beyond the innate mental abilities of the animal, no matter how detailed or patient any explanation would be.

IE, A true understanding of the "thing" is, and will always be, beyond my ability.

Imagining the unimaginable
If the "thing" is beyond my human capacity to understand, then why do I believe it exists in the first place. We understand in the same way that language allows us the discuss other unimaginable things, such as time, space, causation, ghosts, gods, unicorns, the big bang, infinity, etc. However, this is not the language of the early Wittgenstein being a logical correspondence between language and the world, but rather language as metaphor. As Nietzsche wrote “We believe that when we speak of trees, colours, snows, and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves, and yet we possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entities.”

IE, we can imagine the unimaginable through language, but not literally, only metaphorically.

Physicalism and nonphysicalism as two aspects of the same thing
There are many examples where one concept can be expressed as a combination of physical and nonphysical experiences. For example, i) aesthetics - needing both a physical form and nonphysical content, where, as Kant said, judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and intellectual all at once.
ii) emotions - as Antonio Damasio, neurologist said "an organism can possess feelings only when it can create a representation of the body's functions and the related changes that occur in the brain"
iii) mathematics - both discovered and invented, and in the words of Mario Livio, "Indeed, I posit that humans invent the mathematical concepts—numbers, shapes, sets, lines, and so on—by abstracting them from the world around them. They then go on to discover the complex connections among the concepts that they had invented; these are the so-called theorems of mathematics" - iv) being - as expressed in the hylomorphism of Aristotle, where being is a compound of matter and form, necessitating both the physical and the nonphysical, v) language - the later Wittgenstein writing in Philosophical Investigations that the meaning of a word is its use in language, where meaning occurs in a nonphyiscal mind and use occurs in a physical world.

IE, there are many examples where the physical and nonphysical have something in common.

Panqualityism
My feeling is that panqualityism, a view promoted by Sam Coleman, is the most reasonable theory to explain the connection between the physical brain and the nonphysical mind. Panqualityism can be seen as a kind of middle way between panpsychism and physicalism. Whereas the physicalist thinks that we can give an entirely reductive account of consciousness, the panpsychist thinks that consciousness is fundamental, and the panqualityist thinks that that the qualitative aspect of consciousness is fundamental, whilst holding a reductive view of subjectivity.

It is argued that sentience on Earth developed as early as the Cambrian period with the Cephalopods 541 to 485 million years ago. It seems reasonable to assume that consciousness is a property of sentience, and is a function of the complexity of the particular sentient being. There is a choice of belief, either i) there was a day when consciousness didn't exist and the next day it did, or ii) consciousness has always existed though to a lesser degree. Both possibilities are mysterious, though I find possibility ii) the more reasonable. Going further back in time there is another choice, either i) panpsychism, where atoms are conscious or ii) panqualityism, where atoms are not conscious but in certain combinations are able to give rise to consciousness. Again, both possibilities are mysterious, though I find possibility ii) the more reasonable.

IE, given the choice of many mysteries, I find the idea of panqualityism the least mysterious

Conclusion
In summary, the "thing" that has the two aspects of physical brain and nonphysical mind
may best be understood by the theory of panqualityism. However, this can only ever be a metaphorical understanding rather than a literal understanding.

I just discovered, a physical object (mind) uncertain of its own physicality and if the latter is true, a nonphysical object (mind) is in two minds about its nonphysicality. I — TheMadFool

TMF!

Are you saying that self-awareness, in itself, represents a non-physical quality (qualia) that is essential for physical consciousness as we understand it?

How can one kind of thing conflate itself with another kind of thing? Unless...as you suggested, it's both (physical & nonphysical). — TheMadFool

Yes, I don't think we can escape both the need for the physical and non-physical. In considering many truth's that are apperceived through the senses via quality (qualia) and quantity (materialism), a philosophical analogy could be subjectivism and objectivism as being the requirement(s) for any apperception of a thing to take place at all. In other words, typically you need a subject (you) and an object (thing) to make sense out of something you see, feel, experience and so on. And subjects can be non-physical where objects are usually physical. I guess you could say the radio needs sound waves for it to be felt or perceived by a sentient being.

Though this may seem obvious, with respect to conflation, it's worth mentioning that the conscious and subconscious mind continue to operate together in a logically impossible, explanatory way. I think the word that you use (conflate) works for that description of the mind, where the conscious and subconscious are the two minds that act as one mind. Of course, the driving while daydreaming, crashing and dying scenario rears its head there. And so we simply can't logically explain whether it was exclusively the conscious or subconscious mind that was driving the car. They seemingly were both driving. Metaphorically, I think they can only be described as a 'mottled color of red'.

Those are some quick bullet points on conflating things, as they relate to the mind and matter. I think many can agree that there exists abstract structures in the physical world that go beyond what the definitions of physicalism allows for (mathematics itself, the Will, qualia, etc..). But I am sensing you are trying to get at another point, so please provide more input if possible... .

TMF!

Are you saying that self-awareness, in itself, represents a non-physical quality (qualia) that is essential for physical consciousness as we understand it? — 3017amen

All I'm willing to say is, it's rather odd that the mind has set up a criteria for telling the difference between physical and nonphysical, has applied it with great success I might add but...the catch is...it doesn't seem to be able to determine whether it itself is physical or not!

That's like a person who can tell the difference between a man and a woman but failing to identify his own sex! Perhaps, just perhaps, as you suggested, this person is both!

Yes there are very good arguments, especially from physicalist quarters but that there are some who think differently (nonphysicalists) and those who can't make up their minds, is a clear sign that the physicality of the mind isn't an open and shut case.

All I'm willing to say is, it's rather odd that the mind has set up a criteria for telling the difference between physical and nonphysical, has applied it with great success I might add but...the catch is...it doesn't seem to be able to determine whether it itself is physical or not!

That's like a person who can tell the difference between a man and a woman but failing to identify his own sex! Perhaps, just perhaps, as you suggested, this person is both! — TheMadFool

Okay, I think I got it. Kind of reminiscent of certain metaphysical questions concerning the nature of our reality. Meaning, we got here, and we are aware of our self-awareness, but we don't know how we got here in the first place (the meaning of an evolved molecular primordial soup) nor how self-awareness itself evolved or developed over time. It's as if self-awareness just arrived on the scene somehow. Biologically, it seems that short of instinct, evolution and emergence, self-awareness just is.

Similarly, with respect to abstractness in nature and how the mind perceives those things, as physicist Paul Davies writes " For reasons of biological selection we can scarcely guess, our brains have evolved to recognize and focus on those aspects of nature that display mathematical patterns."
So when you say our minds have 'set up a criteria for telling the difference' I would argue they are also set up for something that is counterintuitive to Darwinism. They are set up to perceive abstract structures in nature. But the irony is we don't need knowledge about the abstract laws of gravity to survive in the jungle. Nor do we need love to survive, or do we?

Anyway, sorry to digress again....

So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience. — Janus

It's true that Mind and Matter are merely different aspects of one reality, just as heads & tails are different aspects (views) of a single coin. But, as a philosophical question, what's the problem with discussing what makes them different? For example, how and why are they distinct from each other? If you prefer not to distinguish between them, does that mean you think it's dangerous to "look into the gaping abyss" of Metaphysics? What are you afraid of, that makes you proud to avoid metaphysical "assumptions" like "Mind is not the same thing as Matter"? Should Science avoid discerning what makes one part of a whole different from another?

Do you "assume" that there is no difference between res extensa and res cogitans, because to open that Pandora's Box would put you on the slippery slope to religious heresy against the authority of Science? Some "woke" people today think it's dangerous to scrutinize any genetic distinctions between races, because such, presumably biased, knowledge would inevitably lead to acts of racism. Should scientists be barred from investigating how racial "differences" cause some humans to react differently to the same medications? Is that a step in the right direction, or an emotional over-reaction to the long history of man's inhumanity to man? Should philosophers be barred from examining what makes conscious matter different from non-conscious matter? Are such questions a matter of indifference to you? :cool:

Distinction (philosophy) :
Distinction, the fundamental philosophical abstraction, involves the recognition of difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(philosophy)

Res extensa :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_extensa

Okay, I think I got it — 3017amen

There's nothing here. — Banno

:smile:

LOL, tell Banno, there is a there there :razz: