Materialism, Determinism, Free Will

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

It is pretty easy to refute the proposition that there is a “type  identity” between brain states and mind states. For example, identical cognitive tasks can be performed by different individuals – whose brains may not be exactly identical in their biochemistry and neuro-anatomical make-up – even using different parts of the brain to perform these tasks.  Similarly, identical cognitive tasks can be performed by the same individuals at different times in their life despite the neurophysical re-configuration that would have occurred in the process of aging.  I could go on piling up many more examples which would completely undermine the case for identity theory

Birds and bats have different shaped wings, but wing states equal flying states, and similar effects in general can be achieved through different means.We know in this day and age that CAT scanners can see the response to stimuli in the brain, and we can even have computer interface technology that can ‘read’ to a certain extent the minds of the users.http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134682-hackers-backdoor-the-human-brain-successfully-extract-sensitive-data 

 This is completely irrelvant, Bill, and you must surely realise this.  The link you provided does not demonstrate what you claim.  What it proposes, if I have read it correctly,  is a procedure or algorithm whereby you can progressively arrive at the truth – rather like a game of charades – using something called a  P300 response to point you in the right direction You cannot map a particular thought -say, the thought of a cold glass of beer on a hot summers day – onto to some particular pattern of neuronal firing  such that  for this thought to re-occur requires the exact repetition of  that particular pattern of neuronal firing. That is what I mean by  brain states not being identical to mind states. Yes CAT scanners can as you say read ” to a certain extent ” the responses to stimuli in the brain just as lie detectors can make a reasonably accurate quess as to whether you are telling the truth or not but that is a world away from substantiating the position taken up by identity theory Your analogy of birds and bats is inapt anyway and precisely for the reason you offer that “similar effects in general  can be achieved through different means” . This is what I was trying to tell you with my various examples refuting identity theory.  Thus “identical cognitive tasks can be performed by the same individuals at different times in their life despite the neurophysical re-configuration that would have occurred in the process of aging.”.  Quite so. Which  means there can be no one-to-one mapping of mind states onto brain states. Which means Identity theory has been refuted.

[Anonymous]

 some clever clogs wrote:Everything is material “Therefore minds are material.The interaction of matter (at least at the non-quantum level) follows natural laws which are uniform and predictable i.e matter follows deterministic laws.Therefore as the mind is material we do not have free will.” I think ‘clever glogs’ could be right but I think what is required here is an answer to the question ‘what is free will’. I don’t think ‘free will’ is a very helpful term or concept. Replace it with something else as it implies that if we do not have limitless choices then we do not have free will.

[Young Master Smeet]

robbo203 wrote:

You cannot map a particular thought -say, the thought of a cold glass of beer on a hot summers day – onto to some particular pattern of neuronal firing  such that  for this thought to re-occur requires the exact repetition of  that particular pattern of neuronal firing. That is what I mean by  brain states not being identical to mind states. Yes CAT scanners can as you say read ” to a certain extent ” the responses to stumuli in the brain just as lie detectors can make a reasonably accurate quess as to whether you are telling the truth or not but that is a world away from substantiating the position taken up by identity theory

So what if you can’t?  If you can show any neurons firing, at all, when someone is thinking of a cold glass of beer, that is a brain state.  Just because we don’t understand how it works (yet) doesn’t mean that isn’t the case.

robbo203 wrote:

Your analogy of birds and bats is inapt anyway and precisely for the reason you offer that “similar effects in general  can be achieved through different means” . This is what I was trying to tell you with my various examples refuting identity theory.  Thus “identical cognitive tasks can be performed by the same individuals at different times in their life despite the neurophysical re-configuration that would have occurred in the process of aging.”.  Quite so. Which  means there can be no one-to-one mapping of mind states onto brain states. Which means Identity theory has been refuted.

Sorry, should have said:  A bird and a bat with different wings can fly exactly the same route.  At the different aging states it is still the brain that makes the decisions.  IIRC with computing, a computer will write to different parts of RAM depending on what is available.  So a computer can perform identical tasks with different RAM states, that doesn’t stop RAM states equally computing states.

[stuartw2112]

OldGreyWhistle: “Why should I read or listen to what Chomsky has to say about the mind?”Er… because he’s a founding father of the whole discipline of cognitive science? I thought that might make what he has to say interesting for people discussing the subject. I apologise: my mistake.ALB:”Let’s not forget that what we are really discussing here is the most adequate way of describing observable events from the point of view of human survival.”No, what we were discussing was abstract philosophies about the nature of mind and reality. Kicking a stone proves nothing about that one way or the other. The fact that you can say that as if it is pertinent to the discussion, and OldGreyWhistle can talk about ideas outside the head as if that is pertinent to the discussion, proves that neither of you watched the video or engaged with the ideas presented in it. Fair enough, you’re under no obligation to, but why the felt need to indulge instead in aggressive stupidity, I’ll never understand. Again, I posted the video because I thought it of relevance to this (interesting) discussion. I apologise once again for my mistake.

[Young Master Smeet]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Again, I posted the video because I thought it of relevance to this (interesting) discussion. I apologise once again for my mistake.

Stuart,I didn’t click through to it, but it did remind me to have a wee scran around for Chomsky’s views on evolution and language.  Interestingly, he seems to take the view that rather than language evolving as a natural continuum from other forms of signalling, human language developed from a ‘repurposed’ capacity.  This strikes me as quite likely, I saw a talk a few years ago by Steve Jones, where he demonstrated that blood clotting comes from a repurposed gene for producing, IIRC, turtle shells.  His overarching analogy was of evolution being like a slum, with bits and bobs flung together, raher than like a designed engine.Sorry, rambling.  Anyway, I thought that was an interesting take on the language acquisition device.

[ALB]

I tried to listen to the video but couldn’t hear it properly, so gave up. Don’t know whether it was due to him speaking so softly or to my loudspeaker. Anyway, I was just looking for an excuse to bring in this story:http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.htmlSome people here don’t seem to have much of a sense of humour.

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

So what if you can’t?  If you can show any neurons firing, at all, when someone is thinking of a cold glass of beer, that is a brain state.  Just because we don’t understand how it works (yet) doesn’t mean that isn’t the case.

 No Bill you are still missing the point! The point is NOT that the thought of a cold glass  of beer depends on a neuron firing somewhere in the brain .  Nobody is disputing that.   Emergence theory is physicalist in that it fully accepts that the mind depends  on the brain .  What it disputes is your claim  – identity theory  –  that mind states equal brain states, that you can map one on to the other exactly. This is nonsense and as I say, easily disproven (as I have done with my few examples)   Citing evidence such as that the brain is subject, for example, to chemical influences in no way constitute proof of Identity theory which argues for something much much stronger and precise. Emergence theory posits –  instead of a type identity  between brain states and mind states –  something that is called a token identity.  A particular mind state is a token identity of  a particular brain state or neurophysical event but it does not depend on that particular brain state or event in order for that tought to be thought.  It does however depend on some brain state  but not any particular precise one.  You can reasonably associate certain mind states with certain parts of the brain  but thats about as far as you can go. Linking a thought with particular neurophysical event such that it could not happen without that event is absurd and easily disproven as I have said. I  think it is important that you grasp the difference because you are confusing these things.   What emergence theory says is that while the mind depends – or ” supervenes”  – on  the brain it is not reducible to the brain .  To use the technical jargon , when  we experience something like , say,  “pain”  it is an experience that  is “multiply realisable” through a variety of neurophysical events or states which moreover, may be “wildly disjunctive” in the sense that these different “supervenient bases” may have little in common and may not necessarily be related to one another in any law-like fashion. All this may seem a bit remote and technical but it actually  ties in very well with the theme of this thread – materialism  and determinism .  If mind states are not reducible to brain state this opens up the possibility of what is called “downward causation”.  –  that thoughts can actually influence brain states and that it is not just one way traffic we are talking about. There is a huge amount of pretty solid scientific evidence to support this  in the form of psycho-somatic effects.  Perhaps the best known of these is the placebo effect where mere belief in a remedy, such as a particular drug, is sufficient to cause that “remedy” to be effective.  Researchers conducting double-blind studies on subjects have been able to verify that such an effect does indeed exist.  Not only that, biofeedback studies and the like have shown that certain biological processes previously thought to be autonomous or involuntary (such as heart rate,  vascular responses and sympathetic discharges) are capable of being brought under conscious control.  All of which suggests that as far as the relationship between the mind and the brain is concerned causality cannot simply construed as a one way process. The emergence paradigm which I am advocating here and which I suggest the Party would do well to consider is something that gets round the kind of intractable problems thrown up  by a reductionist deterministic model of society. To deny the theoretical  possibility of downward causation exerted by a higher emergent level  upon a lower level upon which it supervenes  would be to commit oneself to a frankly absurd and untenable position.  For example, how would I account for the actions of a robber who decided to break into a jewelers shop?  As a thoroughgoing reductionist, I would have to disregard the state of mind of this robber and merely consider the neurophysical processes at work inside his brain.  But why stop there?   One could further break down this whole complex event – from the robber raising the brick to throwing it with sufficient force required to break the window – by visualising it simply as a complex  sequence of molecular activities.  Indeed, such an explanation at the molecular level could be rendered superfluous by reducing it still further to an atomic – or even sub-atomic – level of analysis. In fact,  it is theoretically possible to imagine a process of infinite regression whereby a perfectly reasonable explanation for what the robber did would constantly evade us where, had we had the good sense to apply Occam Razor, we might have simply concluded that it was motivated by the desire to steal that tray of wedding rings on display!  This is the reductio ad absurdum argument in favour of downward causation. If you reject the possibility of downward causation  then you are in effect saying, for example,  that society can have no influence on the individual. In emergence theory society is an emergent property of individuals. There can be no society without individuals  just as there can be no minds without brains  However, society can no more be reduced the level of the individuals than thought s can be reduced to brain neurons.  If you reject that then what you are effectively saying is that the society we have exactly accords with the psychological make up of  the individual – just as mind state can be exactly mapped onto brain states.  In which case there is not a hope in hells chance of ever achieving socialism!

[Young Master Smeet]

robbo203 wrote:

A particular mind state is a token identity of  a particular brain state or neurophysical event but it does not depend on that particular brain state or event in order for that tought to be thought.  It does however depend on some brain state 

Yes, and the some brain state is the same as the mind state in that instance.  That’s all I was saying.  There are no thoughts separate from the brain.  As I said, a computer writes to RAM it will use different hard disk sectors, that doesn’t mean that there is no computer process without hard disk states.

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

A particular mind state is a token identity of  a particular brain state or neurophysical event but it does not depend on that particular brain state or event in order for that tought to be thought.  It does however depend on some brain state 

Yes, and the some brain state is the same as the mind state in that instance.  That’s all I was saying.  There are no thoughts separate from the brain.  As I said, a computer writes to RAM it will use different hard disk sectors, that doesn’t mean that there is no computer process without hard disk states.

 No, again, this is quite wrong. You cannot say the brain state is the same as the mind state in that instance because, as  I explained earlier,  this is a claim about type identity and you would therefore be advancing Identity theory in that case.  The mind state in question cannot possibly be the  same as, or reducible to,  the brain  state in question because that very same mind state can happen still  in the case of some other brain state.   Therefore they cannot be “the same”.  Read the quote on Leibniz law that I posted earlier which will clarify matters I know what you are trying to say but you are formulating it incorrectly . You are saying that for every mind state there is a brain state which is quite true but you cannot deduce from that that  the mind state and the brain state in question are one and the same.  They are not; they are contingent

[Young Master Smeet]

robbo203 wrote:

I know what you are trying to say but you are formulating it incorrectly . You are saying that for every mind state there is a brain state which is quite true but you cannot deduce from that that  the mind state and the brain state in question are one and the same.  They are not; they are contingent

As you said previously:

Quote:

A particular mind state is a token identity of  a particular brain state or neurophysical event but it does not depend on that particular brain state or event in order for that thought to be thought.  It does however depend on some brain state  but not any particular precise one.

I have no quibble with that,  except by adding that at any given time of thinking it is that brain state at that time.  There is no thought beyond that brain state.Or, simply put, there is no mind, only brain.

[Anonymous]

Stewart wrot4ebut why the felt need to indulge instead in aggressive stupidity, I’ll never understand. Can you define ‘aggressive stupidity’? And where a forum member indulged in it.You have still not expressed any of your own ideas on the subject. I would be interested to hear them. 

[Anonymous]

stuartw2112 wrote:

OldGreyWhistle: “Why should I read or listen to what Chomsky has to say about the mind?”Er… because he’s a founding father of the whole discipline of cognitive science? I thought that might make what he has to say interesting for people discussing the subject. I apologise: my mistake.ALB:”Let’s not forget that what we are really discussing here is the most adequate way of describing observable events from the point of view of human survival.”No, what we were discussing was abstract philosophies about the nature of mind and reality. Kicking a stone proves nothing about that one way or the other. The fact that you can say that as if it is pertinent to the discussion, and OldGreyWhistle can talk about ideas outside the head as if that is pertinent to the discussion, proves that neither of you watched the video or engaged with the ideas presented in it. Fair enough, you’re under no obligation to, but why the felt need to indulge instead in aggressive stupidity, I’ll never understand. Again, I posted the video because I thought it of relevance to this (interesting) discussion. I apologise once again for my mistake.

You have quoted me out of context. Chomsky is a very intellegent bloke with lots to say. I have a lot to say too and I consider myself reasonably intelligent but neither you nor Chomsky  are interested in what I have to say. In fact you say this of me”If you’ve thought about it and got it all sussed, then you’re wasting your talents on here – please do send in a submission to a relevant journal, which I shall read with interest when it is published.”YOU are sarcastic, insulting and nasty.If you understand something I don’t then explain it to me yourself. That’s what the forum is for

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Or, simply put, there is no mind, only brain.

 So just to be clear – you are collapsing the notion of mind into brain.  You are, in other words, putting forward an identity theory of the mind-brain relation.  Logically that commits you to the view that a particular mental event can have only one neurophysical correlate .  Are you willing to defend this manifestly indefensible and unscientific position?   Also, if there is no mind then there can be no such  thing as a mind exerting downward causation.  There can be no such thing as psychosomatic effects, placebo effects or biofeedback effect whereby , for example, meditation has been scientifically shown to induce lowered heart rates Also if I might be a bit tongue in cheek –  if there is no mind how did you come to know this?  Did your brain inform you? What you are saying is the exact equivalent of Margaret Thatchers rash statement that there is no such thing as society – only individuals and their families.  I could just as easily retort in your case that there is no such thing as the brain – only molecules and their families.  No doubt someone else would chip in to say, no, there are no such  things as molecules only sub-atomic particles.  And so on and so forth.  Where will it all end I wonder? Point is that all  this follows naturally from your rejection of the notion that higher emergent levels – like the mind, for example – of reality actually exist  and are not reducible to lower levels upon which they supervene or depend.  The great problem for you then is when you come to explain  the existence of these lower levels of reality when we know that  below them there are even lower levels of reality so to speak in relation to which even your brain can no longer be said to exist following the logic of your argument….. By claiming there is no such thing as mind you have effectively rendered explanation inexplicable

[Young Master Smeet]

robbo203 wrote:

Logically that commits you to the view that a particular mental event can have only one neurophysical correlate .  Are you willing to defend this manifestly indefensible and unscientific position?  

As I have repeatedly said, a computer can perform identical operations using different disk sectors and different parts of the chip.  I see no fundamental difference.  But each given operation is itself and no other.Just as a C can be played on a guitar string or a on a flute, identical results may come from different routes.

robbo203 wrote:

Also, if there is no mind then there can be no such  thing as a mind exerting downward causation.

I see no problem in brain states causing further brain states.I’m quite happy to say my brain doesn’t exist, and that I don’t exist.  i’m just a process or matter and fundamental particles.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

The emergence paradigm which I am advocating here and which I suggest the Party would do well to consider is something that gets round the kind of intractable problems thrown up  by a reductionist deterministic model of society.

Why? Why does the Party have to commit itself to a particular non-idealist theory of the relationship between mind and matter or between mind and brain? Let a thousand flowers bloom except for the weeds that want to bring some supernatural being into it.

[Author]

Posts