Non-Physical And Physical Conscious Mind

[TheEgoist]

I have a friend, the only real friend that I can have any substantive conversations with, who supports the idea that man's conscious mind is merely proof of a soul, and that this non-physical entity called a soul intermingles with our physical mind, and offers us perspective into reality. He claims reality exists without the soul, but that a human mind can't comprehend. Now not he or I have ever studied the workings of the human mind to any extent. He has a bit of an upper hand on me, as he has at least read some material ( or Non-material...AMIRITE) on the subject. He claims that this is his only objection to Objectivism, and that he does support the idea that man should primarily live for himself ( despite also being a Christian ).

I was wondering if anyone hear had some good criticisms on the concept of dualism past the fact that it is impossible for 2 totally different substances ( especially non-material substances ) to intermingle at a casual rate. And also, if you could suggest some good essays/books that deal with the limits and properties of the mind that a layman such as myself can read and understand. Also, did Rand write much on the concept of Materialism? If so, I'd love to read her thoughts ( obviously ).

I don't know much about Dualism past what I've read on Wiki and my friend has told me, but I think its a lot of psychobabble with some pseudo-science attached, and I'm afraid my friend is going to take a turn for the worst.

Thanks.

-Ryan.

[aleph_0]

I'm not sure why two totally different substances cannot have causal relationships. If I try to imagine some of the most different substances, such as perhaps light and carbon, or gravity and light, or gravity and carbon, they all can exert causation on each other. And I'm not really sure about the extent to which one might consider two of those actually physical, spatio-temporal things. Gravity doesn't seem to take up space, though it exists in one place to one extent and not another. And I'm no physicist, but it seems light is both a particle and a wave, so the sense in which it takes up space is stretched at the least. I have no problem believing that consciousness is non-physical and completely different in nature from the world of rocks and stars and muons, nor that a physical and non-physical object can share causal relationships. Consciousness is a thing and it exists, and it may even be engendered by the material world, but if it is coextensive with something in the material world, then the proposition is going to take a good deal of proof which I have never seen.

[KendallJ]

I have a friend, the only real friend that I can have any substantive conversations with, who supports the idea that man's conscious mind is merely proof of a soul, and that this non-physical entity called a soul intermingles with our physical mind, and offers us perspective into reality. He claims reality exists without the soul, but that a human mind can't comprehend. Now not he or I have ever studied the workings of the human mind to any extent. He has a bit of an upper hand on me, as he has at least read some material ( or Non-material...AMIRITE) on the subject. He claims that this is his only objection to Objectivism, and that he does support the idea that man should primarily live for himself ( despite also being a Christian ).

Well, his claim is wholly arbitrary. Did he provide some evidence for his conclusion? That' usually the first thing that gets anyone who fancies himself rational.

The second thing is that if he disagrees about some aspect of reality, how does this change his view of ethics and epistemology? What does having a physical/non-physical aspect to your mind (which I think is wholly false by the way) mean in terms of philosphical ideas?

[lex_aver]

this non-physical entity called a soul intermingles with our physical mind

Ask him to show you his mind bouncing off the wall (no pun intended). If it is physical, material thing, it by definition can be done.

[DavidOdden]

I was wondering if anyone hear had some good criticisms on the concept of dualism past the fact that it is impossible for 2 totally different substances ( especially non-material substances ) to intermingle at a casual rate.

I suspect you should avoid the topic as presented in that form, because it involves an ambiguous package deal. There is a body / soul dichotomy that has been invoked (especially by the religious), which leads some people to believe that the mind/consciousness is entirely separable from the body (it is part of the soul), and thus a person could be physically dead and incinerated, and yet his non-corporeal or non-physical soul could still exist. (Whether this "soul" is a form of energy that we just don't know how to detect, or a supernatural thing that is apart from existence is a separate issue). That view is completely arbitrary.

There is a different kind of dualism, which is in opposition to physical reductionalism that denies the existence of the mind and says that there is only the physical body. The typical argument for that view is that medical researchers have scanned human bodies extensively, and they have never seen any evidence for a physical object "the mind", only "the brain", and thus they conclude that "the mind" does not exist. As you know, Objectivism rejects that view, and does hold that the mind exists, even if it is not a physically separable part of a human body. Objectivism is dualist in the second sense, and not the first.

Rand didn't engage the topic of materialism (in that sense) in her writing, making just one passing reference in ITOE. The other sense is the political-economic, as in "the desire for material goods".

[pseudodeist11]

I have a friend, the only real friend that I can have any substantive conversations with, who supports the idea that man's conscious mind is merely proof of a soul, and that this non-physical entity called a soul intermingles with our physical mind, and offers us perspective into reality. He claims reality exists without the soul, but that a human mind can't comprehend. Now not he or I have ever studied the workings of the human mind to any extent. He has a bit of an upper hand on me, as he has at least read some material ( or Non-material...AMIRITE) on the subject. He claims that this is his only objection to Objectivism, and that he does support the idea that man should primarily live for himself ( despite also being a Christian ).

I was wondering if anyone hear had some good criticisms on the concept of dualism past the fact that it is impossible for 2 totally different substances ( especially non-material substances ) to intermingle at a casual rate. And also, if you could suggest some good essays/books that deal with the limits and properties of the mind that a layman such as myself can read and understand. Also, did Rand write much on the concept of Materialism? If so, I'd love to read her thoughts ( obviously ).

I don't know much about Dualism past what I've read on Wiki and my friend has told me, but I think its a lot of psychobabble with some pseudo-science attached, and I'm afraid my friend is going to take a turn for the worst.

Thanks.

-Ryan.

Hello. Your thoughts on dualism are provocative to say the least. We cannot know about an unobservable entity, such as the possible soul, but that lack of knowledge does not prohibit us from making logical assertions regarding what a belief in the soul might entail. People inherently take stands on issues without answers. To take a stand on the nature of the soul is to presume what cannot be proven, at least not in this dimension of consciousness. I don't agree that the soul has anything to offer the human being in the way of engendering certain perspectives or actual mentation. The soul should be viewed as the prospect of a conscious plane, but not the conscious plane itself. Being a deist, I support the idea that an intelligent designer set the universe in motion, facilitating life and evolution. If one can mature enough to adopt a deistic viewpoint, it is not difficult to imagine that there exists within a living being the prospect for reaching a state of consciousness on the same level as the intelligent designer. The intelligent designer must exist within some dimension of an all-consuming totality, even if the medium in which he exists cannot be comprehended. It follows that there must be some point beyond the death of the physical body and mental realm a human being moves toward, either in time, or in some form of dimensional progression. This prospective point would facilitate the functionality of a soul, as it is called, but human life on earth would not. The soul is more a direction than an element within us. It is moving away from bodily death and moving towards the plane in which an intelligent designer resides or operates. The extent of this movement or the nature of its terminus is characteristically unknowable. I hope these ideas help.

[Benpercent]

If you'd like a brief reading on the Objectivist viewpoint of this position, then check out the Reality section (first chapter) of the book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

As it stands, he's advocating the primacy of consciousness (consciousness "creates" reality) and denying that A is A. A is A means that all entities have an identity/nature, that is, a sum of characteristics and/or attributes that make it up and cannot EVER be changed because doing so would mean a contradiction (e.g. a sand filled balloon rising into the sky). Identity is a metaphysical necessity.

Oh, and agreeing with previous posters, bring to his attention that his claim of proof is arbitrary, that he came to his conclusion without using the proper epistemological methods and his claim thereby should be dismissed.

[Ragtime]

There exists in the mind a conceptual structue containing one's knowedge of the world. The way this structure can be allowed to change is as follows: The person allows himself to perceive something as if he had never perceived it before. The conceptual structure does not store knowledge by means of language. It may be basically the same for other creatures besides humans. The conceptual structure is "in the back of one's mind", in the form of a general awareness of knowledge of the world. It does not hinder the act of perceiving the world "with new eyes".

Presumably, nature designed that the conceptual structure, in other words a creature's awareness of the world according to its already-acquired knowledge, would be able to change without difficulty. This is because the mind is the creature's tool of survival in changing conditions.

The situation with human beings may be somewhat more complicated. Man can learn by means of language and communicate by means of language. To do these things he puts words on parts or aspects of his conceptual structure. Using words, man is able to hold parts of his conceptual structure in place and hinder them from changing.

By means of words man can perform certain special types of thinking:

One type of thinking consists simply of "non-contradictory identification" (Rand) of one's conceptual structure. This involves "perceiving" and identifying the conceptual common denominators (Rand) that have formed in one's mind.

Also, man can focus on a particular concept (really, on it's conceptual common denominator"). He can store a concept or access a concept in the form it was in when he attached a word to it. His conceptual structure can change and his mind can identify a changed conceptual common denominator for a partiular thing, and yet he can remember the old conceptual common denominaot too! One type of thinking consists of comparing the old and the new knowledge and bringing the old knowledge up to date.

However, these distinctly human types of thought present man with a special cognitive problem: he must consciously suppress the use of language in order to allow himself to perceive the world ANEW, as if he had never perceived it before. Or if he wants, using language, he can prevent himself from seeing things "with new eyes," and just continue to use the concepts he formed in the past.

In physical terms, one might surmise that the act of suppressing language consists in using a more ancient pathway in the brain and cutting off distinctly human pathways which involve language. How could it be possible for man to consciously shut down certain pathways or certain areas of the brain? This is what he can do. The act may just consist in preventing himself from hearing words in his mind. (It certainly gives the impression of opening the eyes widely. Whether it really does so or not I don't know).

Specifically for human beings, it seems to be true that cognition is a voluntary process, as Rand claims. Of course she defines the primal act of consciousness, by which man "chooses to think," as "focusing" the mind on a given concept. I don't think this is right, because "focusing" the mind on a previously-formed concept does not change that concept. It may help one to better identify a conceptual common denominator and so to "define one's terms. However, I don't believe "focusing" can cause the structure itself to change. The only way the structure itself can change is if one intentionally DOES NOT focus and see the world with new eyes.

How one's concepts may change, if they change at all, as a result of this intentional act of consciousness, is not under one's control. This act consists precisely of allowing the mind to go OUT of control! This is in accord with man's obvious need to adjust his thoughts and actions to things strange and unanticipated.

The pathways involved in all this might be identified. The interplay of language with concepts might help locate and determine the nature of physical concepts, including the physical nature of the "conceptual common denominators" which come to the fore of one's awareness during thought.

READING

It is striking that while other types of thinking are lightning-fast, reading often seems laborious.

Reading involves a process of comparing written information with one's conceptual structure. It may be more or less laborious depending on the previous development of one's conceptual structure with reference to the particular

subject matter. However, one remembers the material one has read by means of the words by which it has been read. And one has learned by reference to one's existing conceptual structure.

It is also possible to "read" by direct application of the "primal act of consciousness" described above! One can learn to see the written word "with new eyes," as if one has never seen anything like it before! In this way, one can allow one's conceptual structure to change (or not) in response to the written information.

It is likely, perhaps even certain, that one will not remember what one has read in this manner, becaue he has read without "sub-vocalization". It may be that one's conceptual common denominators will have changed. Then he can try to identify the new conceptual common denominators. All he can do is wait for his new knowledge, if any, to be revealed to him.

"Reading" in this way is never laborious, always lightning-quick. Nature probably did not design learning to be difficult!

If one has read something using sub-vocalization, one may or may not have made the effort to see the new material in the context of one's whole existing structure of knowledge, that is, one may or may not have "focused" on it.

One can also allow the mind to RE-PROCESS knowledge learned with sub-vocalization so that it may become physically integrated into one's conceptual structure (how or whether it is integrated, again, is not under one's control).

This re-processing may provide further clues to the physical nature and location of concepts. How can one open one's conceptual structure using the possibly older brain pathway and at the same time be aware of "knowledge" one has acquired from the written word, so that the verbal knowledge is actually then able to be integrated into one's conceptual structure? Is there a pathway from an area where knowledge is stored using words, to the conceptual structure, similar to the pathway from one's senses? Can one suppress the language with which the knowledge obtained from reading is held, and allow the conceptual structure to process that knowledge as if it were being directly perceived, "with new eyes," instead of having been learned by means of already-formed concepts?

Of course Ayn Rand has a name for a person who has acquired "knowledge" from someone else and not allowed it to be reprocessed into his own conceptual structure: she calls him a "second hander". Even if the person has engaged in a process of "non-contradictory identification" of all his knowledge and compared the new material to it, and truly believes it, it is not yet really part of his world. He still remembers the information as knowledge received from someone else. "Psycho-Epistemologically" (Rand) he remains dependent on someone else.

"Ptolemy"

Edited February 24, 2008 by Ragtime

[aleph_0]

If you'd like a brief reading on the Objectivist viewpoint of this position, then check out the Reality section (first chapter) of the book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

As it stands, he's advocating the primacy of consciousness (consciousness "creates" reality) and denying that A is A. A is A means that all entities have an identity/nature, that is, a sum of characteristics and/or attributes that make it up and cannot EVER be changed because doing so would mean a contradiction (e.g. a sand filled balloon rising into the sky). Identity is a metaphysical necessity.

Oh, and agreeing with previous posters, bring to his attention that his claim of proof is arbitrary, that he came to his conclusion without using the proper epistemological methods and his claim thereby should be dismissed.

Can you point out where the person in question asserts that some entity does not have an identity which cannot change?

[Benpercent]

Can you point out where the person in question asserts that some entity does not have an identity which cannot change?

Right here. Bold is mine:

I have a friend, the only real friend that I can have any substantive conversations with, who supports the idea that man's conscious mind is merely proof of a soul, and that this non-physical entity called a soul intermingles with our physical mind, and offers us perspective into reality. He claims reality exists without the soul, but that a human mind can't comprehend.

[aleph_0]

And exactly what identity is contradicted?

[Benpercent]

And exactly what identity is contradicted?

The identity of consciousness. He's saying the consciousness is not apart of reality. It's like what Descartes said about the mind, that it is nowhere in the universe, yet somehow it exists (which doesn't make sense).

[aleph_0]

To be clear, he's saying that consciousness exists, that it's real, but it just doesn't take up space like a physical object. I don't see the contradiction.

[Benpercent]

To be clear, he's saying that consciousness exists, that it's real, but it just doesn't take up space like a physical object. I don't see the contradiction.

Upon rereading it, I see now that I have read it wrong. The first time I read it I thought it said something about creation of reality, but I must read slower. I errored, and thank you for point that out that I am the contradiction.

[aleph_0]

No problem, I made the same mistake but caught it before I posted.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I have a friend, the only real friend that I can have any substantive conversations with, who supports the idea that man's conscious mind is merely proof of a soul, and that this non-physical entity called a soul intermingles with our physical mind, and offers us perspective into reality.

This is an interesting issue, and I know some well known and knowledgeable Objectivists who maintain that consciousness as an axiom implies that there is a dualism going on; but I don't think so. I think we are one entity that has awareness of existence and has awareness and control over one's conscious mind, and that this is sometimes referred to as the soul of man. Miss Rand never said nor implied, to my knowledge, that there is a dualism going on, though she did say that we are an integrated being of mind and body. But, as far as I know, each time she used the term soul she was referring to man's consciousness, without implying it was something distinct from one's awareness extrospectively and introspectively.

What often confuses people is that introspectively, we can say that we are aware of existence and even ourselves, but is that awareness physical? And some say that we cannot have free will in the sense of having control over our conscious mind because that violates their view of something that is made of matter -- i.e. man.

We have no evidence at this time that there is something non-material that we are composed of that can be called the soul, certainly not in the Christian sense of something that can leave the body at death, more or less intact, and go to either heaven or hell (for which there is also no evidence).

So, going by the evidence, we are what we are and have certain capabilities, and somehow all of that stuff that we are made of makes this possible.

Consciousness is an axiom, meaning it is the beginning of all knowledge: There is (existence) something there (identity) that I am aware of (consciousness). However, an epistemological fundamental is not the same thing as a metaphysical fundamental. For example, the awareness of entities via perception is an epistemological fundamental, even though material things that we perceive are composed of atoms. Whether a similar thing is going on with consciousness -- i.e. it being an epistemological fundamental but not necessarily a metaphysical fundamental -- is somewhat speculative, except to say that one needs a brain of a certain type to be aware in the manner man is aware. Exactly how it all comes together to bring consciousness and free will is unknown in the details, but I see no reason to say we have a soul in the Christian sense at all.