BothAndBlog Forum

Mind-Matter Paradox!
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... paradox/p2
OP :
Despite nonphysicalism being in the minority, that not everybody is fully convinced that matter & energy (physicalism) is all there's to the universe suggests there are holes big enough in the physicalist's argument to slip in doubt/uncertainty. Where there's smoke, there's fire. ---The Mad Fool

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.


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 ... 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/Relationa ... _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.

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.


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 ... 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/Relationa ... _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/Relationa ... _mechanics

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?

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

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

Good point!. I haven't ever come across a philosophical argument to conclude that Logic is physical. Of course, logical thinking is always "correlated" with human bodies. But what is it about those bodies, and gnarly neural networks, that "sees" invisible relationships? Capital Murder is always correlated with human bodies --- but what is it about those bodies that causes the death of another body? "Your honor, my perverted Logic made me do it! Maybe you can fix it with a logic lobotomy."

Quantum Physics inadvertently placed the Observer back into the empirical equation, which was originally intended to omit the subjective prejudices of ordinary humans, that always led to differences of opinion. Ironically, the Copenhagen Interpretation was similar to the Council of Nicaea, as a means to distinguish mere differences-of-opinion from blatant heresies.

In their quest for perfect objectivity in empirical science, humans have created non-sentient machines that do all of the empirical observing, except extracting meaningful information from the observed relationships. And I've never heard of one telescope arguing with another piece of technical equipment about the significance of the observation. Any philosophical differences in Science are always correlated with physical Bodies, but only those with metaphysical Minds.

Rovelli seems to imply that the post-enlightenment notion of the Objective Observer, was a case of humans pretending to view the world from God's "privileged" perspective outside of the universe. But Quantum Theory knocked the legs out from that presumption : a human observer is an integral part of the system being observed. That's why Rovelli repeats his assertion that observation of a physical event involves three parties : two interacting physical entities and one observing mental entity to make the logical connection between Cause & Effect.

Relational quantum mechanics :
The proponents of the relational interpretation argue that this approach resolves some of the traditional interpretational difficulties with quantum mechanics. By giving up our preconception of a global privileged state, issues around the measurement problem and local realism are resolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationa ... _mechanics

Copenhagen interpretation :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Council of Nicaea :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And just for funsies . . . . :

Physical Logic :
In R.D. Sorkin's framework for logic in physics a clear separation is made between the collection of unasserted propositions about the physical world and the affirmation or denial of these propositions by the physical world.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6266

Logical implies a higher view than the physical.
https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term ... s-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. — Janus

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated?

Do you see the white triangle with your mental imagination or with your physical eye? Is the meaning of the word "see" the same in either case?
https://visme.co/blog/wp-content/upload ... iangle.png

Information propagates over a substrate. Is Rovelli saying it propagates over something else? — Pop

He was not discussing how the information propagates. Just that "two's an interaction, three's an observation".

If you are asking about a fluid physical substrate for information to "wave" in, that is a question that puzzled the early pioneers of the wave nature of light energy. Some proposed that empty space contained an ethereal substance called "ether" or "aether". But, today most scientists evade that resemblance to a Spiritual substance by merely saying that light "behaves" like a wave, even though there may be no fluid substance to wave in. That also avoids having to reconcile its particle-like form, per Newton, with its wave-form, in two-slit experiments.

For my philosophical purposes though, I think that energy is not literally waving, but merely metaphorically. It's not a continuous analog wave, but a series of rapid digital quantum on/off (or actual/potential) winks that appear to the observer as a sine wave of ups & downs. For example, you could plot a Morse code signal in terms of a sine wave of maximum/minimum power instead of long/short duration. For me, this hypothesis fits with the notion that Information/Energy is ultimately weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships -- not little bullets of stuff, or "perturbations" in a material fabric or field. So, it's actually a meta-physical (mental) substrate. The mind of the observer connects the dots.


Ether Theory :
The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space.
https://www.britannica.com/science/ethe ... -substance

Discrete dots plotted as a continuous curve :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... et.svg.png

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? — Gnomon
It's not clear to me what point you are trying to make. — Janus

My point would be clearer to you, if you could see that Mind & Body appear different to the observer, even though they ultimately consist of the same "stuff". In my thesis, that fundamental "substance" is Information. Which is manifested in two basic forms : Matter & Mind. If that assertion does not make sense to you, I can refer you to my thesis and blog for more information. It will give support references and arguments for some of my “unwarranted assumptions”.

I haven't said that mind is the same thing as matter. Horses are not the same things as trees, and so on; but what point do you really want to make? — Janus

In your post you said that you “treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience.” Which is true, but trite. And that evasive answer seems to dismiss the OP as a petty quarrel about semantics - shemantics. So, my point was that the "paradox" is actually a true/false difference of interpretation about Physics (Body) and Meta-physics (Mind). And that debate has exercised scientists and philosophers for at least 2500 years.

You don't believe in res extensa and res cogitans if you are, as you have avowed, not a metaphysical substance dualist. I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things. — Janus

And I agree. But some people seem to believe that one of those perspectives is, not only wrong, but wrong-headed, and suitable only for religious fanatics. In this special case, I am a substance dualist, but ultimately an essence monist : everything in this world is one form or another of Generic Information.

Generic Information :
5. Information is the divine Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this. — Janus

Au contraire! Lots of scientists have shed much ink on this very subject. And many scientists, and physicalist philosophers heatedly deny that there is any such thing as immaterial Minds and metaphysical Consciousness. They are just names for imaginary fairly tales.

You are being alarmist: I haven't spoken about barring anyone from anything, but just saying how I think about these issues. I wonder why you are acting in such a defensive way. I have noticed on these forums that those who are most entranced by these, what I see as incoherent, polemics, seem to have dogs in the race; and they seem to think that the issues around idealism versus materialism are of real metaphysical and/ or religious import, and this thinking seems to stem from either their attachment to, or rejection of, religious thinking. — Janus

I'm not criticizing you personally. But others on this forum are not as laissez faire as you. And you are dismissing as unimportant, an idea that has divided humanity into warring camps : Scientific versus Religious. I don't intend to be offensive, but it's hard to make subtle points in brief posts without making sharp distinctions. Also, I don't think of it as a "defensive" posture, but as a "positive" attitude. I'm reacting to your expression of disgust (distaste?) toward the contentious Mind/Body "paradox", which has engaged philosophers and scientist for millennia : "This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate." I'm trying to describe a vitally interesting and philosophically coherent argument in favor of a unified understanding of Mind & Body.

Personally I think it's fine to be religious or not, it's a personal matter of choice, but I really don't see anything worthy of arguing about. The arguments on both sides are just dumb, based on reification from both sides and just go around the same boring circles ad nauseum. The arguments on both sides, in my opinion, are so poor they are not worth the effort to criticize; it's the arguing itself that warrants criticism. — Janus

It's OK with me that you are OK with the various religious and scientific belief systems. My belief system is not religious, and not a matter of faith. But some people are not so open-minded. The arguments on both sides may be dumb, but some pretty smart people have come close to shedding blood over it. For me, the Mind/Body paradox is the crux of my personal philosophical (not religious) worldview. If the arguments are so poor, here's our chance to raise the level of discourse. Besides, what else do we have to do on a philosophy forum?

IE, physicalism was an inherent part of Wittgenstein's logic. — RussellA

Yes. Logic and Physics are "correlated" in Carlo Rovelli's terms. But the relation is between physical instances and metaphysical generalities.

IE, if logic is empirical, then it is physical. — RussellA

If Logic was empirical, you could put it under a microscope. But David Hume noted that inductive reasoning -- from specific instances to general principles (laws) -- is not justified, except as a rule of thumb. Logical inferences don't occur in nature, but in human minds. We "see" those connections in imagination, not in fact.

↪Gnomon
So ... gravity waves, for instance, are not literally "waves" (because the vacuum of spacetime is "no fluid substance to wave in")? — 180 Proof

That's my understanding, yes. They are figuratively waving, but in fact "blinking". That last part is my own interpretation. Does that notion make sense? The graphic image in my post illustrates that discrete points of data are combined by the mind into a smooth analog curve. Besides, some scientists have concluded that even space-time is granular (quantized). Do you disagree? I can work with the wave/particle notion either way.


Is space-time smooth or chunky? :
In order for the math of general relativity to work, this fabric of space-time has to be absolutely smooth at the tiniest of scales. No matter how far you zoom in, space-time will always be as wrinkle-free as a recently ironed shirt.
https://www.space.com/space-time-smooth ... avity.html
Is Spacetime quantized ? :
Today, while it is generally accepted that spacetime is quantized, there is disagreement as to how quantization manifests itself . ...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9318303447

I don't think this works. Information is perturbations of a field. Without these perturbations a field would be flat , no information would exist, so nothing would exist. — Pop

You're aware that the notion of a field is an imaginary mathematical construct, right? It's used like a matrix to organize abstractions into something resembling concrete reality. The field is physical only in the sense that it is a tool for mathematical physicists. They can't smash a field in a cyclotron. It's actually a metaphor, but they treat it as-if it's a real thing.

Do you disagree that Information is "weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships"? If not, do you imagine those "perturbations" as literal waves in a fluid medium?

If the quantum field is not composed of "particles", what is the field made of?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-fi ... ld-made-of

The mystery is what specifically integrates the information, given that the integration of the information is subconscious, and the answer seems to be that the information integrates itself. Given that information integrates itself everywhere else, why should it not in mind? — Pop

In the case illustrated in my post, the integration of discrete bits of information into a smooth curve is done in the mind of the observer. I'm not sure what you mean by "information integrates itself". That does sound mysterious. Please explain.

Not really. The distinction you make here makes no actual difference because frequencies of "blinking" are mathematically – not "figuratively" – synonomous with wave patterns. — 180 Proof

OK. What is mathematics made of? Is it a collection of discrete (quantum particles), or universal fluid substance of some kind? Or is mathematics a human construct of imagination to represent the invisible relationships in nature? Do you think a dog would see a geometric triangle in an array of three unconnected dots? If the dog "sees" invisible lines between things, he may have a rudimentary grasp of geometry.

The distinction I was making is between the actual dots (objects) and the imaginary links (subjective). The white triangle illusion in the post above is an illustration of how human minds (dog minds??) fill-in the absences between things. Mathematical relationships (ratios) are imaginary (figurative, metaphorical) connections, not real (physical, material) bridges between objects. A mathematical "structure" (geometry) is not synonymous with a physical structure (steel beams)

"When an image is incomplete, your brain fills in the gaps by figuring out the most likely interpretation."
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/brai ... filling-in

https://www.amnh.org/var/ezflow_site/st ... lusion.png