Is Man Part Of Nature?

[glintofpewter]

Rom,

 

I'm not home yet so I haven't read your essay. Another question for materialists is how did the mind evolve? Was there a time when elements and cells did not have mind and then at some point in time mind was injected into the physical world? How does mind evolve from no-mind?

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

Rom,

 

I read you essay. You ask hard questions.

 

I find the psychological argument against free will lacking since I spent many hours with counselors who hoped I would see that I had a choice to interpret generously and not suspiciously, to react appropriately and not over react. My counselors assumed that I had some, limited, but useful, free will.

 

I know someone who lived as if they had free will but who had actually abandoned it. Someone for whom it was truly an illusion. My brother, a psychologist, committed suicide 5 years ago and at his memorial service I asked my sister, who was very close to him and a counselor as well, when was the last time he had the opportunity to change the course of his life. In our thoughtful 15 minute discussion we concluded that the last time there was a possibility that he might have made a choice that led to a different end was 20 years previous. Twenty years earlier was the last time he had the choice to be profoundly, not superficially (he was financially successful), related to the world and those around him. After that it was clear that he would no longer be in a give and take relationship with anyone or the world.

 

There are not two but three general ways to approach the mind/body problem. Materialist, Dualist and Panexperientialist. The Materialist often jettisons the consciousness as a worthwhile issue or struggles to explain the evolution of the mind and consciousness from no-mind. A dualist observes two different realms, the mental and physical. She is faced with explaining how the two interact.

 

A third approach is panexperientialism, from Alfred North Whitehead and his mentors.

 

I don't have a firm grasp on the complexities but I am a "believer" because it explains the world I see and experience better than materialism and dualism.

• First: everything is in the known or knowable world. 100% nature.
  
• Second: it honors my experiences of consciousness, intuitions, emotions and free will.
  
• Third: it sees that the universe is dynamic and not static; the universe is about processes and not objects.
  

We have uor physical selves, which as you suggest is bounded by our skin, and so is physically related, externally related to the world. But our skin is not the limit of our internal mental, experiences of the world. If we honor both our external experiences and our internal relationships with the world as natural then we might see that being internally related is true for the universe.

 

Atoms, cells, bacteria, and more complex entities are all internally related to each other and to us. To whatever small extent all these entities have experiences that can be consider internal or mental. One result of this is that we don't have to explain how mind evolved from no-mind. We don't have to say that mind does not matter or that mind is supernatural.

 

According to the doctrine of internal relations the relations of one entity to others are constitutive of the entity in question. The carbon atom in a diamond has relations to a multitude of carbon atoms around it. The carbon atom in an enzyme has relations to many different sorts of atoms in its environment, including carbon atoms. In each case the carbon atom is conceived as taking into account internally (qualitatively) those relations. It is not just a matter of architecture. The bricks that are built into an office block remain the same if that office block is torn down and the bricks are assembled in a different architecture to make a cathedral. The brick is not an individual entity but an aggregate of individual entities. One brick is not influenced in its being by the presence of another brick or a rock or anything else next to it in the building. A brick is a brick is a brick! Not so for an atom in a molecule or a molecule in a cell or a cell in the liver or a cell in the brain.

 

Panexperientialism: How It Overcomes the Problems of Dualism & Materialism

http://www.psychosci...rientialism.htm

 

Why I became a Panexperientialist

http://www.ctr4proce...ientialist.html

 

dutch

[JosephM]

I find the psychological argument against free will lacking since I spent many hours with counselors who hoped I would see that I had a choice to interpret generously and not suspiciously, to react appropriately and not over react. My counselors assumed that I had some, limited, but useful, free will.

Dutch,

A question you might ask yourself is... Are the choices you now make a result of your independent 'free will' or a result of your modified conditioning influenced from counseling / the universe?

 

Just a thought.

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

A question you might ask yourself is... Are the choices you now make a result of your independent 'free will' or a result of your modified conditioning influenced from counseling / the universe?

Joseph,

 

As I thought about what I had written about my brother I came to the conclusion that there is no 'independent' free will. It is always in context and in relationship. My brother gave up his free will because he chose not to be interdependent.

 

 

dutch

[romansh]

I'm on the road at the moment

Will give my reply in a few days

Have fun

rom

[Inthedark]

Dutch, you got me started on Process Philosophy a while back! I found Whitehead almost impossible to decipher, the language is so dense for my non academic mind. I went and sought out a book called Process-Relational Philosophy by C. Robert Mesle and it has explained his work in terms I can understand. I found it incredible that Whitehead was able to come up with what appears to such a complete theory, coming out of the Cartesian dualist background we in the west have been working with since the time of Plato. What a thinker. Massively under rated in my opinion. Do you think he is under rated because of the dense language he used, making it not accessible to the likes of me?

 

Paul

[glintofpewter]

He is dense but I don't think he is underrated - at least by those who understand him. Process thought is found in biology (Charles Birch) in one of those links, economics, theology, and in other fields. Each of the few I have read explain the external and internal relationships differently so that helps. There are other articles at the Center for Process thought link. I am struggling with it, trying to find words and understanding. I read Mesle once and will read him again. The different versions of process thought at the end - I didn't quite.

 

Some one said, "who knows, it might even be right" That said things make more sense to me from a process view.

 

 

"God is an actual occasion (or, some would say, a series of actual occasions). Unlike the rest of us God never forgets and never passes out of existence. At every moment of your becoming, God prehends [remembers] your valuations and your most intimate responses. God takes them up into divine life. And God becomes different as a result. At the next moment of your becoming, God offers back to you those valuations, and the experiences of all other living things, but now valued and interpreted from the divine perspective. The becoming God becomes a part of the becoming you."

God Beyond Orthodoxy, Philip Clayton, Center for Process Studies

Process Theology for the 21st Century

God is only able to do this if we are all internally related.And if atoms in an appropriately small way are internally related.

 

Thanks, Paul

[romansh]

I find the psychological argument against free will lacking since I spent many hours with counselors who hoped I would see that I had a choice to interpret generously and not suspiciously, to react appropriately and not over react. My counselors assumed that I had some, limited, but useful, free will.

Dutch this is not my argument but Schopehauer"s. So you can will what you will? I think not. Here is Strawson's take on this:

http://www.naturalis...n_interview.htm

 

 

My brother, a psychologist, committed suicide 5 years ago and at his memorial service I asked my sister, who was very close to him and a counselor as well, when was the last time he had the opportunity to change the course of his life.

My empathy goes out to you Dutch.

 

free will is not about making choices - we all clearly do that. Then again so does my computer.

 

It is about can we freely will what we want to to want - so to speak.

 

There are not two but three general ways to approach the mind/body problem. Materialist, Dualist and Panexperientialist. The Materialist often jettisons the consciousness as a worthwhile issue or struggles to explain the evolution of the mind and consciousness from no-mind. A dualist observes two different realms, the mental and physical. She is faced with explaining how the two interact.

 

dutch

There are many ways to have a worldview. Pluralism in all its forms. Various forms of monism, physicalism come to mind.

I tend to lean to a flavour of monsim.

 

And regarding our expereinces - here is an interesting take

http://www.susanblac...n/question1.htm

[glintofpewter]

Then again so does my computer.

Computers don't make choices any more than my brother did.

[glintofpewter]

There are many ways to have a worldview. Pluralism in all its forms.

Rom,

What is a pluralist's response to the mind/body question?

 

Dutch

[romansh]

Computers don't make choices any more than my brother did.

I'm not sure this is true. I can't speak for your brother, but I see when I set up a complex spreadsheet, my computer produces all sorts of choices based on its inputs.

Rom,

What is a pluralist's response to the mind/body question?

 

Dutch

Depends on the pluralist. Most that I have spoken to are compatibilists (a none answer for me) and a hint of libertarianism.

[glintofpewter]

Depends on the pluralist. Most that I have spoken to are compatibilists

I am not quite sure how a compatiblist's approach to freewill explains how they would respond to the mind/body question or how that makes them a pluralist with regard to a the mind body problem.

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

I think computers make decisions the way a pachinko game does. They have just become better and better at it.

[romansh]

I am not quite sure how a compatiblist's approach to freewill explains how they would respond to the mind/body question or how that makes them a pluralist with regard to a the mind body problem.

 

Dutch

There are many flavours of compatibilism - I suppose as there are for many worldviews. I'm hesitant to speak for compatibilists, so I will just give my impressions:

1) To all intents and purposes determinism is true

2) Free will is still possible

3) Whether the mind and body a separate is irrelevant for some compatibilists, the mind is still determined by the brain.

 

To my mind compatibilists somehow redefine freewill; Dennett the most eloquent of the modern compatibilists gives an example of golfer who missed a short put, proved he could otherwise be repeating the put ten times and sinking it nine times. Does not work for me, but what the heck.

 

I never said being a compatibilst makes one a pluralist. I just said the pluralists I have spoken to were compatibilists.

 

here is a compatibilist view It's long but not everyone's cup of tea.

 

[glintofpewter]

Whether the mind and body a separate is irrelevant for some compatibilists, the mind is still determined by the brain.

So are compatiblists materialists and see the mind is determined by the brain or are you the materialist?

We disprove a materialistic view every day. even by considering the question.

[romansh]

So are compatiblists materialists and see the mind is determined by the brain or are you the materialist?

We disprove a materialistic view every day. even by considering the question.

 

I can't speak for compatibilists in general, but yes I would describe compatibilists like Dennett as materialists.

Am I a materialist? For a forum where labels are not important ....

 

But to answer your question - materialism and physicalism I find to be better descriptions of my perceptions than some of the alternatives.

 

And disproving materialism you will have to provide a better example than me asking questions. This as a disproof is a complete non sequitur for me.

[glintofpewter]

Rom,

 

I used labels as short hand for more complex ideas as you did. I just didn't always understand when those words applied to you or someone else.

 

I have seen most of the Symphony of Science videos often and particularly like Jill Bolte Taylor segment in "Ode to the Brain" I used part of it for my Christmas card.

 

 

snippets from the video

 

nature's imagination

beauty of the flower not in the atoms but in the relationship

 

from Sagan's tv series

“Some part of our being knows this is where we came from [the stars], we long to return. And we can because the Cosmos is also within us; we are made of 'star stuff' - we are a way for the Cosmos to know itself.”

 

some part of our being knows this is where we came from

we long to return

 

 

I don't understand how many of the statements can be held the restrictive scientific materialistic frame work, even given the complexity of the brain. How can nature have an imagination? How can the Cosmos have consciousness? How can we know where we came from? How can we long to return? Sagan makes clear that this idea for him is more than the physical "from stardust".

 

These seem to fit the category mysticism for me. To me it seems obvious that a scientific materialism falls short in providing an explanation of these feelings and intuitions.

 

What does it mean to say "we long to return" scientifically? How can we say "the Cosmos comes to know itself"? without referring to something other than a materialist world many scientists say is the boundary of nature. I think Alfred North whitehead's ideas about all entities being related externally and internally offers a more complete explanation.

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

from your web site

 

my boundary of self is my skin, ignoring my hair or what little of it is left. So just ignoring my consciousness for the moment; is my epidermis and its contents a good definition of me? .... Assuming the mind is not some magical being and is subject to cause and effect; then the definition of self evaporates

I think the limitation is that one believes that the consciousness has to be cast aside to examine the problem. Yes, the mind is a difficult for materialist to explain and so it is often eliminated.

 

I agree that the limits of my physical self, evidence of which is provided by my physical senses, is the skin. But I don't think the mind experiences the world that way. Jill Bolte Taylor experienced a loss of that sense of boundary when she had a severe left brain stroke. When her left brain went silent she experienced the boundarylessness, transcendent experience that seems based in the right brain. Before and during she had a consciousness of self, not limited, it seems to me, by the physical events in her brain.

[romansh]

Rom,

I used labels as short hand for more complex ideas as you did. I just didn't always understand when those words applied to you or someone else.

 

I 'know' you were Dutch. I was just ribbing you - a bad habit of mine.

 

I don't understand how many of the statements can be held the restrictive scientific materialistic frame work, even given the complexity of the brain. How can nature have an imagination? How can the Cosmos have consciousness? How can we know where we came from? How can we long to return? Sagan makes clear that this idea for him is more than the physical "from stardust".

 

The brain also has a habit of anthropomorphizing various things, from ships and cars, to animals, to a kilo or so slightly sloppy proteins that reside in our skulls. You have have a sincere and strong belief in your experience, which is fair enough. I do not. Did you read Blackmore's Am I Conscious Now? My take on it either everything is conscious (to varying degrees or nothing is, it is all a wonderful illusion. As opposed to delusion).

 

These seem to fit the category mysticism for me. To me it seems obvious that a scientific materialism falls short in providing an explanation of these feelings and intuitions.

 

Personally I think that you confuse that Sagan is comfortable in speaking in metaphor with being a mystic. I suspect Sagan fully understood where he was treading. His wikipedia page describes him as having a naturalistic view. For me naturalism and materialism overlap.

 

What does it mean to say "we long to return" scientifically? How can we say "the Cosmos comes to know itself"? without referring to something other than a materialist world many scientists say is the boundary of nature. I think Alfred North whitehead's ideas about all entities being related externally and internally offers a more complete explanation.

Dutch

Dutch - can you, in your own words, using a few bullet points describe Whitehead's position means for you.

Thanks - rom

[glintofpewter]

Personally I think that you confuse that Sagan is comfortable in speaking in metaphor with being a mystic.

Many of us here would say that metaphor is the best we can do in describing what we experience.

 

Our posts over lapped.My second post explains some of what you ask. I will get back to you on the bullet points

 

Dutch

[romansh]

I think the limitation is that one believes that the consciousness has to be cast aside to examine the problem. Yes, the mind is a difficult for materialist to explain and so it is often eliminated.

 

I agree that the limits of my physical self, evidence of which is provided by my physical senses, is the skin. But I don't think the mind experiences the world that way. Jill Bolte Taylor experienced a loss of that sense of boundary when she had a severe left brain stroke. When her left brain went silent she experienced the boundarylessness, transcendent experience that seems based in the right brain. Before and during she had a consciousness of self, not limited, it seems to me, by the physical events in her brain.

I did not cast consciousness aside Dutch, I set it aside till to be considered later. Some people like have consciousness in their definition of free will; but for me that excludes my unconscious will. So from my point of view I cannot conflate consciosness and free will.

 

By the way I did not say that limits of the self is my skin. I question that definition very hard.

Edited June 17, 2012 by romansh

[glintofpewter]

Dutch - can you, in your own words, using a few bullet points describe Whitehead's position means for you

Not a description of Whitehead's but of my own which arose out of his ideas and others that followed to the extent I have found them useful and within my understanding. See also post #27.

 

 

The progression of my thinking probably visited Emergent Materialism, if I had known the words. In evolution the mind arose out of the brain but the mind is not wholly determined by the brain and has influence on the brain's processes. For me this is a more satisfactory description and explanation of the mind/body relationship.

 

All entities are externally and internally related; they influence each other. A complete description of the universe requires observations of both relationships.

Materialism only observes the external relationships and processes.

 

Consciousness, ideas, experiences of beauty and transcendence are within the scope of internal relationships.

 

This is the relationship between the One that became two bringing about God becoming and Universe, so that there might be relationship. There is mutual influence A panentheism. I think it is useful to say that God evolved as the universe evolved and that many qualities and values we see as eternal are projections on the past. Love as a quality of relationship may not have existed when One became two. A Christian view might say that the One making room for the Other was the first and continuing sacrifice of love.

To speak of two, perhaps, is not to say that there is a separation that can be spoken of meaningfully.

 

The self is observable between birth and death but after death it can be said that I return to the one self (the internal relationship) and to the elements, popularly star dust, from which the body arose (the external relationship).

 

Dutch

[romansh]

Not a description of Whitehead's but of my own which arose out of his ideas and others that followed to the extent I have found them useful and within my understanding. See also post #27.

 

Thanks Dutch, I am more than happy to hear your interpretation rather than some thirdparty's

 

The progression of my thinking probably visited Emergent Materialism, if I had known the words. In evolution the mind arose out of the brain but the mind is not wholly determined by the brain and has influence on the brain's processes. For me this is a more satisfactory description and explanation of the mind/body relationship.

 

I don't fully understand what you are saying here. But the word emergent in my book has always lead to an abdication of an explanation. I look forward to a clarification of your position.

 

All entities are externally and internally related; they influence each other. A complete description of the universe requires observations of both relationships.

 

I think I understand and I partially agree. But a possible 'error' here (or the original sin) is to think internal and external are somehow fundamentally different and/or separate.

 

Materialism only observes the external relationships and processes.

 

That may be your perception but it is certainly not mine.

 

Consciousness, ideas, experiences of beauty and transcendence are within the scope of internal relationships.

 

Again this could be a restatement of the original sin. Thinking that the external and internal are somehow separate.

 

This is the relationship between the One that became two bringing about God becoming and Universe, so that there might be relationship. There is mutual influence A panentheism. I think it is useful to say that God evolved as the universe evolved and that many qualities and values we see as eternal are projections on the past. Love as a quality of relationship may not have existed when One became two. A Christian view might say that the One making room for the Other was the first and continuing sacrifice of love.

 

Panentheism is a continued embodiment of the separateness. It goes back to whether cause affects God. If it does then it is literally one with me. If not you can keep it.

 

To speak of two, perhaps, is not to say that there is a separation that can be spoken of meaningfully.

 

Then perhaps you truly do mean pantheism?

 

The self is observable between birth and death but after death it can be said that I return to the one self (the internal relationship) and to the elements, popularly star dust, from which the body arose (the external relationship).

 

Dutch metaphorically speaking when we go we will have left footprints, before we were born we were caused by footprints, We are leaving footprints as we speak. We are footprints.

[glintofpewter]

Rom,

 

This followed an entanglement with compatabilists

But to answer your question - materialism and physicalism I find to be better descriptions of my perceptions than some of the alternatives.

 

Later I said

 

 

Materialism only observes the external relationships and processes.

and you replied.

 

That may be your perception but it is certainly not mine.

 

Yours is a complex view, because this discussion seems to involve the question of whether the will is free (to choose). Is that correct?

 

would a discussion of the mind highlight your thoughts on materialism and physicalism? Is the mind wholly and sufficiently caused by the biochemical events in the brain? what does it mean to say that the mind can influence the brain? What does the mind consider when it considers itself?

 

Is mind a result of evolution? Can mind evolve from no-mind?

 

Dutch

[romansh]

Yours is a complex view, because this discussion seems to involve the question of whether the will is free (to choose). Is that correct?

 

Actually it is a very simplistic view Dutch. But you are right free will does come into it. Infact when we say free what exactly do we mean?

would a discussion of the mind highlight your thoughts on materialism and physicalism? Is the mind wholly and sufficiently caused by the biochemical events in the brain? what does it mean to say that the mind can influence the brain? What does the mind consider when it considers itself?

 

Yep sure, is there an appropriate thread open already? (It sort of fits into the free will thread).

But to answer one your questions:

Is the mind wholly and sufficiently caused by the biochemical events in the brain?

The short answer is no! But it it is not separate from the brain either.

 

Is mind a result of evolution? Can mind evolve from no-mind?

 

You are pointing to the Hard Question here Dutch. I don't have the answer(s), but I do have some questions.