Mind-body problem not really a problem?
- Pantagruel
- Posts: 202
- Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead
Mind-body problem not really a problem?
Popper's model of Worlds 1, 2, and 3, material objects, psychological events, and abstract ideas, fits in with his overall approach of "Scientific Realism". Basically, he points out that, when a mathematician writes down his discoveries, there is an overall interaction of World 1 to 3 objects, abstract ideas end up 'making marks on paper.'
Of course I can't replicate the power of the example independent of the fuller context of his ideas and writing. But, to that end, I can't strongly enough recommend the Afterword to "The Open Universe", called "Indeterminism is not Enough". It is powerful, cogent, concise, and only requires a general familiarity with Popper's main ideas, which he does recapitulate.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
Personally I'm a physicalist and I think that the "hard problem" is purely an issue of (a) cultural(ly-rooted) bias, and (b) muddled thinking about what explanations are/how explanations work.
- Pantagruel
- Posts: 202
- Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
Popper is a pluralist, except it is a tightly integrated plurality. Your assessment of the hard-problem is similar to Popper's, in that he sees it the result of believing that our ideas of objective physical reality are themselves characteristics of reality. "We might have known better" is what he says.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 6:20 pm From what I recall of Popper's comments on this stuff he's at least an epiphenomenalist, if not some sort of dualist. He doesn't come across as a physicalist, so I'm not sure how he solves the "hard problem."
Personally I'm a physicalist and I think that the "hard problem" is purely an issue of (a) cultural(ly-rooted) bias, and (b) muddled thinking about what explanations are/how explanations work.
Since objectivity is, for him, the result of critical thinking about something, ideas (World 3 entities) can become objects of criticism (therefore real objects) the same as physical (World 1) entities. Moreover, consciousness (World 2) can make itself an object (World 3) self-criticism. It all rather smacks of Phenomenology to me. A worthwhile read, only about 20 pages.
- Pantagruel
- Posts: 202
- Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
The Hard problem can't be solved using Western philosophy (which creates it). Extending the mind-body problem into a mind-body-abstract problem only makes it worse, now you have to reconcile three irreconcilable "worlds".Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 2:02 pm Reading Popper's "Open Universe," he presents a model that, I think, intuitively sews up the connection between mind and matter - actually, between abstract ideas and matter - so neatly as to make me wonder why I ever thought this was a "hard problem" at all.
Popper's model of Worlds 1, 2, and 3, material objects, psychological events, and abstract ideas, fits in with his overall approach of "Scientific Realism". Basically, he points out that, when a mathematician writes down his discoveries, there is an overall interaction of World 1 to 3 objects, abstract ideas end up 'making marks on paper.'
Of course I can't replicate the power of the example independent of the fuller context of his ideas and writing. But, to that end, I can't strongly enough recommend the Afterword to "The Open Universe", called "Indeterminism is not Enough". It is powerful, cogent, concise, and only requires a general familiarity with Popper's main ideas, which he does recapitulate.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
Mathematics does not exist however. Like time, it is merely an invention of the human mind.Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 2:02 pm Reading Popper's "Open Universe," he presents a model that, I think, intuitively sews up the connection between mind and matter - actually, between abstract ideas and matter - so neatly as to make me wonder why I ever thought this was a "hard problem" at all.
Popper's model of Worlds 1, 2, and 3, material objects, psychological events, and abstract ideas, fits in with his overall approach of "Scientific Realism". Basically, he points out that, when a mathematician writes down his discoveries, there is an overall interaction of World 1 to 3 objects, abstract ideas end up 'making marks on paper.'
Of course I can't replicate the power of the example independent of the fuller context of his ideas and writing. But, to that end, I can't strongly enough recommend the Afterword to "The Open Universe", called "Indeterminism is not Enough". It is powerful, cogent, concise, and only requires a general familiarity with Popper's main ideas, which he does recapitulate.
- Pantagruel
- Posts: 202
- Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
h_k_s wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 7:26 amInterestingly Popper makes some strong arguments for the independence of World 3 objects based on the fact that mind-constructed entites, like real numbers, have complex properties. My intention was not to defend Popper, but to share what I found to be immensely enlightening.Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 2:02 pm
Mathematics does not exist however. Like time, it is merely an invention of the human mind.
- Pantagruel
- Posts: 202
- Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
Atla wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 4:19 amThere is no need to reconcile these worlds any more than there is to reconcile organic chemistry with physics, since it is self evident that both are real and work together. Although some people do try (reductionism). My hope is that other people who have wrestled with mind-body as long as I have may be hungry for a fresh perspective. To that end, this is mostly a reading recommendation post.Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 2:02 pm The Hard problem can't be solved using Western philosophy (which creates it). Extending the mind-body problem into a mind-body-abstract problem only makes it worse, now you have to reconcile three irreconcilable "worlds".
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 8:18 amOrganic chemistry is just complicated physics, drawing a parallel with the mind-body problem is a fallacy.Atla wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 4:19 am
There is no need to reconcile these worlds any more than there is to reconcile organic chemistry with physics, since it is self evident that both are real and work together. Although some people do try (reductionism). My hope is that other people who have wrestled with mind-body as long as I have may be hungry for a fresh perspective. To that end, this is mostly a reading recommendation post.
(And surely you must realize that abstractions don't have a world of their own. Sad to see that Popper was really so shallow as to believe so, just because real numbers have "complex properties".)
- Pantagruel
- Posts: 202
- Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
Atla wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 9:09 amBecause the view is opposite to your own doesn't make it a fallacy. If it is a fallacy, it is a fallacy with the weight of Systems Theory on its side.Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 8:18 am
Organic chemistry is just complicated physics, drawing a parallel with the mind-body problem is a fallacy.
(And surely you must realize that abstractions don't have a world of their own. Sad to see that Popper was really so shallow as to believe so, just because real numbers have "complex properties".)
And as to the ontology of abstract ideas, that is also very much a matter of contention.
As I mentioned, this was intended to share with people who might find this an interesting way of tackling the mind-body puzzle. Ludwig von Bertalannfy says that since Metaphysics is by design beyond evidence, what really substantiates a metaphysical theory is its "elegance". Popper's solution, as outlined in the essay "Indeterminism is not enough" is very elegant, in itself. And it is compelling, in the context of his other writings. So if you're not interested in experiencing that for yourself in any way, well, that's really not the gist of my post.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
It's a fallacy because it's a fallacy, not because it's opposite to my view, don't be dishonest. And having Systems theory on its side means nothing as Systems theory itself is a bunch of instrumentalist abstraction with no relevance to ontology.Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 11:13 am Because the view is opposite to your own doesn't make it a fallacy. If it is a fallacy, it is a fallacy with the weight of Systems Theory on its side.
And as to the ontology of abstract ideas, that is also very much a matter of contention.
As I mentioned, this was intended to share with people who might find this an interesting way of tackling the mind-body puzzle. Ludwig von Bertalannfy says that since Metaphysics is by design beyond evidence, what really substantiates a metaphysical theory is its "elegance". Popper's solution, as outlined in the essay "Indeterminism is not enough" is very elegant, in itself. And it is compelling, in the context of his other writings. So if you're not interested in experiencing that for yourself in any way, well, that's really not the gist of my post.
The ontology of abstract ideas is also NOT in contention, sure we still have some wishful thinker Platonists left fantasizing about it, but the matter was settled long ago.
I see Popper's "solution" as the opposite of elegant, I see it as bringing even more unnecessary insanity into an already too insane world. Just because I don't share your shallow thinking doesn't mean that I don't like elegance.
- Pantagruel
- Posts: 202
- Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
Atla wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 12:25 pmI see. And did you read the suggested essay? The intuitive experience and evidence is that our ideas are reshaping reality, and I'm with Popper here, no good reasons have been advanced for the summary dismissal of that intuition. The work speaks for itself, stands on its own merit, and most certainly is credible.Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 11:13 am I see Popper's "solution" as the opposite of elegant, I see it as bringing even more unnecessary insanity into an already too insane world. Just because I don't share your shallow thinking doesn't mean that I don't like elegance.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
You mean our ideas lead to behaviours that "reshape" reality.Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 12:38 pm I see. And did you read the suggested essay? The intuitive experience and evidence is that our ideas are reshaping reality, and I'm with Popper here, no good reasons have been advanced for the summary dismissal of that intuition. The work speaks for itself, stands on its own merit, and most certainly is credible.
- Pantagruel
- Posts: 202
- Joined: July 2nd, 2019, 5:26 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: George Herbert Mead
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
Yes, that is precisely how Poppers interpretation of the 3 worlds model works. If it is contrary to some of your own views, all the more reason to read it. I always try to study both sides of all issues that interest me. In fact, this is part of the framework of Popper's larger enterprise of Scientific Realism through critical thinking.Atla wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 1:00 pmYou mean our ideas lead to behaviours that "reshape" reality.Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 12:38 pm I see. And did you read the suggested essay? The intuitive experience and evidence is that our ideas are reshaping reality, and I'm with Popper here, no good reasons have been advanced for the summary dismissal of that intuition. The work speaks for itself, stands on its own merit, and most certainly is credible.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Mind-body problem not really a problem?
No, our ideas do lead to behaviours that "reshape" reality, but this happens without interacting worlds. Which view is infinitely more elegant btw.Pantagruel wrote: ↑January 25th, 2020, 2:25 pmYes, that is precisely how Poppers interpretation of the 3 worlds model works. If it is contrary to some of your own views, all the more reason to read it. I always try to study both sides of all issues that interest me. In fact, this is part of the framework of Popper's larger enterprise of Scientific Realism through critical thinking.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023