Can Mind Affect Body?

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

But I'm afraid that the special nature of our thought does not somehow lift it out of thinghood any more than photosynthesis gets lifted out of the "thinghood" of green plants. Why should it?

We have only 5 senses to perceive the world, right? And there are many things we cannot sense. Even the devices we do have were invented using the senses.

So, how is it that we can measure ourselves by ourselves?

Aedes wrote:

Now Dustin, don't interpret me as saying that a scientific understanding of things is all that's important. I don't believe that. I think that there is a certain amount of allegory that our cultures just need for our emotional and communal health, and beliefs about death are extremely important to us. Having hope in a heaven, or picturing a lost love one in heaven, has value even if there is no such thing in the end.

If these were my beliefs, I certainly wouldn't need such allegories. Do you need them?

1 Reply

@Dustin phil,

Dustin wrote:

We have only 5 senses to perceive the world, right? And there are many things we cannot sense. Even the devices we do have were invented using the senses.

Well, we have more than 5 senses (what we call "touch" actually incorporates 3 or 4 completely distinct senses), but that's besides the point, you are indeed correct that our senses are finite...

Quote:

So, how is it that we can measure ourselves by ourselves?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. This isn't an axis on a graph where you need a reference point. We can make observations about ourselves just as easily as we can about anything else. Freud, Jung, Kinsey, Piaget, etc, systematically observed tens of thousands of people. How does that methodologically differ from observing tens of thousands of chimpanzees or highly intelligent space aliens? Not so much. You collect data and draw conclusions. And if you assume that you're one particular human, then the things you conclude about all other humans can be easily and logically back-referenced onto yourself.

Quote:

If these were my beliefs, I certainly wouldn't need such allegories. Do you need them?

Yes, for various reasons. I deal with a lot of sick and dying people in my job. I have to talk about death pretty much daily. And it's the pain and fear of moments like this, and the lack of control that patients and families have, that makes these moments ones in which God, death, afterlife, etc, become extremely central to people's minds. Because one thing that is probably hardwired into us is hope -- people WANT to have hope, and when all else in this material world starts to slip from their grasp, the last refuge of their hope is faith. And I respect, honor, and encourage that in my patients.

As for my own needs, I am a practicing Jew (though not especially observant), but I have literally zero belief in God as an actual entity in the real world. So why do I practice Judaism? Why do I care about it? Because even if there is no God, and even if the laws of the Torah and Talmud are meaningful only culturally, what is highly meaningful to me is family and particularly the suffering that my family had to go through because they were Jewish. And being Jewish is a way of honoring what identifies my family and what has identified my ancestors through history.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

You collect data and draw conclusions. And if you assume that you're one particular human, then the things you conclude about all other humans can be easily and logically back-referenced onto yourself.

That's where I was sort of getting at, because we couldn't possibly expect chimpanzees to know about themselves as much as we know about them. Therefore, if we are only intelligent mammals (highest in the food chain as our senses can tell), then logically, we wouldn't be able to know all there is about ourselves.

Aedes wrote:

Yes, for various reasons. I deal with a lot of sick and dying people in my job. I have to talk about death pretty much daily. And it's the pain and fear of moments like this, and the lack of control that patients and families have, that makes these moments ones in which God, death, afterlife, etc, become extremely central to people's minds. Because one thing that is probably hardwired into us is hope -- people WANT to have hope, and when all else in this material world starts to slip from their grasp, the last refuge of their hope is faith. And I respect, honor, and encourage that in my patients.

I can understand what you're saying. Only, if I had been in this situation, knowing what you know, I'd probably be a little numb to circumstance. One thing I do not understand about Atheism, is why the need for consideration or anything of the sort?

Because if we take it down to good and evil / positive and negative-these are only things-one being the result of the other. And in this way, it would seem we would want to choose one or the other, simply for the good or bad result we get. Love, and all human emotions would come down to just things.

I have one last question, and I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this.

What if your wrong? Smile

1 Reply

@Dustin phil,

Dustin wrote:

Therefore, if we are only intelligent mammals (highest in the food chain as are senses can tell), then logically, we wouldn't be able to know all there is about ourselves.

Forget logic, you can just be pragmatic about it... We cannot know all there is to know about anything, ourselves included.

Quote:

I can understand what you're saying. Only, if I had been in this situation, knowing what you know, I'd probably be a little numb to circumstance.

You never get numb. You just learn how to compartmentalize.

Quote:

One thing I do not understand about Atheism, is why the need for consideration or anything of the sort?

Why wouldn't you? Atheism doesn't mean that you reject, disrespect, or disregard other people. Empathy is innate to animals, including humans, and it doesn't require God. To be atheistic doesn't mean that one is antisocial.

If you're my patient and you care about God, then I care about God too. Because the reality of God to you is good enough for me. And if you're my grandparents, and you've survived Auschwitz, and you believe in God, then I'll honor God as a way of honoring you. The reality of God means far less than the reality of humans I care about.

Quote:

I have one last question, and I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this.

What if your wrong?

Well, if I'm wrong, and the afterlife really does entail a judgement in which I'll be sent to paradise or cast into hell, then I will go there knowing that I've never hurt people, I've devoted my life to helping people, I've cared, I've nurtured, and I've loved as much as anyone possibly can. Our lives are short, and I've tried to make the lives of others better, plain and simple. That cannot be said for every godfearing person out there, because there are godfearing believers who are selfish and who hurt others. And if I'm asked why I did not honor God, I'll simply answer that I did honor him by caring about his world and his people, whether I realized I was honoring him or not.

And if he casts me to hell simply because worshipping him is more important than caring for others, then I will burn for an eternity knowing that I cared more about humans than God did.

... if I'm wrong, that is...

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Honestly I've never had a discussion with someone like yourself before now. Just wanted to say thank you very much. Your reply was wonderful.

The God I worship would never do such things to someone like you.

1 Reply

@Dustin phil,

Dustin wrote:

Honestly I've never had a discussion with someone like yourself before now. Just wanted to say thank you very much. Your reply was wonderful.

The God I worship would never do such things to someone like you.

Dustin, that's very kind of you to say, I appreciate it.

saiboimushi wrote:

If the universe is purely material, what then? If there is no mind, no consciousness, what then? If matter is conscious, then it must be partly mind, unless one changes the meaning of words...

Matter is perceived, and it seems to perceive. It is conscious of itself, and consciousness is material. Mind is matter. I am a thing. How now?

If matter is non-intelligent substance, and mind intelligent substance, how can they meet? How can they coexist? If non-intelligence is intelligence, then perhaps even All can be Nothing. Yet if there is an All, it cannot be anything other than what it already is. But even more, it cannot have parts. It cannot have parts--think about that for a moment. :eek:

I think you're making this a lot harder than it has to be. You're stringing along inferences, but honestly I think this conundrum boils down to the language you're using.

1. If the universe is purely material, what then?
Material is just the physical substrate of all the phenomena we can observe. Thought and self-consciousness is a fascinating and complex phenomenon, but what's wrong with it having a material substrate?

2. If there is no mind, no consciousness, what then?
There IS mind, there IS consciousness. They just happen to be physical and not metaphysical. Where does brain end and mind begin? Well, where does stomach end and digestion begin? In both of these cases, the latter is a function of the former. But digestion is no more or less physical than mind -- it's just the function of a different organ.

3. If matter is conscious, then it must be partly mind...
Not ALL matter is conscious, and consciousness doesn't consist in ALL matter. Change it around: if matter is apple, then it must be partly apple. An apple is a material thing. It has material, physical constituents. It is an apple at one level, but the farther you reduce it the less "apple" it is and the more you get into generalizable physical things -- molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, forces.

4. If matter is non-intelligent substance, and mind intelligent substance, how can they meet? How can they coexist?
Mind isn't "intelligent substance" unto itself. Nor is it really a substance unto itself -- it's a process, just as cellular metabolism and photosynthesis are processes. The mind is just a physical phenomenon produced by an extremely complex physical process that is biologically coordinated. The label of "intelligent" is how we talk about mind -- but the words we use don't invest things with material reality.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

It dies along with the rest of you. I've had patients who were in prolonged comas, or who were sedated in the ICU for prolonged periods of time. This whole stretch of their lives -- weeks or months in some cases -- was gone in terms of mind and self. And I don't say this from looking at them -- I say it from talking to people who have been through it, who have a 6 month stretch of their lives with no experiences, no memories, nothing.

I got to thinking about what you said here, and it doesn't seem to contradict anything that is scripturally sound. Most of Christianity believes when you die-you immediately go to Heaven or Hell, but I'm not so sure about that. What you're saying sounds accurate.

0 Replies

@Dustin phil,

Quote:

1. If the universe is purely material, what then?
Material is just the physical substrate of all the phenomena we can observe. Thought and self-consciousness is a fascinating and complex phenomenon, but what's wrong with it having a material substrate?

Is a thought material? Is it something that exists like an apple exists? I've often tried to figure this out myself. It is hard to disregard the fact that the brain produces the mind, and therefore that the mind comes from a physical thing. But how does this physical thing (the brain) produce something else that we speak of as something that exists (a thought).

You say: "It is an apple at one level, but the farther you reduce it the less "apple" it is and the more you get into generalizable physical things -- molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, forces."

But if we think of what a thought is, it cannot be reduced the same way, it cannot be reduced to physical things. It can only be reduced to a process, and if this is the case, then we cannot say a thought exists like an apple exists.

So, are we left with a thought being the production of a process? I will again use an example you gave: "where does brain end and mind begin? Well, where does stomach end and digestion begin? In both of these cases, the latter is a function of the former."

If your analogy between stomach and digestion and brain and mind holds, is it fair for me to say that a thought is merely a labeling for something that is produced during a process?

On the one hand, I see no other explanation for a thought than that it is what we call a certain process of the brain. On the other hand, if it is only the product of a process, how can I speak of a thought as something that exists like I speak of an apple as something that exists.

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

You say: "It is an apple at one level, but the farther you reduce it the less "apple" it is and the more you get into generalizable physical things -- molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, forces."

But if we think of what a thought is, it cannot be reduced the same way, it cannot be reduced to physical things. It can only be reduced to a process, and if this is the case, then we cannot say a thought exists like an apple exists.

Yes thought can be reduced this way, to constituent material things. The only limitation we have in doing so is the gargantuan complexity of billions of neurons, their anatomy, and their coordinated functioning even in one instant, let alone over time -- and that is what a thought is, in the end.

Quote:

So, are we left with a thought being the production of a process?

Think of a simpler process -- dissolving salt in water. The process starts with crystals of NaCl and pure H20 liquid, and ends with Na+ and Cl- ions dissolved in the water. In between there is a process that has the same underlying material constituents, but there are physical interactions at work causing modifications over time. So a process is still material.

Quote:

I will again use an example you gave: "where does brain end and mind begin? Well, where does stomach end and digestion begin? In both of these cases, the latter is a function of the former."

If your analogy between stomach and digestion and brain and mind holds, is it fair for me to say that a thought is merely a labeling for something that is produced during a process?

Yes -- but since the process has to do with the coordinated functioning of a material substrate, the thought can be described materially.

Quote:

how can I speak of a thought as something that exists like I speak of an apple as something that exists.

Because you can simultaneously speak of yourself in one breath and then speak of humanity in the next. You can speak of your pet gerbil in one breath and then life on earth in another. It's about your level of resolution. You can call Dominos and order a pizza, or you can order a baked disk-shaped piece of round reconstituted flour topped by liquified tomato extract and the melted shreds of solidified milk curds.

In other words, we're talking about what a thought is made out of. But that doesn't negate the utility of a thought as a coherent concept, or the content and significance of an individual thought.

0 Replies

Can Mind Affect Body?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know