JKMac
New
Alex:
I am bothered by some statements that keep surfacing in your interviews. They are related to your proposition that thoughts are non-physical and therefore can't have physical effects on brain or body without disproving materialism. Also your (and your guests') suggestion that the placebo effect somehow disproves materialism.
Your starting point was a scenario with a “great idea” that a person wrote down and which was subsequently read by another person and is in your opinion now “non-physical” and incompatible with a materialist view of the brain.
The engineer in me is pushing me to simplify the example a bit so we can pay attention to the critical aspects and not be distracted by meaningless fluff, such as whether this is a “high level thought”, a “great idea”. Who cares?
So lets just think of a simple square 2 inches on each side. This is certainly an “idea”, not a physical object.
If this thought is written down and then passed to a second person the idea is now in the second person's imagination: a 2 inch square. Just as it is now in your imagination.
Defining this imagined object as a non-physical thing is perfectly reasonable, but I disagree that this is somehow incompatible with a physical brain or has any implications on materialism.
In your discussions you have described what I believe is a false dichotomy between brain and conceptual thought. Here's why I believe it is fallacious.
According to your description it looks like ALL thought can be shown to be non-physical. So you seem to be asserting that any thought is non-physical and is somehow impossible without “mind”. The difference between a “great idea” and a simple geometric image seems to be trivial and a matter of scale and therefore a quantitative and not qualitative difference. They are both concepts of thought. They can both be written down and after the death of the thinker, they can be shown to survive.
How about this alternative scenario? I can program a computer to draw a 2 inch square, then I can take a picture of the square, unplug the computer (thereby “killing it”), and using a vision capture program on a second computer it can “learn” about the idea of a 2 inch square and finally to draw it. Is there really any difference between this machine version of your thought experiment and the human version? Why on Earth would you conclude that a physical brain couldn't interact with a non-physical “idea”?
So I am contending that it is perfectly reasonable and generally acceptable for a physical brain to deal with a simple non-physical concept, just as it is reasonable for a computer to do the same thing. I don't see how these things validate or reject the idea of materialism.
Beyond what I think is flawed thinking in the first place, you go further to say that somehow neuro-plasticity is somehow incompatible with materialism because an ”idea” leading to physical changes in the brain is apparently violating someone's golden rule of materialism. Although you may be right about the fact that is does violate some people's cherished definition of materialism, let's not argue about that (because we can both find varying definitions of materialism to use as a benchmark), and simply look at your case from the other end of the argument: and consider whether the placebo scenario provides some evidence of a non-physical “mind” in action? I say absolutely not.
First a few assumptions that I think we can agree on for now...
- Let's assume for a moment that some level of simple thought is possible within the context of a physical brain (and there's no evidence showing that this is a bad assumption).
- I'm sure we can also agree on the fact that through repetitive use, we can alter physical bodily attributes, such as how weightlifters can build up physical aspects of their body using work-outs.
-The brain is a physical object which has been shown to be involved in human thought in some way and the commonly held view is that the mechanism of thought involves the complex web of neurons, axions, and whole range of chemical and electrical (physical) interactions.
Is it so hard to accept the possibility that by thinking certain things, it is possible to affect the way the body responds to stimulus?
Here's a couple ways to look at the this-
1- Thought leading to macro mechanical action.
Let's start with an example where a fly lands on your leg. You then think a non-physical thought (“boy that fly is annoying, I'd like to shoo it away”) and a physical thing results: your hand moves toward the fly. A totally obvious case where: non-physical conceptual thought leads to physical change/action.
2- Thought leads to micro mechanical changes.
Someone sneaks up behind you and yells “BOOO”. Your heart races and you gasp. Your brain processed some information, perhaps imagined something (non-physical thought like: a boogyman is standing behind me) and initiated PHYSICAL hormonal secretions that caused your body to respond in certain ways.
Aren't these both simple cases where non-physical “thoughts” cause/lead to physical responses. Is there any controversy here? Any reason to point to a non-physical mind to explain this?
Is it so hard to conceive that other thoughts in your brain about sickness or getting well could cause bodily responses that could change a patient's outcome in a medical situation? To me it is easy to conceive of a situation where my brain's though pattern could result in secretion of some hormone or other. These are very interconnected systems after all.
If you accept this, I think it is a simple matter to further to envision a case where: as a consequence of activating certain collections of brain wiring (networks) the brain can be capable of re-ordering itself (re-wiring, perhaps by strengthening or weakening certain interconnections) thus making adaptations which change future action to stimulus. These sorts of self learning/adaptive systems are extremely common in nature and in engineering: why are they they not an obvious thing to consider when speculating about whether the brain could change itself through physical processes over time.
You have several times rejected claims of adaptation on the basis that they are recursive. So what? Why is it necessary for you to know or understand the initial state of any system, in order to accept that it has a feedback/adaptation loop as part of its design? I would say that it is perfectly reasonable for a system to start at some initial state (perhaps even a somewhat random one), irrespective of whether that state is known to you.
In summary I would like you to rethink these scenarios which seem to surface time and again in your discussions and which you seem to think demonstrate that materialism doesn't hold water. Your (and your guest's) logic in these cases seams seriously flawed. It is no surprise that your other guests, who are coming from the opposite point of view, are never convinced by these arguments.
I am of the same opinion as you are regarding the strong evidence of a non-physical component of our existence, I just don't think these particular arguments help your case at all. As a matter of fact, they can be used to show the overall weakness of your position.
I am bothered by some statements that keep surfacing in your interviews. They are related to your proposition that thoughts are non-physical and therefore can't have physical effects on brain or body without disproving materialism. Also your (and your guests') suggestion that the placebo effect somehow disproves materialism.
Your starting point was a scenario with a “great idea” that a person wrote down and which was subsequently read by another person and is in your opinion now “non-physical” and incompatible with a materialist view of the brain.
The engineer in me is pushing me to simplify the example a bit so we can pay attention to the critical aspects and not be distracted by meaningless fluff, such as whether this is a “high level thought”, a “great idea”. Who cares?
So lets just think of a simple square 2 inches on each side. This is certainly an “idea”, not a physical object.
If this thought is written down and then passed to a second person the idea is now in the second person's imagination: a 2 inch square. Just as it is now in your imagination.
Defining this imagined object as a non-physical thing is perfectly reasonable, but I disagree that this is somehow incompatible with a physical brain or has any implications on materialism.
In your discussions you have described what I believe is a false dichotomy between brain and conceptual thought. Here's why I believe it is fallacious.
According to your description it looks like ALL thought can be shown to be non-physical. So you seem to be asserting that any thought is non-physical and is somehow impossible without “mind”. The difference between a “great idea” and a simple geometric image seems to be trivial and a matter of scale and therefore a quantitative and not qualitative difference. They are both concepts of thought. They can both be written down and after the death of the thinker, they can be shown to survive.
How about this alternative scenario? I can program a computer to draw a 2 inch square, then I can take a picture of the square, unplug the computer (thereby “killing it”), and using a vision capture program on a second computer it can “learn” about the idea of a 2 inch square and finally to draw it. Is there really any difference between this machine version of your thought experiment and the human version? Why on Earth would you conclude that a physical brain couldn't interact with a non-physical “idea”?
So I am contending that it is perfectly reasonable and generally acceptable for a physical brain to deal with a simple non-physical concept, just as it is reasonable for a computer to do the same thing. I don't see how these things validate or reject the idea of materialism.
Beyond what I think is flawed thinking in the first place, you go further to say that somehow neuro-plasticity is somehow incompatible with materialism because an ”idea” leading to physical changes in the brain is apparently violating someone's golden rule of materialism. Although you may be right about the fact that is does violate some people's cherished definition of materialism, let's not argue about that (because we can both find varying definitions of materialism to use as a benchmark), and simply look at your case from the other end of the argument: and consider whether the placebo scenario provides some evidence of a non-physical “mind” in action? I say absolutely not.
First a few assumptions that I think we can agree on for now...
- Let's assume for a moment that some level of simple thought is possible within the context of a physical brain (and there's no evidence showing that this is a bad assumption).
- I'm sure we can also agree on the fact that through repetitive use, we can alter physical bodily attributes, such as how weightlifters can build up physical aspects of their body using work-outs.
-The brain is a physical object which has been shown to be involved in human thought in some way and the commonly held view is that the mechanism of thought involves the complex web of neurons, axions, and whole range of chemical and electrical (physical) interactions.
Is it so hard to accept the possibility that by thinking certain things, it is possible to affect the way the body responds to stimulus?
Here's a couple ways to look at the this-
1- Thought leading to macro mechanical action.
Let's start with an example where a fly lands on your leg. You then think a non-physical thought (“boy that fly is annoying, I'd like to shoo it away”) and a physical thing results: your hand moves toward the fly. A totally obvious case where: non-physical conceptual thought leads to physical change/action.
2- Thought leads to micro mechanical changes.
Someone sneaks up behind you and yells “BOOO”. Your heart races and you gasp. Your brain processed some information, perhaps imagined something (non-physical thought like: a boogyman is standing behind me) and initiated PHYSICAL hormonal secretions that caused your body to respond in certain ways.
Aren't these both simple cases where non-physical “thoughts” cause/lead to physical responses. Is there any controversy here? Any reason to point to a non-physical mind to explain this?
Is it so hard to conceive that other thoughts in your brain about sickness or getting well could cause bodily responses that could change a patient's outcome in a medical situation? To me it is easy to conceive of a situation where my brain's though pattern could result in secretion of some hormone or other. These are very interconnected systems after all.
If you accept this, I think it is a simple matter to further to envision a case where: as a consequence of activating certain collections of brain wiring (networks) the brain can be capable of re-ordering itself (re-wiring, perhaps by strengthening or weakening certain interconnections) thus making adaptations which change future action to stimulus. These sorts of self learning/adaptive systems are extremely common in nature and in engineering: why are they they not an obvious thing to consider when speculating about whether the brain could change itself through physical processes over time.
You have several times rejected claims of adaptation on the basis that they are recursive. So what? Why is it necessary for you to know or understand the initial state of any system, in order to accept that it has a feedback/adaptation loop as part of its design? I would say that it is perfectly reasonable for a system to start at some initial state (perhaps even a somewhat random one), irrespective of whether that state is known to you.
In summary I would like you to rethink these scenarios which seem to surface time and again in your discussions and which you seem to think demonstrate that materialism doesn't hold water. Your (and your guest's) logic in these cases seams seriously flawed. It is no surprise that your other guests, who are coming from the opposite point of view, are never convinced by these arguments.
I am of the same opinion as you are regarding the strong evidence of a non-physical component of our existence, I just don't think these particular arguments help your case at all. As a matter of fact, they can be used to show the overall weakness of your position.
Last edited: