Hey, guys! I’m writing my bachelors thesis in philosophy of science and the question how and if science can approach the mind-body-problem. Does anyone have any literature to recommend? (:
I have been doing cocaine like once or twice a week for about 8/9 months, not huge amounts kind of moderate levels but I wanted to know what is the likelihood that I’ve caused irreversible/permanent problems to myself? And if there are problems then what can I do to reverse them? (That’s if it’s not irreversible). I really hope I haven’t
Hi guys,
I was thinking of starting a compendium of experiments that demonstrated that materialism (in relation to the mind-body problem) is false and that consciousness is non-local.
I also devised one such experiment and I would love your feedback on the topic.
As of today, there are many cases in which fMRI sensors are able to pick up brainwaves from test subjects while they see an image in real-time. The sensor data is collected mainly from the following regions of the brain associated with image formation - lateral occipital complex (LOC), fusiform face area (FFA) , and parahippocampal place area (PPA). Then using Machine Learning, scientists were able to reproduce the image that the test subject saw or recollected.
References:
https://thenewstack.io/mind-reading-ai-optimizes-images-reconstructed-brain-waves/
https://thenewstack.io/mind-reading-ai-can-reconstruct-videos-using-brain-waves/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/12/30/240317.full.pdf
https://scitechdaily.com/image-reconstruction-from-human-brain-waves-in-real-time-video/
My hypothesis: If consciousness is an emerging property of the brain complex (as postulated in materialism) then there cannot be any subjective experience of "seeing" something without the correlated brain activity. In other words, I cannot see a shape without this machine picking it up, even if distorted.
If, on the other hand, consciousness it non-local and only during regular states of consciousness is localized, then there are some cases of altered states of consciousness when the subject can subjectively see things that would not be processed in the occipital lobe, because they are experiencing it in the broader medium of non-local consciousness.
And yes, I am proposing giving DMT to a blindfolded user and hook it to that machine. My bet is that the machine will not process any image recognition from the occipital lobe, because the complex fractals are not due to sensory input. **And since all images should be formed on those regions if consciousness were to be a byproduct of brain activity, observing the subjective experience of seeing without
... keep reading on reddit ➡Of my friends, the only ones who are interested in Graham Hancock’s ideas ALSO happen to be the only people I’m friends with who are not monists on the mind body problem. I’m beginning to think it’s not a coincidence.
Hypothesis: I don’t think that anyone who likes or is GENUINELY interested in Graham’s work on archeology, lost civilizations, anthropology etc etc is a monist on the mind-body problem.
Am I wrong? Can someone here plz prove me wrong?
Ps. I was high on life. Not substance
'''
> Again, you're stating that it's a mutilation as if they don't want it and want to keep those "healthy organs".
If you want to destroy healthy and functional organs that's mental illness and you should be stopped.
>They're not healthy if they cause the patient distress.
An anorexic has distress from their body. Is the problem the body or the mind? Do we give anorexics liposuctions?
What about someone with BIID? Their healthy arm is causing them distress and they want it amputated. Is the arm the problem or their mind?
>Would removing the healthy breast tissue of a man who develops gynecomastia also be considered mutilation? Would removing extra boney growth on the face of a woman with PCOS also be considered mutilation?
Except neither of these are healthy body parts lmao
Both of these are medical conditions that cause physical abnormalities. Trans people want to destroy healthy body parts, not abnormal ones.
>The right to engage in the free exchange of money/goods/services for money/goods/services is a right though.
If anorexic wants to exchange money for liposuction surgery, is it their right? What if someone with BIID wants to exchange money for a limb amputation?
'''
Author: /u/NinefulEight
I am writing an essay for school regarding the mind-body problem more specifically the problems of interaction and inconceivability. I have discussed Dennets's view with this multiple draft theory to try to explain how the mind might function and how it alters what we see and Chalmer's view with his philosophical zombie theory which is a more dualistic stance. I am supposed to draw a conclusion and 'resolve' the problems of interaction and inconceivability, but I am still not sure which side I stand on this argument and how to evaluate, it would help if I could see what some people's view is regarding this issue. Thanks!
I'm trying to create a reasonably accurate flow-chart/schematic for the influential positions on the Mind-body problem. It's inspired by Dustin Dewynne's schematic that appears on the Wikipedia entry on the Mind-body problem as well as one by Roderick Chisholm that appears in Metaphysics by Richard Taylor in the Prentice-Hall Foundations of Philosophy series.
I'm struggling in particular with how to represent Searle's Biological Naturalism and Davidson's Anomalous Monism in the simplified diagram format.
So far I've tried to represent Biological Naturalism by highlighting that it's a non-reductive thesis (≠), but that there is a causal interaction between mind and brain (causally reducible, but not ontologically reducible). But this is quiet mysterious (hence the question mark next to the relation).
I've tried to represent Anomalous Monism by highlighting the token-token identity thesis (=) as well as the thesis that mind and brain are not causally interacting in a strict way, hence the dotted relation line.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how I could improve the diagram, or point out any mistakes I've no doubt made?
EDIT:
I've modified it a fair bit:
-
Added in Logical Behaviourism and Functionalism (with Functionalism being connected to Dualism with a faded, dotted line.
-
Connected Panspsychism to Neutral Monism and Property Dualism with a faded, dotted-line ( /u/bunker_man ).
-
I've linked up Property Dualism to Dualism with faded, dotted-line ( /u/Catfish3 ).
-
I've added a title.
Thanks!
I'm sure some people have seen this link hit the front page on various subreddits. It's a study that showed that psilocybin decreased rather than increased brain activity.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/24/magic-mushrooms-expand-the-mind-by-dampening-brain-activity/
Many of the mind-body problems presented to materialists are responded to with evidence from brain scans about brain activity. One of the more eye-opening realizations, I think, is that mystical experiences seem to originate from activation of a particular brain region, regardless of the nature of that mystical experience.
But this study appears to show something different. For anyone who's never done shrooms before, it's a very interesting trip that often involves a freedom from the conceptualization we use every minute of the day, a sense of connectedness to everything, a sense of the grandness of existence, and many would say it's something mystical in nature.
But whence this experience, especially this seemingly more richer and more expansive experience, if the brain activity is actually less. As I often accuse material reductionists, the response I expect is that it doesn't matter because all experience is necessarily and sufficiently caused solely by the physical interactions in the brain. But I'd be interested to see if anyone sees this research, should it be verified thoroughly, could represent a contraindication of the traditional materialist position or, if not, how it fits into the framework.
Chuck McGill could have used this - lol
>uses Scalar Waves and Solfeggio Energies to protect Affected Individuals from Electronic Harassment, EMF, Psychotronic, Spiritual and Psychic Attacks.
I'm a med student that in a close future will specialize in psychiatry. I'm serious about it.
My knowledge about clinical psychiatry is strong, yet I lack any education on philosophy.
I'm convinced I could benefit from reading about some authors that theorize the mind body problem, and are decently up to date to modern advancements in neuroscience.
My main goal is strengthening:
Is the mind that suffers the illness, or just a fraction of the brain?
What makes an illness exogenous or endogenous?
Are we a product of our synapses or is there something deeper to it?
EDIT: or any relevant read, that addresses psychiatry or so
I know there is a sense in which metaphysical questions go beyond the domain of phenomenological investigation, but i'm curious to know if any phenomenologists have, in virtue of their insight gained through phenomenological analysis, made significant contributions to, or provided a new or altered conception of the mind-body problem/the hard problem of consciousness.
There is a lot of talk about whether or not phenomenology can be naturalised as well. I'm wondering, how does a negative response here, namely phenomenology cannot be naturalised, align with considerations of the mind-body problem/the hard problem of consciousness? If phenomenology cannot be naturalised, is that equivalent to denying that we can ever have an answer to the hard problem of consciousness?
