Neutral Monism

[Diane]

Tonight I was reading in Ramachandran's A Brief Tour, and saw this: My own philosophical position about consciousness accords with the view proposed by the first Reith lecturer, Bertrand Russel, that there is no separate "mind stuff" and "physical stuff" in the universe: the two are one and the same. (The formal term for this is neutral monism.) Perhaps mind and matter are like the two sides of a Mobius strip that appear different but are in fact the same.

Apparently William James was a neutral monist, Barrett.. There are lots of hits about this idea or position, but most sites are either brief to the point of not really saying much, or encyclopaedic (which I may or may not get around to reading..) Anyone have any links or juicy comments about neutral monism? I think I may be one.. I like Mobius strips.. :secret:

[nari]

Spinoza seems to think along those lines too.

I had a long google through neutral monism and got lost in all the philosophical debates. Otherwise, nothing that leapt out at me. However it was proposed by an Italian guy back in the 17th century. Bet he copped a caning from the contemporaries.

Nari

[bernard]

Nari,
Just begin with this "short" one :embarasse
"Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" (http://consc.net/papers/facing.html)

ps: I planned to make a pdf version of these exchanges.

Here is the first paper

[bernard]

and some of the replies

Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness (http://consc.net/papers/moving.html)

[nari]

Thanks, Bernard

Are you trying to turn me into a philosopher? ;) Some of this stuff is as hard as deciphering the stats of the month. ;)

I might be quite a good one.....I'm told I talk in circles with no conclusions.
Maybe I should aim to be an eccentric, centripetal philosopher.

Nari

[bernard]

Nari,

You turned already in philosophy, many years ago. :lightbulb

[nari]

Bernard, you didn't know me many years ago...;)

Maybe you're right...


Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

Several sources regarding this problem come to mind. In no particular order:

William E. Lee III in Skeptic Vol. 8 No.1 2000; his essay "The Heat of the Soul-Thermodynamics and the Mind/Body Problem": “(This is) a classic philosophical enigma. If one accepts that the immaterial mind and the material body are separate but interacting entities, a series of difficult questions arise regarding how they interact…in the 400 years since Decartes the study of the brain has led to the generally accepted belief that “mind” is nothing more than a pattern of neuronal firing… (And) no investigations have provided valid data that proves the existence of the immaterial mind.”

Numerous arguments are then made regarding the measurement and requirements of energy flow from the “mind” to the body. Reading this, you can only conclude that the mind doesn’t exist simply because its existence would have been detected long ago by using measurements well within the realm of modern day science.

A chapter in The Volitional Brain – Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will written by David L. Wilson; “Mind-Brain Interaction and Violation of Physical Laws” makes much the same case. Quote: It is concluded that violations of fundamental physical laws, such as energy conservation, would occur were a non-physical mind able to influence brain and behavior.

In Into the Silent Land – Travels in Neuropsychology Paul Broks speaks of his discomfort at being unable to articulate what he means by “the mind” of his patients. He understands how important it is for him to hang onto the concept though. He speaks of “the illusion of others” that we all possess: “Irresistibly we see the vision of minds in the light of other people’s eyes. Cosmologies come and go, but if this vision begins to fade then so does the observer.”

To me, this is an almost scary thought.

So, if the mind doesn’t actually exist why do we sense it so firmly, why do we who know better depend upon this illusion in order to function in this world? Libet in Mind Time – The Temporal Factor in Consciousness says something very significant: “Why subjective experience emerges from appropriate neuronal activities may be no more answerable than similar questions about other fundamental phenomena. That is, why does mass have inertia? Why do masses exhibit gravitational attraction? Why does matter behave both in wave-like and quantal fashions? Fundamental physical phenomena are not reducible or explainable. We simply accept these as “given” in the nature of things. We can only study how these manifestations affect, interact and control what goes on in the physical world.”

I really like that

Finally there is our unmistakable respect for the “size” and significance of our own minds, put most eloquently by Emily Dikinson:

The brain is wider than the sky
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include,
With ease, and you, beside.

[nari]

For those who simply do not have enought to read, here is a good site:

http://sci-con.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleld=66.

Also some reviews of interesting books on the subject of mind etc.

If the articles get too heavy, look at 61 optical illusions and visual phenomena on the left side. It's a lot more than a bit of trivial fun....

Nari