To what extent can the immaterial affect the material?

[QED]

In the topic titled When God knows a soul goes to hell..

Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to quantum mechanics. It's possible that the uncertainty principle can be more generalized with some yet undiscovered theory, however the uncertainty principle is a theorem in the theory of operators, a derivation of the Cramer-Rao inequality, derivation of the Fourier transform on general locally compact groups, formulation for Fourier integral operators on manifolds, along with other deep mathematical concepts. So, I would argue that the uncertainty principle points to some kind of platonic structure that has deep mathematical significance. Given its importance in explaining the virtual particles, Casimir effect, Hawking radiation, etc., I think we have good reason to believe that the immaterial affects the material.

I think this is a really tricky issue. For example, love can be considered to be immaterial and it can evidently affect material things through the actions of those in love. But then I'd argue that love is a signal riding on a material medium (the neural nets within our brains). I have often stated that wherever we look we find software to be supervenient on hardware. I am unaware of any evidence for pure Information that exists without a supporting material structure anywhere in the cosmos.

The question I wish to put here is how are we to know for sure that a platonic view is justified when all we might be doing is to default to this assumption simply because we lack a complete understanding of some phenomenon or other that we are studying. It seems to me that while Physics lacks a Grand Unification Theory we do not know if the laws we are observing represent restrictions of degrees of freedom imposed by some as yet undiscovered, underlying, material framework. The analogy that I like to use is the tracing-out of the image of a penny coin beneath a sheet of paper by rubbing over it with a pencil. If we never saw behind the paper, the impression might seem to comes to us from nowhere.

This topic covers the related issue of prescriptive vs descriptive laws and can serve to host debates that frequently go off-topic in other threads.

[harvey1]

I don't believe that there's any kind of a separate "self", for which the brain creates stuff. I'd say that the chemical processes inside the brain (and the rest of the nervous system, and the sensory organs, etc.), are the "self". It experiences 3D world stuff through eyes, ears, etc.; when the 3D world stuff (photons, air molecules, etc.) hits the neurons in these organs, the resulting chemical reaction sets off a chain of electrochemical events that amounts to changes in the self.
In other words, there's no holodeck, there's only the ship. Er. Or something.

Okay, you agree though that the self (i.e., "biochemical structures composing the brain") experiences a 3D world that matches the world pretty well by utilizing incoming signals from the external world (e.g., photons, air molecules, etc.). Now, would you say that we form beliefs (i.e., additional "biochemical structures composing the brain") based on the 3D world image that has been experienced by the self (i.e., "biochemical structures composing the brain")?

[Bugmaster]

Okay, you agree though that the self (i.e., "biochemical structures composing the brain") experiences a 3D world that matches the world pretty well by utilizing incoming signals from the external world (e.g., photons, air molecules, etc.). Now, would you say that we form beliefs (i.e., additional "biochemical structures composing the brain") based on the 3D world image that has been experienced by the self (i.e., "biochemical structures composing the brain")?

Again, I don't think that there's any kind of a "3D image" that has an independent existence of the self ("biochemical structures composing the brain"). In my worldview, the process goes something like this:

Code: Select all

Incoming photons --> [ Nervous System ] ---O---> Motor functions (behavior)
                             ^             |
                             |             |
                             +-------------+ 
                               (modifies)         

What you're asking assumes something like this:

Code: Select all

                                +-----------------------------------+
                                |                                   |
                                |                                   V
Incoming photons --> [ Nervous System ] --> [3D Image] --> [Self] --O--> Behavior 
                                ^                             | 
                                |                             |
                                +-----------------------------+
                                             (modifies) 

Ok, so I'm a lousy ASCII artist, but I think you see my point. I don't think that this "3D image" actually has an independent existence.

[harvey1]

BM,

Thanks for the drawing. However, your drawing didn't show how a 3D world and sense of self emerges within the nervous system. Are you saying that you don't experience a 3D world? Are you saying that you don't experience a sense of self?

[Bugmaster]

However, your drawing didn't show how a 3D world and sense of self emerges within the nervous system...

Right, because I don't actually believe that there's a holographic 3D model of the world in my head somewhere. What I experience is not a 1:1 3D model of the world at all -- it's just a very loose model of the immediate features of the world, as perceived through my fleshy organs. I obviously do experience a sense of self, but I don't believe that it has an independent Platonic existence.

[harvey1]

However, your drawing didn't show how a 3D world and sense of self emerges within the nervous system...

Right, because I don't actually believe that there's a holographic 3D model of the world in my head somewhere. What I experience is not a 1:1 3D model of the world at all -- it's just a very loose model of the immediate features of the world, as perceived through my fleshy organs. I obviously do experience a sense of self, but I don't believe that it has an independent Platonic existence.

What I mean is that your drawing implies that humans are zombies that process bytes of information one bit at a time. You also didn't show what a belief is. For example, is a belief a behavior? Is it a particular structure in the brain that is the same for every human being on the planet? So, for example, if I believe that it takes 7 hours to fly from Chicago to Paris, then what is this in terms of its physical correlate to the brain? If we dissected every human who believes this, would it always be the same neurons that are organized exactly the same from brain to brain? Would there be beliefs that depend on 3D images? Would there be beliefs that depend on a sense of self acting in a 3D world? Can the neural basis of self change its neural basis of beliefs based on something it learned about itself (i.e., a more true belief of the "self")?

[Bugmaster]

What I mean is that your drawing implies that humans are zombies that process bytes of information one bit at a time.

Whoa ! Where did I say that ? Even modern hard drives process data in parallel, you know. Humans actually process individual pieces of data (i.e., neural firings) much slower than hard drives (chemistry is slower than electronics), but they do so with a massive degree of parallelism which no modern computer can match -- yet. I bet Google is getting close, though.

For example, is a belief a behavior?

No, it's an internal chemical state of the brain that leads to certain behaviors.

Is it a particular structure in the brain that is the same for every human being on the planet? ... If we dissected every human who believes this, would it always be the same neurons that are organized exactly the same from brain to brain?

No, probably not the same neurons; human brains are not mass-produced, and thus each one is slightly different. Similarly, if you opened two web browsers on two different computers, you'd see different electrical configurations inside of these computers, even if the browsers are both browsing the same Web page.

Would there be beliefs that depend on 3D images?

What do you mean by "3D images" ?

Can the neural basis of self change its neural basis of beliefs based on something it learned about itself (i.e., a more true belief of the "self")?

I'm not sure if it makes sense to apply truth or falsehood to "self", since there's no canonical self against which to compare it. However, as my diagram indicates, it is quite possible for the neural basis of the self to change the neural basis of beliefs and vice versa, since all of these things are just a way for us to describe neural configurations inside the brain.

What's even more interesting (yet disturbing) is the fact that it's possible to change the "self" entirely through drugs, torture, speech, and other purely physical stimuli; this process is called "brainwashing".

[harvey1]

No, [a belief is] an internal chemical state of the brain that leads to certain behaviors... brains are not mass-produced, and thus each one is slightly different...

Okay, let's say that neurological structure N1 in person A produces the same belief as neurological structure N2 does for person B. Further, assume that A's N1 is not equivalent to B's N2 in terms of location and phenomenology of the neurological structure. Is it possible for A and B to have the same belief, or since these are two different structures they cannot have the same belief, even in principle?

[Bugmaster]

Is it possible for A and B to have the same belief, or since these are two different structures they cannot have the same belief, even in principle?

The answer to this question is "mu", since it presupposes that the belief exists independently of A and B, and thus they can share it (or, lack the ability to share it). In reality, all I can say is that A and B have neurological structures in their brains that make them act in very similar ways when confronted with a certain cituation (such as a question, "what do you believe about X ?"), and that make them modify their future behaviors in very similar ways.

Yes, I realize that the above sentence tells you nothing about the thoughts and feelings that A and B experience inside their heads. The problem is that these thoughts and feelings are not directly observable, by anyone other than A or B themselves. Hence the manner of my response.

[harvey1]

In reality, all I can say is that A and B have neurological structures in their brains that make them act in very similar ways when confronted with a certain cituation (such as a question, "what do you believe about X ?"), and that make them modify their future behaviors in very similar ways.

Yikes, we're getting back into your behaviorism which is not a valid theory of science. Let me consider how to respond to your view which doesn't entail getting into a debate on behaviorism.