A difficult puzzle..

There is no difference. Mind is what brain does. All the organs have their functions. Livers are vast chemical processors. Lungs are gas transport engines. Brains are mind makers.

Emotions are just an ordinary electro-physio-chemical event. We can even see them using PET scanners.

So why are you arguing for a supernatural explanation when one is not warranted?

What would lead you to imagine they are different?

Really?

Wrong.

Watching neurons fire on a brain scan is just as direct a perspective as experiencing the emotion. It is simply a third person experience rather than a first person experience.

That is the only difference.

But both are experiencing the identical event.

 

The mechanisms behind emotions and feelings.

You can't predict the result of a coin toss but the physics involved is understood. It's the difference between understanding the principals but not being able to measure all the relevant factors in the heat of the moment.

You're still not willing to consider the option that feelings and emotions are only conceptual, simply how we describe our internal perceptions of the physical processes within the brain?

I'm not clear on which aspect of feelings and emotions can't be explained by existing understanding of physical laws? They're a result of the electrical and chemical processes in the brain.

We don't have the technical ability to accurately observe and measure the process in detail but all the principals are understood and make rational sense in relation to observed evidence.

 

Let's get something ironed out.

Are you limiting everything that exists in reality, to be mathematical (i.e. a quantity, set or space)?

 

That has to be ironed out first; does everything that exists in reality (not just this universe, but reality itself), have to be purely mathematical (i.e. composed entirely of sets, quantities, mathematical formulas and space)?

Obviously one would have to have a limited mental fluidity of concepts, to think that only mathematical things are possible, such as the purely mathematical theories of physics.

 

I am a philosophical materialist.

I limit everything in the universe to matter, energy, and the natural laws that describe their operation and interaction. If that is the same thing as your odd construction of "quantity, set or space" then yes.

 

Emotions are obviously not quantities, sets, equations nor space, intrinsically. Therefore they are not intrinsically mathematical.

 

Sigh... a poorly disguised slur is nonetheless a slur. You should be ashamed.

It does not matter what I can or cannot believe. It does not matter what you can or cannot believe. All that matters is what you can defend with evidence.

If "only mathematical things are possible" it has nothing to do with any limitations on anybody's "mental fluidity of concepts." It has to do with what is or is not objectively true.

PS. "Mental fluidity of concepts" is as close to a nonsense phrase as I have read all day.

 

Once somebody begins to assert something is "obvious" I start checking for my wallet. It is an appeal to intuition in the absence of reason.

Emotions are ordinary electro-physio-chemical events in the brain. As such they can absolutely be described using quantities, sets, and equations.

This is a bald assertion for which you have no evidence.

In contrast, I have evidence like this:

Were your position correct, studies like this would not be possible.

 

It wasn't a slur, in fact I'd say all humans are very conceptually limited. A rabbit cannot conceptualize mathematical equations or concepts such as "supply and demand" and the difference between a teleologic and mechanistic theory (those are just 3 random examples of concepts which the minds of rabbits probably can't conceptualize, that humans can).

What about a creature that has the same relative intelligence to a human, as a human does to a rabbit? Maybe if such creatures existed, they'd blast our current models of this universe (the theories of physics) to shreds with much deeper, non-mathematical or maybe partly mathematical models.

How so? There are many different sorts of concepts, mathematical, spatial, language based, and probably an infinity of possible concepts. How many concepts one's mind is able to conceptualize, would be their fluidity of concepts, would it not?

Humans for example, have much more conceptual fluidity than a cow.

 

Why is it that just because certain physical events always coincide with feelings etc., that feelings must be, intrinsically, purely mathematical in nature?

Even if emotions etc. are physical in nature, they aren't predictable by the current accepted theories of physics. The only reason why we're even aware of the existence of feelings is because we feel them, NOT because of any physical theory predicting them.

If we never felt feelings, then we'd be aware of neuronal firing etc., but we would not be aware of feelings. Thus these studies indicating neuronal firing in certain conditions, would be totally irrelevant, if we didn't feel feelings. We'd again only be aware of the neuronal firing, not feelings.

These studies use terms such as "sympathy", "emotions", "pain", "pleasure" etc., but those would be entirely meaningless and the existence of them would be unknowable, if it weren't for feeling them for ourselves.

 

Because everything else is and there is no reason to believe that feelings are not?

Your entire argument seems to be based on what you feel, not what actually happens. Feeling based arguments are rarely accurate.

The problems with predicting minds are purely practical ones. We can't build a computer strong enough to keep track of all the neurons, we can't go through an entire brain to configure the computer before the brain in question dies. The processes in our brain are fairly simple in themselves, basic electric signals, but there is a ton of them, we can't handle the sheer amount.

I might have missed something in the previous discussion, but why does not feeling emotions imply that we know something else?

It's like rust. Things rust. People have known that things rust for a long time. That doesn't mean they understood the processes behind it until they had a close enough look.

Emotions are, if nothing else, patterns and processes. You can identify the pattern of an emotion even if you can't look close enough to understand its inner workings.

 

¿?

I don't know the perspective of ecltrocahmical powers in my brain. I know indeed nearly nothing about what my brain is doing in the moment - while I know nearly everything what my hands are doing. The reason: I'm able to watch my hands while I'm not able to watch my brain.

I could sleep in a starship on his way to Andromeda and I could dream that you are telling me something for example. What do we know really about reallity?

I don't have any idea what a neuronal pattern is.

Panta rei. I never made the same experience a second time.

Why?

Sounds in my ears only like nonsense. The structure of a piece of paper and the color of the pen has nearly nothing to do with the story of a book.

Aha

machine men - machine heart - machine mind. Sounds not good! I prefer sentences like: "Die Liebe ist eine Himmelsmacht" oh sorry - Translation: "Love is a might of heaven." Hopefully it’s a good translation - I'm not good in foreign languages.

Sounds very mystic. "Circumstances+Stimuli create patterns".

One moment: Can it be you are explaining to me that human beings are thinking? Sure we are thinking. We are mindworkers in a similiar way how we are handworkers.

Please - stop now. If you like to tell me darwinstic (biological) laws are forcing people to love each other then I have to laugh very loud and sarcastic.

Hmm - Karl Marx said once "I'm not a Marxist" - said Darwin maybe also somehtign like "I'm not a Darwinist"?

no comment - answer would need to much time now

¿Are you sure?

A demon would be in your view on the brain someone who is manipulating neuronal patterns. So a demon could force for example someone to fall in love with someone else by manipulating neuronal pattern - whatever this could be and however this could work.

I nearly never use the expression “supernatural” - I always use instead the expression "metaphysic". In a liberary the books behind physics are meta-physics. And in my eyes nearly everything in the human way of life has to do with metaphysics and only very little has to do with physics. Mathematics is for me for example a kind of metaphysics - and without mathematics physicis as a science would be a joke only. So I don’t see the point what’s your problem with "supernatural" phenomenons. If I remember well then already Augustinus spoke about that physical wonders are completly natural and we are only missing the knowledge how to explain this wonders. Today for example someone could say "It's a wonder that I met the right person in the right moment ..." and I would not know what this could have to do with existing or not existing neuronal patterns. Life is wonderful - every day - that's fortunatelly very normal.

http://youtu.be/W9uT39TsChc

 

There's no way to know that at all. To know that, you'd have to claim that you not only have the ability to comprehend, but have observed or indirectly observed for yourself, everything in existence?? Clearly you can't.

Even if they are physical, that doesn't imply that they are mathematical; current accepted theories of physics would have to go much deeper in order to account for the non-mathematical phenomena of feelings.

It's..based on the premise that feelings are (obviously) not mathematical. Yet, all current accepted theories of physics are purely mathematical.

lol you don't understand the problem; even if a computer (that had similar design to current ones) could predict every single physical and biological event in the universe, down to every atom, subatomic particle and perhaps string (if string theory is correct) in the entire universe, it wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what "feelings" are, unless it felt them. It would still be as blind to feelings as an insect is to the concept of "dark matter", because it wouldn't have the ability to comprehend such things. Yet, it'd be able to predict every particle interaction in the universe. But it wouldn't have the slightest hint as to the existence of "feelings", because it couldn't feel them.

But rust and chemistry is model-able by quantities, sets, and space (by virtue of the fact that it's modelable by atomic interactions, which can be modeled by quantum mechanics, which in turn is a mathematical theory based on quantities, sets and space).

Feelings are not. Not in the slightest. You can never write down an equation that a computer could read, and then have that computer be able to have the slightest idea that "feelings" (that you or I feel) even exist.

Very true! But they are not modelable by mathematical models, and every accepted theory of physics is purely mathematical.

 

While I do believe that thought is rooted in the brain, there isn't any particular way to distinguish between thought originating in the brain and the brain acting as a bridge between the body and a soul. Damage to the brain, or artificial stimulus, would produce the same results in both cases. My belief that the brain is the root of all thought stems mainly from the complete lack of evidence for ephemeral selves.

For a broad definition of 'physical' certainly.

No. Emotions and pain are electrochemical reactions in the nervous system. Emotions are much more subtle than pain, which is relatively easy to detect as signals on nerves.

Assumption A is true, Assumption B is not.

Yes.

No.

There is no such thing as something supernatural. If it exists, it clearly isn't outside of nature.

 

This is where I went wrong with my OP. I really meant "mathematical", rather than (vaguely) "physical".

But emotions and pain (the intangible sensations and feelings themselves, rather than the physical processes which "cause" said intangible sensations and feelings) are not intrinsically mathematical, are they?

Whereas all currently accepted theories of physics are intrinsically mathematical; even quantum mechanics and general relativity, are all about quantitative equations, sets, and space. (And time as well, but that is modeled as a quantity).

I used the terms "physical" and "supernatural" in vague ways; I should have outright said that I was talking about mathematical things, which the intangible sensations of emotions, pain etc., are not. Yet all currently accepted theories of physics are purely mathematical.

 

You assert this, but I have seen compelling evidence favoring thought as a physical process, and none yet favoring thought as a nonphysical process. The fact that we can artificially stimulate particular emotions--or prevent people from feeling others--through purely physical means seems like rather conclusive proof that thought is based on physical processes.

You see, the evidence doesn't just show that the chemicals and signals occur after thought... they show that artificially providing those chemicals and signals can provoke the thoughts. At some point merely stating that correlation does not equal causation does not make a credible counter-argument. When there is a sound theory supported by a preponderance of evidence, as there is for thought being rooted in physical processes in the brain, you are going to have to do better than that.

The fact is that there is no evidence in favor of thought-as-ephemeral-process and tons in favor of thought as a physical process. It's not just one correlation in one study, it's multiple correlations in multiple studies of different subjects.

They have the mass of the electrons and chemicals that represent them in the brain. This is a trivial mass, but still existent.

 

Well, physical =/= cold, meaningless, mathematics, which is what all currently accepted theories of physics are. My assertion is that these purely mathematical theories are correct in what they describe, but only part of, rather than the entirety of, reality, or even this universe particularly.

"Represent"?

If A is intrinsically the same as B, then A cannot merely "represent" B.

If electrons and atoms are intrinsically emotions, then electrons and atoms cannot merely "represent" emotions.

 

No, I admit that I can't and don't know everything, but I find it unreasonable to assume the opposite when we at least have no other example of unphysical stuff.

It's not a mathematical or logical proof, but it's a good enough reason to not get worked up over it.

Do you have any other example of physical things that are not mathematical? My argument of what emotions are make them very complex, and thus, might seem random or not based in reality, but they are dependent only on physical things that act with our understanding of maths, logic and physics.

Saying that something is "obviously" something does not make it so. What do you mean by not mathematical? I've never said it's maths you understand or could understand, but even so, all our actions come from signals from your brain. Those signals are made in your brain in an understood manner. They are created in the way they are because of the patterns of the neurons and chemicals in your brain. Those patterns in their turn depend on previous experiences and the like.

And this again brings us back to what we mean by "experiencing an emotion". Human minds have taught itself to understand emotions, not because it understands them or that they would exist on a similarly non-physical plane as our brain, but because we experience them a lot. Our body produces chemicals and signals in our brain to deal with certain situations. Our minds are conceptual constructs which interpret them in certain ways. Minds do that. It's an evolutionary (or design, if you bend that way) feature. Robots do not.

I don't see how there is a limit on this concerning emotions. We can simulate neurons. Given enough practical conditions, there should be no problem to model them.

Computers don't understand anything. You can model a completely physical system in a computer. It will tell you what happens, but it doesn't understand it. It will still simulate a feeling, just as it manages to simulate a physical system just fine. It might even be able to identify the feeling in question.

This also begs the question, what are emotions? What if feelings are actually ginger bread in our brains and we just interpret them incorrectly?

If a feeling is a pattern governed by physical laws, as I propose, it's very possible to model it.

You speak of your interpretation of a feeling, which I say is just a pattern, just as I say your mind is just a pattern too.

If there was anything more to emotions than physical stuff, there would have to be some connection between the real world (what causes your emotion and possibly what your emotion causes) and your mindspace where your emotion exists. This connection would be a bigger breakthrough than the entire field of particle physics and for no particular reason, with only material you find in your brain. While technically possible, I'll just stick to my version which completely explains everything we do using the materials we know we have to our disposal, and nothing weird.

But, you used the word "obviously", and that seems to be your strongest argument.

 

Well then something being physical, apparently, =/= being cold hard mathematical (quantities, sets, equations and space), considering that feelings are not mathematical.

Who knows? We can't even comprehend much of anything that exists in reality, I propose, because our minds are only capable of finite intelligence, yet concepts and reality are infinite.

Let alone observe everything in reality, or even this universe.

So it's useless to say "yes" or "no" to "is there any other example of anything in the universe", unless you ask God, if he exists (I'm extremely skeptical of that, but that's another topic).

They must be based in reality because they exist. They must exist, otherwise we wouldn't experience them. Unless we all live in some kind of matrix where everything is an illusion/simulation, or otherwise, that this reality is not as it appears. If that's true, then the laws of physics that we accept, and neurology, are totally useless, so it wouldn't help any arguments on either "side".

There's no way to know this, whatsoever. We are limited by the (possibly illusory) physical senses that we have, and our VERY limited ability to conceptualize and model reality.

Also, feelings are absolutely not intrinsically mathematical.

And even if they are physical, it's insane to assume that everything physical necessarily = mathematical, because reality itself, which would include this universe, does not consist merely of mathematical concepts. That's the backbone of my entire message.

Mathematically model neurons, the brain, and everything else chemical and atomic?

Yes.

Feelings?

Hell no.

That is the bottom line; the real issue.

 

Nothing is "intrinsically mathematical". Maths is just one of the tools we use to categorise, measure and ultimately understand the universe. Anything can, theoretically at least, have mathematical principals applied to it to aid in understanding it. The only limitations are our ability to observe and measure all the relevant factors.

Why not? If feelings are a direct result of the electrical and chemical processes in the brain (and there is nothing to suggest that they're not) and we could, in principal, accurately measure these processes, we would be able to measure the results of them - the feelings experienced by the individual.

Maybe weather forecasting is a good example of the same issue. Meteorologist have a very good understanding of the various factors that influence the weather (temperature, pressure etc). These things can be (and are) all monitored and measured and mathematical models are created to predict the weather in the future. Weather is a weird and wonderful thing though with so many delicate, interrelated factors involved so we don't have the practical ability to predict it with complete accuracy. That doesn't mean the whole thing can't be following the physical laws as we understand them though.

 

Math is intrinsically mathematical.

Space, time, and atoms are mathematical. You can directly model them with general relativity and quantum mechanics, which are mathematical.

Feelings, on the other hand, are intangible things which, so far, are only even known because we experience them, not because we directly observe or model them with mathematics or anything else. If you never experienced feelings, you wouldn't know what people were even talking about when they said "feelings are the result of these physical phenomena". That's..a rather relevant point.

If A results from B, does that mean A is identical to B?

No, of course not. That's the entire logical flaw that underlies this whole topic. Actually no, it's not the only huge logical flaw. The other logical flaw is ignoring the fact that we wouldn't even know of feelings if we hadn't experienced them, even if we could directly observe every single quantum mechanical system in the universe simultaneously.

Weather is model-able by mathematics. Neurons and the brain are model-able by mathematics.

Feelings are not.

 

It is fascinating that in the effort to assert that human conception is limited, you ended up demonstrating that truth only for rabbits. It reminds me of what Nietzsche wrote:

"'I cannot fathom it. Therefore it is unfathomable.' All fish talk like that."

Of course when he wrote it it was intended as mockery. You on the other hand actually are proposing it as a serious argument. But it's not an argument at all. It is an intellectual punt.

Individual humans may be more or less conceptually limited. This too is an artifact of their mental machinery. But I for one have no reason to believe that anything true is inconceivable to humans. The history of our species is hardly a testament to any such limitation.

All fascinating speculation. It is always sad though when speculation is used as an attempt to truncate a discussion rather than extend it. I choose not to play.

No. "Fluidity" does not seem to have anything to do with it. It is a profoundly clumsy formulation that does not seem to communicate anything useful. Perhaps you should try to be less cute. Use ordinary language, like "intelligence."

And cows produce more methane. We all have our qualitative differences. Only some of them are meaningful.

 

Because we have no evidence that they are anything other than purely physical phenomena, and vast amounts of evidence that they are. It is just that simple.

What does that even mean? "Predictable" in what way? Further more, the only reason we are even aware of the existence of anything is because we "feel" (read: perceive) them. We use the same mental machinery to see the sun and feel its heat that we use to feel anger, love or fear. If you imagine you are making a distinction here, you would be in error.

Need I point out that if we never felt them, that would mean they would not be feelings at all? There is certainly mental activity that is of a different class and affect than emotions and feeling. So of course we classify them as different things.

Yes... if something did not exist, we would likely be unaware of its existence. You have my full (even if dismissive) agreement on that issue.

Yes, if things were not as they actually are, then things would not be as they actually are. Your argument here is perfectly tautologous.

Again, yes, if things were not as they actually are, then things would not be as they actually are.

Are you ready to get back now to how things actually are?

 

LOL!! That's what YOU are doing by saying "there can't be any non-mathematically-describe-able-physical explanations for anything in this universe"!!!

I contend not only that there can be, but that there probably are, things in this very universe that cannot be modeled mathematically. Such as feelings.

"Intelligence" isn't what I meant; it's more broad, and definitely more fuzzy and subjective, than conceptual fluidity.

 

The only thing that anyone has ever been able to give strong evidence for, is that feelings are the result of certain physical interactions, nothing more.

If A is the result of B, does that mean A is identical to B??????!!?!?!

No..no, it does not.

The sun is model-able by mathematical theories. Feelings are not. They are intangible intrinsically.

Again, neurons firing etc. are B. Feelings themselves are A. Even if A is purely the result of B, that doesn't help out the case that A is identical to B. That applies for anything, logically, not just this case.