John Page

Hi Ian!

Irreducably private.... not exactly otherwise we wouldn;t be able to share this notion. I can prick my self with a pin, you can prick yourself with a pin, we can share descriptions of our sensations and agree we shall call this pain. Furthermore, experiments can be conducted that show the path of stimuli that cause the sensation of pain is common to most humans (some, due to brain development disorders apparently do not experience pain).

Yes, we can infer the mental state that induces the sensation of pain. I agree that we cannot literally partake in that sensation of pain (except through intersubjective experience as I have just described) but then nobody seems surprised that we cannot literally partake in the experience of being a rock or a bat, either.

The reason I responded was the start of the sentence "This is quite unlike the neural activity...". On what basis do you conclude this? If certain neural activity results in the sensation of pain, how can you say "unlike"?

I would like to suggest the following picture:

a) Everything up to and including the point of creating the conditions that cause the sensation of pain are represented by the symbol P.
b) The parts of us that interpret this particular sensation as pain is p1.

In this picture, we separate the subject and object within a human being. Now we can debate what pain is in terms of sensations fed to that part of us that "feels" the pain. The part of us that feels the pain, as already noted in other posts in this thread, can be deceived (as in psychosomatic pain). Referred pain is another example.

In short, while I don't have one, I propose that there must be description of the neuronal states that cause a normal observer to feel pain.

Cheers, John

Carl Treetop

Interesting hypothesis, Ian. But I don’t think it holds up.

Your TV analogy is not actually analagous. Television sendng and receiving equipment is merely transporting sights and sounds from many miles away to within a few feet of people for processing by their brains. The same or similar processing would take place if people observed the source directly in the TV studio.

Also, the brain does not create "our rich mental lives" by itself - in a vacuum, so to speak. It takes considerable experience/stimulation from the outside world before internal rich mental experiences are possible.

People operate according the pleasure/pain principle. Every decision is made directly or indirectly, based on the need to avoid pain and/or increase security, satisfaction or pleasure. In other words, every decision is intimately connected to our physicality. Furthermore, our brains are not just "lumps of matter," but extremely complex systems. The fact that brain injuries, stokes, abnormalities such as schizophenia, etc. can have such profound effects on consciousness pretty well suggests that the brain does generate consciousness. No brain, no consciousness.

Nowhere357

So a subjective experience is objective? That is contradiction, and identifies that you are arguing in circles.

I did say that. And it is not wrong. The possibility exists that some electron flow is CAUSED by the mental state. To state that psychosomatic pain is 100% caused by electron flow is unsupported assertion.

You still miss the point. I have demonstrated that there exists another valid viewpoint, and that idea is unrefuted. This viewpoint is in addition to the POV you state here. The viewpoint are not in conflict. Also, cause and effect between mental states and body states is unestablished.

This begs the question. You are arguing in circles.

I claim free will exists on EXPERIENTIAL grounds, and this is not in conflict with materialism.

Again, pain exists, and is not objective, so your position is in contradiction to itself.

Free will appears to be deterministic from the objective POV. It also appears to the subjective POV to allow us to make decisions. Both POV's are valid, I have demonstrated this, and stand unrefuted.

Free will is alive and well.

Nowhere357

The mental states of an individual are the only thing in the entire realm of scientific study, which is inaccessible to the exploring scientist, using the scientific method. The scientist can access ONLY his own mental states, and NEVER the mental states of anyone or anything else. This is unlike any other phenomenae, and cannot be disregarded.

This identifies the subjective viewpoint as valid and necessary to the investigation of mind.

John, is it your position that mental states do not affect body states?

John Page

Demonstrably untrue! Through experimentation, measurement and first hand reports/reflexes we can scientifically chart the mental states of individuals.

To say mental states are inaccesible is rather like saying even though we have the math to calculate the trajectory of a rock we have no idea whether the rock will follow that trajectory. I'm not an expert be I've seen papers on testing children with deficient hearing - a notoriously difficult area for experimentation because the child can "act up" as well as having communication difficulties in the first place. For example, it can be determined whether the child is actually (consciously) hearing something. This is different than physical actuation of the ear and even the transmission of impulses along the auditory nerve (which itself could be damaged etc.)

I agree that the mental state of a person is not directly accessible - i.e. you are not that person, but then neither are you a rock - maybe there are spiritual demons inside propelling it along.

I don't think it has been ignored - see above.
No, it is not. Mental states are body states so the question is moot.

Cheers, John

Treacle Worshipper

Hi Ian,
I have been thinking about this (hence the long delay in replying), but most of what I was thinking has been covered by John Page and Carl Treetop (thanks guys ).

The one thing I want to add, is that a TV won't work at all unless it is plugged in; a person unfamiliar with one might think the pictures, etc, are coming through the cable, rather than being received by the antenna.

I don't see that humans have any sort of independent power source or receiving equpiment. And I think we would need both if there is a non-physical part of us.

Or possibly I've totally misunderstood your point...

TW

Anna Karenina

Free Will is an illusion, but it still exists.

It is like a cloud. We can see it and think it is there, but when we look closely then we realise that it is not what we thought it was.

John Page

Greetings Anna, welcome to the forum. Another blighty member I see. Did you know we also have Madame Bovary? How are the dark satanic mills?

Cheers, John

Anna Karenina

Thanks.

I haven't checked that Madame Bovary...

I am coming from the darkness...

Nowhere357

John, our mental states are accessible only to the individual experiencing the mental state. You said yourself that "I agree that we cannot literally partake in that sensation of pain...".

My point is valid, and is not "demonstrably untrue".

Access to the effects of mental states, is NOT the same as access to the mental states themselves.

Pain is more than a neuron firing, or this or that chemical. We can't look at pain under a microscope. It's really not that difficult, John.

Yes, thanks to the feedback between mental states and the brain!

There is nothing controversial about the existence of mental states. Your comment here is equivelent to saying that brains don't exist - only bodies. So the question is not moot.

John, the fact that free will appears to be deterministically caused, does not preclude the fact that free will appears to subjectively real. It would be nice if we could get past this simple point and start to explore what the existence of free will means.

Peace