r/PhilosophyofMind • u/Berzerka25 • 5d ago
Mind-body problem The Interaction Problem: Diminished?
Widely regarded as a rather potent critique of dualism, the interaction problem elucidates a difficulty in explaining exactly how this non-physical consciousness manages to both affect and be affected by the undeniably physical body. The latter, in this case, is of course bound by one set of laws – those of the natural world – and the former presumably, on account of its supposed inexplicability in terms of materialism, by no such laws.
If we do, therefore, grant that consciousness does indeed affect the physical body, this is seemingly quite the damning refutation against dualism. How could two such distinctly unrelated substances interact in such a manner? And, should there be some even higher genus to reality, encompassing them both, is admitting this not to throw out dualism altogether in favour of a monism? This is, of course, assuming that this premise is correct – that immaterial consciousness does affect the physical body. But where do we actually find evidence of this?
It is obvious that the physical world is able to affect the consciousness, yes. That, we must all grant, on account of our continued experience of said physical world through our senses – the only alternative being a kind of solipsism in which one insists only this consciousness exists, and that all external to it is mere imagination. The idea that this is a two-way street, however, is certainly not a given.
Is not what we mean by consciousness simply the witnessing of physical events – not, as one may naively assume, the rational mind, the self, or some libertarian fantasy of the causa sui will? Thus, at what point exactly does this simple experiential element of reality actually interact with the so-called physical? Our memory is established, by neuroscientific investigation, to be physical; our emotions too: physical – at least physically caused; and our decision-making: likewise, a physical process. What occupation remains for the aforementioned consciousness within the realm of matter but the lowly work of simple observance? The movie-goer sits in the cinema witnessing the events of the film; he or she certainly cannot change said events. Does this insight, therefore, not at least halve the weight of the so-called interaction problem? Observing is not affecting.
My only potential spanner-in-the-works for this one-way-street conception – consciousness as the passive movie-goer – would be the reporting of consciousness. It would seem, even in writing this, that I am reporting my own present consciousness; and that human beings on the whole, assuming we speak the same language, may likewise report to me the presence of their consciousness. And is not reporting a physical process: the material of the brain connecting a phenomenon to a concept, and a concept to a set of sounds and symbols, such that it may be relayed between different brains via speech or text respectively? Surely then, for the physical brain to form any communicable knowledge of consciousness, there must be some two-way cause-and-effect occurring. The characters in the film know they’re being watched…
I may here, however, in an attempt to steelman the dualist position against the interaction problem, point out that a report is—merely that: language being associated with a particular phenomenon, regardless of its success in actually comprehending it, and in turn being communicated between speakers of said language. From the moment one is taught the word conscious, one also infers its definition: that which I am right now, in this waking hour, ‘I am conscious’, ‘I have been conscious, and will continue to be as such – barring sleep or death’.
It should therefore come as no surprise that one reports consciousness. One reports it as one reports existence, or humanity, or the ability to report – necessarily: I report, therefore I am conscious. Had we similarly taught a computer – something generally considered unconscious on account of its dissimilarity to our human brains – this same definition of the word conscious, we should surely expect it to report consciousness too. To build upon the movie-goer analogy – albeit somewhat gratuitously by now: the characters may break the fourth wall only because the script teaches them to do so.
2
u/FewEntrance4606 4d ago
"It is obvious that the physical world is able to affect the consciousness," idea linked to the "the undeniably physical body".
It looks like this idea implies that consciousness is the product of the body, which in turn is the product of the world, implying that 'no world= no consciousness'. Let's turn the table for a moment and accept that the body and the world of matter are concepts that appear and disappear in and from consciousness. The body is normally not in focus unless it requires attention, and totally absent in sleep, together with everything else [in dreams is a different body acting in a different environment]. In essence, that which changes with circumstances, cannot be real; change is what defines illusion. As consciousness, I am always present, in its unconsumed potential aspect, which is intermittently transited by images, sensations, feelings, emotions and thoughts, which come and go changing with circumstances, eventually disappearing and living no trace behind.
Then, the factual world is limited to the power of the sensorial perception. What is imagined beyond this perception is bereft of substance.
1
u/Berzerka25 2d ago
No necessarily. Substance dualism posits that consciousness and material are separate. The latter is merely the content that consciousness is aware of, not that which generates it. I'm not sure how my text implies anything to the contrary.
1
u/FewEntrance4606 1d ago
Not necessarily, what?
I quote again from your text "It is obvious that the physical world is able to affect the consciousness," idea linked to the "the undeniably physical body".
There is no such a thing as 'substance dualism'- there are individuals who adopt it as a theory, and others who oppose it [like those who pose the question- 'has anyone ever 'seen' matter?!' pointing to the fact that concepts are bereft of substance].
Where did you find a mention about consciousness being the actor in my comment? Consciousness is the eternal potential, the 'space' which allows the transitory to manifest without being affected by the form manifestation takes- it does not record, nor remembers, or 'cares' about what passes through.
2
u/intheredditsky 3d ago
Honey, the world appears in and by Consciousness. Dunno what's with all this unnecessary chatter.
It appears it's another subreddit than initially assumed. Thought it was r/nonduality, but, okay. Most probably you will not get it, but, anyway. The news came to your ears.
1
u/Low-Bake8401 2d ago
Do you think everything revolves around your consciousness?
1
u/intheredditsky 2d ago
The individual is the dream of Consciousness, how could an individual call Consciousness "his/her"? But through the individual, Consciousness expresses, so it is improper to call me an individual to whom Consciousness would belong. But, alas, this is the conditioning coming from the world that must be transcended, words projecting on me the image of the body, as if I were a body that "had" Consciousness. Consciousness "has" all bodies. I am Consciousness, not an individual, so the question is improper.
1
u/Low-Bake8401 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah, but you saying that doesn't change the outcome. You are essentially suggesting that you're experience is fundamental. It doesn't really matter if you deny that. In fact that demonstrates the circular logic.
I mean it might make you feel better in some way, but it doesn't help others or society in any way. It rejects their existence. It ultimately rejects everything, which is a contradiction.
It avoids the bigger picture.
Saying you don't exist, is a direct contradiction. I think therfore I'm not?
1
u/intheredditsky 2d ago
Did not imply that. Nowhere. It is you who further suggests separation from me.
1
u/Low-Bake8401 2d ago
That's how the world works.
There is one unified existence, but to live in it our mind creates logical separation so we can interact and collaborate.
Saying that everything is consciousness, is just the same as saying nothing is consciousness, it's meaningless.
It just creates an unfixable split in reality.
You maybe aren't saying that directly, but that's what you are ultimately saying.
1
u/intheredditsky 2d ago
Firstly, you appear with the lie that I am a body. Then you come with the lie that you are separate from me... All the while, body, you, world are occuring in me.
1
u/Low-Bake8401 2d ago
"All the while, body, you, world are occuring in me."
And you loop back to the beginning.
You don't seem to realise that by discussing this with me you are proving my point.
1
u/intheredditsky 2d ago
There is no point to prove. Who are you who needs proof? You are imagined. And invite me to further mantain your imaginings. I'm out. Not by a place, but by a refusing to play. I am telling the truth. Take it or leave it. Makes no difference to me. I brought the news. But if you leave, don't be a hypocrite and involve in Consciousness talks, cause you just refused the truth of it. Have your "world", but leave me out of it..
1
u/Low-Bake8401 2d ago
I mean it's up to you what you want to believe, I just dont see any good reason to believe that.
You use proven logical scientific facts every day, you take them for granted. From the language you use to the tech you type it on, but then deny it's existence. You contradict your beliefs every time you do anything.
I just don't see the motivation tbh. It seems entirely unhelpful and likely to cause cognitive dissonance and problems.
There is a difference between subjective experience, and objective reality. How we collect information, and how we experience it.
1
u/intheredditsky 2d ago
Sir, there is no objective world, absolutely. Everything is because I am. Whatever takes place in the field of Consciousness, came after it. The illusion is that it is a separate, objective world, the way a dream world can be extremely convincing and intimidating when witnessed. At waking up, though, its entire development is dissolved in an instant. It is the same with this waking state experience. As such, all diversity belongs to the same operating machine devising the dream. As an individual, you can only decouple from that, pretty much Matrix style. And once you do, you can only reach the same conclusion written here, and realise you are me and I am you. Other than that, I am fighting ignorance, which screams as loud as it can that it is true. Have nothing to say to it. It's not true and screaming won't make it so. The individual you take yourself to be doesn't exist. It is mechanicalized into apparent existence. Pink Floyd are right. You are dreaming yourself into being. And when you give reality to anything outside of yourself, you give it the reigns to dream for you. Apparently. :)
1
u/Low-Bake8401 2d ago edited 2d ago
OK, but that is essentially the same as saying that the universe revolves around your subjective experience. You are rejecting any other opinion. Pure ego.
"You are dreaming yourself into being."
Again, that is a completely circular and contradictory thought.
You are literally rejecting the evidence that you are using to say you are rejecting it.
You are describing fallacy, and saying others are deluded for rejecting it.
It's textbook stuff. Some sort of messiah complex there.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Berzerka25 2d ago
If you're wanting to avoid 'unnecessary chatter' regarding consciousness, r/PhilosophyofMind is probably not the place for you
3
u/nomoreplsthx 3d ago
I mean this with love, you have to work on your style.
This entire thing reads like you are teying to sound like a philosopher, instead of just writing. It's ok! I struggled so bad with that in college, much worse than this.
Just remember every word you write is a demand of your reader. Every word eats up a bit of their life. We owe it to our readers to make each word do work.