4 ms·

I'm a strict materialist in terms of like 'where consciousness comes from', but a strictly "bottom up" model, I think, is the wrong way to think about mind, bec

I'm a strict materialist in terms of like 'where consciousness comes from', but a strictly "bottom up" model, I think, is the wrong way to think about mind, because while yes, mental states are caused by physical changes in the brain, but you can very well reverse it and show that mental states cause physical change in the brain in return. When you learn how to add 2+2, that surely corresponds to physical changes in the brain, but it would be very weird to think about that as the physical changes causing the learning of 2+2, rather than the other way around. In computer terms, while yes, everything that happens in a computer is a result of the physical activity of its components, if you try to understand the activity of the computer while completely ignoring _the code_, you are going to have a very incomplete model of what the computer is doing and what it's going to do in response to changes. The idea of trying to reduce "what psychedelics do" to strictly the action of chemicals causing physical changes in neurons and the pursuit of psychedelics that don't cause a subjective experience seems to very much misunderstand what the mind is. Surely you can cause physical changes in the brain with a chemical change, but it's the subjective experience itself and the mind that drives a _particular beneficial change_. It's like trying to teach someone math without cracking a textbook or something. The fundamental thing the mind does is _learn_, and I don't think that you can learn anything beneficial from the psychedelic experience without the actual, you know, psychedelic experience. For me, the big thing I took away from psychedelics was a new understanding about the nature of how I perceive things and the nature of reality and my place in it. It was like a conscious learning process based on experience. If you take away the experience, what are you learning?

simonh 3y ago
As physicalists there is no bottom up or top down. The mental process of learning 2+2=4 doesn’t cause the physical process or vice versa. They are different ways of talking about the exact same thing. Mental processes don’t ’have Physical effects’, they just flat out are physical processes. So of course ideas and thoughts can ‘cause changes in our bodies’, they are changes in our bodies. Similarly when you talk about computers and software, bear in mind that software is a physical phenomenon. It exists in the computer as a physical pattern of electrical charges in memory circuits. It has physical effects in the system because it is physical.
- handojin 3y ago
  But this is a bit silly surely? If they are different ways of talking about the same thing then one might as well label oneself a 'mentalist' and say "physical processes don't 'have mental effects', they just flat out are mental processes." I think what you're going for is a species of monism maybe? The idea that Thought and Extension are attributes of one Substance? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-attributes/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-attributes/
  - simonh 3y ago
    We’re talking specifically about mental processes. I think we agree that all weather is a physical process, but not all physical processes are weather. Similarly all mental processes are physical, but not all physical processes are mental. Nevertheless it’s not that the physical atmospheric processes create weather as aside effect or product, they are the weather. Similarly mental processes are a class of physical processes. Idealists take the opposite view. They think there are only mental processes and the physical is a class of, or product of mental processes.
altruios 3y ago
That hypothesis is exactly what they are testing though, no? What happens when you take away that experience. So the best way to think about it is to wait and see. I think I generally agree with your prediction, but I think it's because (less than 100% of) the physical changes simply don't taking place when put into a coma... I.E. the conscious process cascades more physical changes.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Are the laws of physics material?

simonh 3y ago

As physicalists there is no bottom up or top down. The mental process of learning 2+2=4 doesn’t cause the physical process or vice versa. They are different ways of talking about the exact same thing. Mental processes don’t ’have Physical effects’, they just flat out are physical processes. So of course ideas and thoughts can ‘cause changes in our bodies’, they are changes in our bodies. Similarly when you talk about computers and software, bear in mind that software is a physical phenomenon. It exists in the computer as a physical pattern of electrical charges in memory circuits. It has physical effects in the system because it is physical.

handojin 3y ago
But this is a bit silly surely? If they are different ways of talking about the same thing then one might as well label oneself a 'mentalist' and say "physical processes don't 'have mental effects', they just flat out are mental processes." I think what you're going for is a species of monism maybe? The idea that Thought and Extension are attributes of one Substance? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-attributes/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-attributes/
- simonh 3y ago
  We’re talking specifically about mental processes. I think we agree that all weather is a physical process, but not all physical processes are weather. Similarly all mental processes are physical, but not all physical processes are mental. Nevertheless it’s not that the physical atmospheric processes create weather as aside effect or product, they are the weather. Similarly mental processes are a class of physical processes. Idealists take the opposite view. They think there are only mental processes and the physical is a class of, or product of mental processes.

altruios 3y ago

That hypothesis is exactly what they are testing though, no? What happens when you take away that experience. So the best way to think about it is to wait and see. I think I generally agree with your prediction, but I think it's because (less than 100% of) the physical changes simply don't taking place when put into a coma... I.E. the conscious process cascades more physical changes.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Are the laws of physics material?