Felt Presence

[Sriram]

Maybe not the same thing, per se, but they are all aspects of the same thing.  Mind being the subjective aspect of the brain and consciousness being a constituent of mind.

You are talking as though you actually understand objectively as to what mind and consciousness are.

[splashscuba]

You are talking as though you actually understand objectively as to what mind and consciousness are.

IMHO the brain is the wetware, mind is simply an emergent property of the brain and encompasses things like things like our behavour, perception, internal word. Consciousness is just a state of that mind.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As this thread is in the Science board, are we taking the philosophical view that we need to use the tools of science to argue for or against, e.g. an epistemological naturalist perspective (knowledge is best/ (only)? gained via the methods of science/ natural science?.

We have seen arguments that the mind is an emergent property of a complex structure - the brain - and the mind cannot be reduced to physicality in itself. Where the mind relates to subjective experiences, how is it possible for science/ methods of natural science to observe, define or prove anyone's subjective experiences?

Gordon's thread looked into this issue; http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=20013.0

 i.e. that a human mind cannot observe/ know the subjective experience of being a bat.

This discussion between 2 bioethicists,  Alex McKeown and David Lawrence, on defining 'mind' and what we mean by the term 'body' (whatever supposedly enables human cognition) and whether the body has much to do with the function of the mind is interesting.

For example, Lawrence seems to suggest that for there to be a mind the brain requires information and information is an ontologically separate fundamental property of the universe. The idea that there is information that we are aware of and our mind processes subjectively but the subjective outcome is something we cannot convey to others, makes sense to me.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354462653_Does_a_mind_need_a_body

Not sure how scientific methods would deal with this inability to convey subjective experience. Subjective experience is clearly a very important part of being human and impacts on human interaction and socialisation so not surprising that conventions and rules around incorporating subjectivity into society are up for discussion and debate.

 

[Dicky Underpants]

But there could be other worlds and other people close to us in 'parallel universes' who might be able to access us during moments of stress.

Cheers.

Sriram

King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table were perceived as a protective force by soldiers going off to the 1st or 2nd World War. Maybe they exist in a parallel universe, even though it has been proved they had no historical existence - in fact were a literary invention, dating from hundreds of years after the time King Arthur was supposed to have lived.

[Sriram]

People believe in many such things when they are in trouble or in need of support. It could be their own dead mother or father or friend or Jesus or Krishna or anyone like that. King Arthur and his knights is rather strange ....but whatever floats their boat, I suppose!

'Felt presence' is not the same . It is not a belief or something that the person voluntarily chooses to have as support.  It is the feeling of a presence that the person does not expect. It happens spontaneously. 

[torridon]

It is not uncommon to have peceptions of things that aren't there or aren't real.  It is the subconscious mind 'filling in'. 

There is an unused picture hook on my bedroom wall and when I stare at it in the morning lying in my bed, it starts to move, up, down, left, right, sometimes slow, sometimes quickly.  There seems to be no rationale for its apparent movement.  It seems my subconscious mind has decided it must be an insect and fills in a crawling behaviour for it.

'Felt presence' is likely just such a phenomenon of mind.

[ekim]

'Felt presence' is likely just such a phenomenon of mind.

.. or maybe a change in dopamine levels.

[SteveH]

No, it is the reasonable thing to do, given that is what all the scientific evidence points to.

If all our mental experiences, including our beliefs and reasonings, are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in the brain, an organ that evolved not to enable us to discover the truth but to aid our survival (and bear in mind that some beliefs mght be false but have survival value), what grounds do we have for accepting the reasooning that led us to that conclusion?

[torridon]

If all our mental experiences, including our beliefs and reasonings, are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in the brain, an organ that evolved not to enable us to discover the truth but to aid our survival (and bear in mind that some beliefs mght be false but have survival value), what grounds do we have for accepting the reasooning that led us to that conclusion?

Cognitive science reveals that experience is a product of mind.  That brains evolved in accordance with Darwinian principles is not sufficient reason to ignore the findings of science.  You could even caricature science as our best efforts to find the truth about the world by making a concerted effort to bypass the inherent biases that evolution has endowed us with.

[Sriram]

Cognitive science reveals that experience is a product of mind.  That brains evolved in accordance with Darwinian principles is not sufficient reason to ignore the findings of science.  You could even caricature science as our best efforts to find the truth about the world by making a concerted effort to bypass the inherent biases that evolution has endowed us with.

How can we bypass the attributes developed through evolution and still hope to survive and evolve?  Is that why we are racing towards extinction? 

[Sebastian Toe]

Is that why we are racing towards extinction?

Not a problem surely, as we will be reincarnated and start again!

[torridon]

How can we bypass the attributes developed through evolution and still hope to survive and evolve?  Is that why we are racing towards extinction?

We try to bypass the biases that evolutionary processes have left us with.  That doesn't mean we try to bypass all our attributes.

[Sriram]

We try to bypass the biases that evolutionary processes have left us with.  That doesn't mean we try to bypass all our attributes.

Attributing all such (felt presence) complex phenomena to evolution amounts to attributing agency and intelligence to evolution.  Mere random variations and NS  cannot explain such phenomena.

[torridon]

Attributing all such (felt presence) complex phenomena to evolution amounts to attributing agency and intelligence to evolution.  Mere random variations and NS  cannot explain such phenomena.

Incorrect.  Attributing agency to an insentient process is classic case of agent detection, a cognitive bias.

[Sriram]

Incorrect.  Attributing agency to an insentient process is classic case of agent detection, a cognitive bias.

But that's what you are doing...

[torridon]

But that's what you are doing...

Nope.  It is your claim that evolution is intelligent, or guided.  Not mine.  I'm happy to observe that it is an insentient process with no guiding hand.

[Sriram]

The way you claim that evolution does this and that in terms of changing its mechanisms to suit the survival and reproduction of organisms, implies that evolution has intent, intelligence and agency. Plasticity and epigenetics cannot arise within evolutionary processes purely through random variations and natural selection. Objectives of survival and reproduction are clear.

[torridon]

The way you claim that evolution does this and that in terms of changing its mechanisms to suit the survival and reproduction of organisms, implies that evolution has intent, intelligence and agency. Plasticity and epigenetics cannot arise within evolutionary processes purely through random variations and natural selection. Objectives of survival and reproduction are clear.

It's all in your mind Sriram. 

An insentient process cannot plan ahead or have objectives.  Natural selection produces the superficial appearance of design but it is a category error to read that as intentional design.  Isn't it cool that we have teeth in our mouth in exactly the right place for munching food, surely that means we were designed ?  Well no, there is a sufficient explanation for mouths with teeth in the observation that having well placed hard mineralised structures to grind up food allows for better digestion which allows for better survival rates  which means that creatures with teeth have better reproduction rates than toothless rivals.  It all comes down to differential survival rates and 'well designed' variations will always do better than those that are not so well 'designed'.

[Sriram]

It doesn't just give the superficial appearance of design....it is deliberately designed through plasticity to suit the environmental conditions.... This is a fact.

This implies intent, objective and intelligent response.

Natural Selection is a metaphor for such deliberate adaptations.....used when people did not know that such responsive adaptations were possible.   

[torridon]

It doesn't just give the superficial appearance of design....it is deliberately designed through plasticity to suit the environmental conditions.... This is a fact.

This claim is not a 'fact', it is just your claim.  There is no evidence to suggest actual intentional design going on.  The Omicron variant outcompeted the Delta variant of Sars-Cov-2, therefore it must have been designed, right ?  This is all your argument boils down to, and it has no merit.

[Sriram]

By design...I don't mean a God designing everything. I mean that there is an intelligent response from the organism to the environment. It is not random variations.

[Maeght]

By design...I don't mean a God designing everything. I mean that there is an intelligent response from the organism to the environment. It is not random variations.

So organisms apply their knowledge to make changes to themselves in response to the environment they are in?

[torridon]

By design...I don't mean a God designing everything. I mean that there is an intelligent response from the organism to the environment. It is not random variations.

This is just the same flawed argument as design.  Evolution is an algorithm that produces produces apparent 'designs' for living organisms.  The entropy gradient delivers countless numbers of potential designs for life, and the most viable variants will tend to proliferate at the expense of less fit variations.  This process produces 'designs' that seem fit for purpose.  Likewise with apparent 'intelligence of response'; just as an organism's body plan may have been honed over countless thousands of generations, so also have their behaviours.  A flower that displays heliotropism may look like its doing something smart, responding dynamically to the position of the Sun in the sky, but it is not because there is intelligence in the flower figuring this behaviour out, it is just that flowers that do this have gained a survival and reproductive advantage from it and so the behaviour is conserved.

[Sriram]

So organisms apply their knowledge to make changes to themselves in response to the environment they are in?

Never heard of plasticity Maeght?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity

***********

Phenotypic plasticity refers to some of the changes in an organism's behavior, morphology and physiology in response to a unique environment.[1][2] Fundamental to the way in which organisms cope with environmental variation, phenotypic plasticity encompasses all types of environmentally induced changes (e.g. morphological, physiological, behavioural, phenological) that may or may not be permanent throughout an individual's lifespan.

The special case when differences in environment induce discrete phenotypes is termed polyphenism.

***********

Never seen chameleons?!

[Maeght]

Never heard of plasticity Maeght?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity

***********

Phenotypic plasticity refers to some of the changes in an organism's behavior, morphology and physiology in response to a unique environment.[1][2] Fundamental to the way in which organisms cope with environmental variation, phenotypic plasticity encompasses all types of environmentally induced changes (e.g. morphological, physiological, behavioural, phenological) that may or may not be permanent throughout an individual's lifespan.

The special case when differences in environment induce discrete phenotypes is termed polyphenism.

***********

Never seen chameleons?!

Yes. What I was asking about was the term intelligence when it comes to plasticity. I wanted to know your position on this and am interested to hear from others on this as not studied it particularly.