How Do You Solve the Mind-Body Problem?

How do the mind and the body interact with each other?

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[mac]

I took philosophy of mind with J.P. I’m still processing the class….from a decade ago.

[karozans]

Over on IP's channel, he has a video that suggests that the braln is a quantum computer that consists of states of superposition. When the mind makes an observation, the wave function coIIaps3s to form a discrete particle which in turn interacts with other particles of the braln.

Interesting if true.

[Lochaby]

OK, I need more on this contradiction. Is there a podcast episode of his I can reference?

[RobertWard]

How do you solve a mind-body problem like Maria?

[MrFossilabgfyth]

We talked about dualism in my philosophy class. I consider myself a dualist.

[MMAGUY]

November 11, 2022 I had an operation there were complications and a hovered above my body and then went into some kind of void and I heard a voice speak to me that said why did you doubt my love? Why did you doubt my love why did you doubt my love. I know I am not my body. I was experiencing everything outside of my body.

[AustinoM]

I find Dr. Craig's first argument unconvincing. God can interact with physical things because God is existence per se, and of course insofar as something physical is real it exists. Therefore, God can effect physical things not because of some possible causal connection between immaterial substances and physical substances, but rather because God is the very source of that physical thing's existence. God is not an immaterial mind *in the same way* that we are immaterial minds. The mind-body problem is a problem that applies to finite minds such as human minds, but not to the mind of God, which is not *merely* immaterial, but also the ground of existence for all physical things.

Of course if Dr. Craig denies that God is existence per se (or ipsum esse subsistens), then this objection will not give him pause.

[HuxtableK]

Cool, so a bunch of sophistry that doesn't solve the issue. Believing there's a magical substance you cannot demonstrate even exists doesn't solve this problem.

[gglesucks]

I hold to a form of idealism. God is the story teller and what we call "reality" is what God is telling us.

[supermandefender]

It was my understanding that the mind and body problem was only a problem for materialist and naturalists. It arises from the claim that only physical, material, or concrete things exist. This is a reductionist view that attempts define everything as matter & energy (there is no other substance).

So abstract objects and immaterial things do not exist and are mind dependent meaning they do not exist outside of the mind. This of course is problematic and leads to inconsistencies.

1. One inconsistency is that mind dependent things cannot describe or prescribe anything about reality. Consider the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy does not exist and the only role it can play is in the human imagination. However, that is not true for the laws of logic, mathematics, morality, consciousness, and the laws that govern the universe.

2. Another inconsistency is that the human mind and consciousness itself is an abstract object in that it is not a physical object in itself and as I mentioned before such things only exist in the mind and that leads to circular reasoning by trying to explain phenomenon with the phenomenon.

3. Materialist argue that the brain is special in that it uniquely deals with the various functions of our consciousness experiences. The brain processes the information for eye sight, smell, and our other senses. This argument when used to explain how the brian creates consciousness is problematic. One is that it's a circular argument to explain what's so special and unique about the brain, in that it can create consciousness, by pointing to our various consciousness experiences. Another one is that our consciousness experiences (like our moral sense) is an abstract object. If they say such a thing is a physical entity or they're inherent qualities of the universe then they're forced to address the objective reality of such things. Such an admission would be a very uncomfortable positions for the materialist or naturalist.

From the dualist perspective I don't see a mind and body problem. Things like the soul or the conscious mind simply lives in the machine and the thought processes themselves would be an efficient causal connection and not a direct cause. In this way the immaterial soul can remain being its own unique substance and the thoughts themselves can be viewed as commands which would be the information that moves freely throughout the system. What's unique about Information is that it is both material and immaterial so here you would have an indirect causal relation between the two.

[ConservativeMirror]

The title of the video is, How do you solve the mind-body problem. Instead of solving it, Craig merely affirms that a mind created the universe, without saying how. Then he complains that physical interactions are not understand, which is an unrelated topic. Then he complains about philosophical issues in naturalism, which is an unrelated topic. So you didn't solve the mind-body problem.

[williambeckett]

Do people actually buy this jabbering nonsense? He's arguing for the supernatural. May as well be trying to explain why we can't see through fairy glamour. This is arguing for the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. An old man arguing for his favorite sci-fi/fantasty genre to exist in some parallel dimension.

[osks]

So long as Dr Craig persists in proceeding from unaided human reason as his epistemic ‘authority’, he can always ever hope to arrive at ‘reasonable’ conclusions… but ‘reasonable’ by whose standards? He therefore inevitably and unavoidably commits himself onto the slippery slope of epistemological relativism…

[CMVMic]

Firstly, the fine tuning, applicability of mathematics and kalaam cosmological argument fails miserably.

Secondly, we have no good reasons for assuming anthropological dualism.

Third, physical causation is not a mystery.

Fourth, Plantinga's evolutionary argument against the causal closure is a non-sequitur. it is not impossible to affirm both evolution and the causal closure of the physical. Survivability can be based on true occurrences. Determinism is compatible with rationality.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Low Bar Bill, throwing it down once again for all the little kids in the back to see that he genuinely will pull any nonsense out of his behind to excuse away and make-believe the narrative he likes even if there's only a 1 in a million chance of it being true.

[eltonron]

Difference between animal and human. The spirit of God, expressed as mind. Without accepting it is of God, there will never be an explanation for causation. Tis outside the understanding of science and man.