The Mind-Body Problem | Sam Vaknin

Support TOE:

Follow TOE:

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[marcobiagini]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.

Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.

Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).

From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.

Some clarifications.

The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.

Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.

My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.

Marco Biagini

[TheMedWolf]

Finally someone gets Vankin to sit down and make sense with good questions.

[MaxPower-vgvr]

Let's now explore how we can apply logic, math, and physics to formalize the relationship between mind and body in consciousness studies within the monadological framework.

First, let's define our basic entities and relations:

- Let M be the set of all monads (fundamental psychophysical entities).
- Let P be a set of "physical properties" or "material states."
- Let Q be a set of "mental properties" or "conscious experiences."
- Let Φ be a function from M to P, where Φ(m) represents the "physical aspect" or "material embodiment" of monad m.
- Let Ψ be a function from M to Q, where Ψ(m) represents the "mental aspect" or "conscious experience" of monad m.

Now, let's formalize the idea of the relationship between mind and body:

- Dualism: ∀m ∈ M, Φ(m) and Ψ(m) are ontologically distinct and independent.
- Materialism: ∀m ∈ M, Ψ(m) is fully determined by or reducible to Φ(m).
- Idealism: ∀m ∈ M, Φ(m) is fully determined by or reducible to Ψ(m).
- Neutral Monism: ∀m ∈ M, Φ(m) and Ψ(m) are two aspects or manifestations of a single underlying reality.

In other words, dualism posits that the mental and physical aspects of monads are fundamentally separate, materialism posits that the mental aspect is reducible to the physical aspect, idealism posits that the physical aspect is reducible to the mental aspect, and neutral monism posits that both aspects are equally real and irreducible.

We can formalize this further using the mathematical framework of category theory and dual-aspect monism:

- Let C be a category, where the objects are monads and the morphisms are "psychophysical" transformations or interactions.
- Let F : C → P and G : C → Q be functors, where F(m) represents the physical aspect of monad m and G(m) represents the mental aspect of monad m.
- The relationship between mind and body can be expressed as:
- Dualism: F and G are not naturally isomorphic.
- Materialism: G is naturally isomorphic to a subfunctor of F.
- Idealism: F is naturally isomorphic to a subfunctor of G.
- Neutral Monism: F and G are two different representational functors of the same underlying category C.

Here, the different positions on the mind-body problem are formalized in terms of the structural relationships between the functors representing the physical and mental aspects of monads.

Finally, we can connect this to physics and neuroscience by noting that this formalism is compatible with empirical findings on the correlations between brain states and conscious experiences:

- Neuroscientific studies have shown that there are systematic correspondences between specific patterns of neural activity and specific contents of consciousness.
- However, the nature of the causal relationship between brain states and conscious experiences remains an open question, with different philosophical interpretations compatible with the empirical data.

The monadological framework provides a way to integrate these empirical findings with a metaphysical framework that treats both the physical and the mental as equally real and fundamentally interconnected aspects of the same underlying reality.

In summary, by using tools from logic, math (category theory and dual-aspect monism), physics, and neuroscience, we can formalize the relationship between mind and body in consciousness studies within the monadological framework:

- Monads have both physical and mental aspects, which can be studied empirically through physics and neuroscience.
- The relationship between these aspects can be understood in terms of different metaphysical positions, such as dualism, materialism, idealism, and neutral monism.
- The monadological framework provides a way to integrate these metaphysical positions with the empirical findings of neuroscience and physics, by treating both the physical and the mental as equally real and fundamentally interconnected.

This analysis showcases the potential of the monadological framework to provide a comprehensive and nuanced foundation for the study of consciousness, one that bridges the gap between the empirical sciences and the philosophical questions that have long puzzled us about the nature of mind and its place in the physical world. By embracing a both/and approach and drawing on the tools of logic, mathematics, physics, and neuroscience, we can develop a more integrated and satisfying understanding of the mystery of consciousness and its relationship to the fundamental structure of reality.

[JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

N.B. Before reading the following Glossary entry, it is absolutely imperative to understand that the term “mind” is being used according to the definition provided by the ancient Indian philosophical paradigm (in which it is called “manaḥ”, in Sanskrit), and NOT according to the manner in which the term is used in most all other systems (that is, as a broad synonym for “consciousness” – e.g. “The mind-body problem”).


mind:
Although the meaning of “mind” has already been provided in Chapter 05 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, it shall prove beneficial to further clarify that definition here in the Glossary. It is NOT implied that mind is the sum of the actual thoughts, the sensations, the memories, and the abstract images that inhabit the mental element (or the “space”) that those phenomena occupy, but the faculty itself. This mental space has two phases: the potential state (traditionally referred to as the “unconscious mind”), where there are no mental objects present (such as in deep sleep or during profound meditation), and the actualized state (usually referred to as the “conscious mind”), where the aforementioned abstract objects occupy one’s cognition (such as feelings of pain).

Likewise, the intellect and the pseudo-ego are the containers (or the “receptacles”) that hold conceptual thoughts and the sense of self, respectively. It is important to understand that the aforementioned three subsets of consciousness (mind, intellect, and false- ego) are NOT gross, tangible objects. Rather, they are subtle, intangible objects, that is, objects that can be perceived solely by an observant subject. The three subsets of consciousness transpire from certain areas of the brain (a phenomenon known as “strong emergence”), yet, as stated above, are not themselves composed of gross matter. Only a handful of mammal species possess intelligence (that is, abstract, conceptual thought processes), whilst human beings alone have acquired the pseudo-ego (the I- thought, which develops in infancy, following the id stage). Cf. “matter, gross”, “matter, subtle”, “subject”, and “object”.

In the ancient Indian systems of metaphysics known as “Vedānta” and “Sāṃkhya”, mind is considered the sixth sense, although the five so-called “EXTERNAL” senses are, nonetheless, nominally distinguished from the mind, which is called an “INTERNAL” sense. This seems to be quite logical, because, just as the five “outer” senses involve a triad of experience (the perceived, the perception, and the perceiver), so too does the mind comprise a triad of cognition (the known, the knowing, and the knower). See also Chapter 06.

Nota Bene: There is much confusion (to put it EXTREMELY mildly) in both Western philosophy and in the so-called “Eastern” philosophical traditions, between the faculty of mind (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) and the intellect (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit). Therefore, the following example of this distinction ought to help one to understand the difference between the two subtle material elements:

When one observes a movie or television show on the screen of a device that one is holding in one’s hands, one is experiencing auditory, textural, and visual percepts, originating from external objects, which “penetrate” the senses of the body, just as is the case with any other mammal. This is the component of consciousness known as “mind” (at least according to the philosophical terminology of this treatise, which is founded on Vedānta, according to widely-accepted English translations of the Sanskrit terms). However, due to our intelligence, it is possible for we humans (and possibly a couple of other species of mammals, although to a far less-sophisticated degree) to construct conceptual thoughts on top of the purely sensory percepts. E.g. “Hey – look at that silly guy playing in the swimming pool!”, “I wonder what will happen next?”, or “I hate that the murderer has escaped from his prison cell!”. So, although a cat or a dog may be viewing the same movie on the screen of our electronic device, due to its relatively low level of intelligence, it is unable to conceptualize the audio-visual experience in the same manner as a primate, such as we humans.

To provide an even more organic illustration of how the faculty of mind “blends” into the faculty of the intellect, consider the following example: When the feeling of hunger (or to be more precise, appetite) appears in one’s consciousness, that feeling is in the mind. When we have the thought, “I’m hungry”, that is a conceptual idea that is a manifestation of the intellect. So, as a general rule, as animals evolve, they develop an intellectual faculty, in which there is an increasingly greater perception of, or KNOWLEDGE of, the external world (and in the case of at least one species, knowledge of the inner world). In addition to these two faculties of mind and intellect, we humans possess the false-ego (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit). See Chapter 10 of "F.I.S.H" regarding the notion of egoity.

[advaitrahasya]

Interesting parallell with the wave/particle "problem".

I suspect Aristotle's erroneous paradigm underlies both.

If not for that framing, this, the quantum & etc. wouldn't sound so wierd ;)

[OneAmongBillions]

Sam Vaknin communicates with unusual clarity. And Curt Jaimungal's questions point directly where needed. In other videos, a remark from each of them gave me great concern (Vaknin - don't diagnose narcissists, Jaimungal - I cannot remember now), but their analytical command is very impressive and such a healthy model for discussions.

[TimBitts]

Sam's a brilliant guy. Ten years ago he had a video, "Temporary Marriage"....anticipating the current gender crisis.

[Mikeduffey_]

"If there is an internal state we can't discuss it in external terms." I agree with this. But I do think there is an internal world/state/reality

[chrispmar]

There is no mind-body problem, no inside-outside, no I-other. There is no separation in reality, no "I, " "self, " "me." The experience of "me" is a feeling but a feeling that it is a mirage. There's nothing behind or inside of anything because there is no separation anywhere. Reality is always and forever one undivided whole. No word can describe this reality. There is no "God, " or "Pure Consciousness." THIS cannot be put into words. Anything that places THIS into words is an artifice, necessarily creates a duality and a knowing that does not exist.

You cannot say that all is external or internal without having an internal and external that goes aling with it. You cannot say that there is only a external world because to say there is an external world implies that there is it's counterpart, the internal. One half has no meaning without the other. All words imply their opposites. You can't just have one half of an opposition that exists.

And that's the big point of it all. Reality is an undivided whole, and really, of course, NOTHING can ever say in words what THIS is since wholeness, like all words live in an imaginary dualistic reality.

But few will consider the possibility that they never have and never will exist. There is no "me."

[attilaszekeres]

This sounds like a cry for help from someone suffereing from severe mental illness or alexithymia. Only a failed solipsist would try to convince us about our non-existence. He must have read about human feelings, how trauma is supposed to affect the body and all that jazz, but he is so up in his... head that he is devoid of a conventional felt sense, or an internal life beyond mentation.

He started off strong, and I was impressed, but my face fell when he introcuded internal and external as the fundamental dichotomy. It took an ever observant Kurt to give him a hand by suggesting the crux of the issue might be self versus non-self.

If you think about it, mind and body are both "exterior." We use them as tools as we refer to them as our properties: "I lost my mind...", "my body is ready..."

Although he somewhat acknowledges the validity of this sort of framing, he bounces back to explaining the mind-body problem in terms of an external/internal dichotomy. Then, he drops a bombshell, suggesting that there may not be an internal aspect at all, or if there is, we can't know anything about it. It's challenging to be more incoherent than this.

[BabyBobRossJalapeno]

Oh my gosh I can’t wait to watch this. I hope some of my questions made it in there. 💜

[bradmodd]

The "Mind Body" problem has been put into smaller packaging and remarketed as the "Hard" problem. It might be easier this way.

[Shaili-zw]

In Vedas it's written "as above so below", "as inside so outside"....9 planets/ grahas and 27 constellations/ nakshatras govern how we think and act...

[Jimsimi]

We don't know it's meaningless, it's like a ancient person saying; why do you ask why the sky is blue? It'd unknowable why, so it's meaningless to ask. We don't know if there is an answer and deciding it's not worth acknowledging because we don't know how to begin discovering an answer seems to me to be lazy. If that's how you feel, fine, check out of the discussion, but don't suggest it as an answer to the problem.

[mburkit]

It's definitely an interesting take on the mind/body problem. Maybe it is because I'm a psychologist, but if you follow his conceptualize of the question, then my field would be completely pointless. To be fair, I have met many a person that do try to argue that.

[brianhopson]

You should book a debate between Sam and The Little Shaman over the topic of narcissism and today's more modernized "Frued hysteria".

Watch some of the other guests and you'll see how much of a construct "Fruedism" truely is.

[begood]

The arts speak meaningfully about the internal world.

[Jacobk-gr]

Quick simple answer. The body is a vessel, the mind or consciousness or souls is all the stuff that shared with the body aka entangled. Dimensions are measurements and that’s what’s mixing in our head, neurons reflect the measurements and that’s why we can cross the measurements and see a matrix of differences we can expand. Not one thing is everything but paper can reveal the differences like art. We are the paper but so is the brain and that’s where everything/the universe shares the dimensions. We share the body with the universe and the bridge between is the differences. Like how math shows us a number and then a variable shares or entangles in a way and it reveals itself to be changed.

[timothypeden]

An internal world would be what meditators see and that world can be made up of landscapes, images, people from ones life combined with archetypes and other subconscious content one might not be able to fully understand yet without learning about oneself.

If you see a stone in your mind, like quartz, then maybe there's a psychological reason for that and that would be something relavent to your "innerverse". IF you understand what qualia are and how your "quartz qualia" relate to your life, you might make something in your innerverse "known" to you better and then can see it in your external world.

[Zayden.]

The mind is a property of the brain in a living animal, to help understand and navigate the physical world.