Enduring Problems in Philosophy

Granted, this doesn't take into account the possibility of someone with the same circumstances and (relevant) genetics making different choices, but given how complex both are, such people would be hard to find.

Would identical twins brought up in the same circumstances and living in similar socio-economic and cultural backgrounds have exactly the same moral character?

Suppose they're in France at the time of the German occupation, and both are faced with the choice of hiding Jews in their attics. Can you rationally claim that both will necessarily make the same choice?

And if you cannot claim that both will necessarily make the same choice, then what is left unexplained? Isn't that the immutability of free will?
 
I think often, people confuse free will with moral obligation. Two people with similar backgrounds (siblings) may have similar ingrained morals and values, yet make completely different life choices. Think of two siblings that individually become parents. They may parent similarly, or one may choose to abuse their children due to factors which influence choice. Free will doesn't negate external factors from influencing it. However, those external factors don't supersede 'free will'; they only expound on the possibility of a lack of moral obligation as justification contingent on free will.
 
I have a lot of thoughts on this, but I've been trying to structure them into Te organization in order to better communicate them. I will answer this when I'm done pulling my thoughts out lol. It sounds more painful than it is. :sweatsmile: I just want to answer your questions as thoughtfully as I can.

Ps: Inspired by my thread? I'm honored to return the compliment, since you give me this gift (even unknowingly) every time we speak. : )

I certainly look forward to your thoughts. :)

ree will doesn't negate external factors from influencing it. However, those external factors don't supersede 'free will'; they only expound on the possibility of a lack of moral obligation as justification contingent on free will.

I agree with this. You're on a roll, Lore!
 
Hey @Ren

Thanks for having a look. I am presently (and temporarily) unable to respond with any depth, however just one thought.

What of my conclusion that free will cannot be an axiom?
 
Last edited:
 
Hey @Ren

Thanks for having a look. I am presently (and temporarily) unable to respond with any depth, however just one thought.

What of my conclusion that free will cannot be an axiom?

Sorry o2b, I hadn’t seen your post.

Your argument about free will not possibly being a moral axiom is interesting. I’ll comment on it at more length when I have a bit more energy; I got vaccinated earlier and I’m feeling a bit knocked out :m170:
 
Sorry o2b, I hadn’t seen your post.

Your argument about free will not possibly being a moral axiom is interesting. I’ll comment on it at more length when I have a bit more energy; I got vaccinated earlier and I’m feeling a bit knocked out :m170:
No worries, Ren - and thanks!
 
I was inspired by @Anomaly's thread on Interpersonal questions to introduce a new philosophical problem that may be of interest.

What is the nature of pain? Is it physiological? Is it mental/psychological? Is it both?

Would we experience pain in the same way if we didn't have a mind?
Okay, I'm finally ready to answer this. I apologize in advance for how wordy this is. I got excited in my spiral of research and ramblings. If you read this (and the attached notes in further detail), well, then you are a saint. haha. :sweatsmile:

Pain is multifaceted. It is both experiential and emotional. Pain is a natural defense mechanism which warns the body about potential injuries, threats, diseases. It alerts the individual that protective actions must be taken. 'Fight or Flight' response is also common.

There are physiological processes which occur when we experience pain; specifically, 2 distinct pathways in processing via the spinal cord to the brain.

This process is also psychological considering the psychosomatic aspects. The latter is just now being researched in studies by Dartmouth, U. of Michigan, U. of Melbourne, U. of Colorado, etc. -- as there has been a neurological pathway overlap discovered in how emotional pain is processed similar to physical pain. Furthermore, there is work that was conducted by the late Dr. John Sarno, regarding experience of emotional pain, and how it corresponds to chronic pain disorders in the body. A lot of his work found that external stress or anxiety can manifest as referred pain in other parts of the body as the brain tries to make sense of it. Wherein someone experiences unprocessed past traumas as pain or tension in their lower back, or tightness in their chest, for example.

I will outline the physiological processes first, as I find biology highly intriguing, and love the way the body conducts a series of fail-safes just in case we need to protect ourselves. haha. I will explain the psychosomatic correlations after, and then answer your last question as a hypothetical, once I've gone through how we actually experience physical/emotional pain and what the body does to respond. For the sake of not being too verbose, I will do my best to explain these pathways as concisely as possible. However, I will add my additional notes in an attachment for the more technical aspects of these processes, pain phenomena, and further research, should anyone care to read them.


First, imagine you are stabbed in the abdomen by a sharp object. There are a number of things your body will do quickly in response (there are 2 pathways Ascending and Descending to process the pain information and regulate it).

3 types of pain:

Somatic Pain: Pain from injury to the skin, muscles, or joints.

Visceral Pain: Pain from internal organs. Often experienced in a different location- a phenomenon known as ‘referred pain’. This is due to the convergence of the pathways in the spinal cord at certain levels. The brain does its best to make an assumption of location based on the number of receptors which are stimulated. (Ex: Heart attack -> felt in shoulder, left arm, or back instead of in the chest where the heart is actually located.)

Psychosomatic Pain: Pain from emotional or mental states. This pain is processed similarly to physical pain, and will often manifest in physiological forms (new studies suggest an overlap of brain processing).

How the brain processes pain:

Nociception- a biological process, and part of the nervous system’s protective response to harmful or potentially harmful stimuli. This response travels two distinct pathways.

-Ascending Pathway: Responsible for transmitting the pain signal up to the brain for processing. Sensors in specialized nerve endings detect mechanical, chemical, or thermal threats. If enough sensors are activated, electrical signals ascend up the nerve to the spine, via the spinothalamic tract and into the Thalamus, then carried further into other regions of the brain. The brain ‘weighs’ the importance of these signals, localizes the source of pain, and produces pain sensation if it decides the body needs protection.

-Descending Pathway: Responsible for controlling and inhibiting the ascending pathway. The brain sends signals to the brainstem, which stimulates the production of serotonin and adrenaline as inhibitors to the electrical signals and chemical processes (limiting production of the chemicals released in cell-inflammation or death). It also signals an interneuron to create endogenous opioids to inhibit the processing of the information of the pain, and to prohibit the synapses of the neurons within the spinal cord. Thus, the pain information is lessened, and the brain is able to process more clearly how to proceed.

Psychosomatic Pain: (often referred to as ‘mind-body connection’)

-Pain which is experienced first in the mind, and then in the body. Physical pain has sensory, cognitive, emotional, and social elements, rather than a unitary phenomenon analogous to nociception. Emotional and physical pain are linked in brain processing.

-Due to the social aspect of human behaviors and experiences, and given that we are social creatures, when we face emotional traumas, social rejection, heartbreak, loss, loneliness, or fear; often, the processing of these emotions psychologically can lead to physiological pain, referred pain, or chronic pain (pain lasting more than 3 months).

-Often, there is a psychological cause when there are no physical reasons for the experiencing of pain. This is evident in those with anxiety, stress, or recall of trauma. The body reacts physiologically, increasing heart rate, constricting blood flow (muscle aches, headaches), etc.


Would we experience pain in the same way if we didn't have a mind?

There are several ways I can answer this given the context of the question. If you mean brain when you say mind, then no.

However, If you mean cognitive processing when you say mind, then I'd say if we didn't have cognitive processing, we'd experience pain only in the physiological processing of it-- likely mechanical as a means of survival (the 2 pathways might exist, but the brain would lack capability to process, adapt, or regulate). Regarding psychological pain, if we didn't have a 'mind', then we'd likely be incapable of being affected by social-emotional pain or traumas. We'd experience them, but have no means to process them, to create defense mechanisms (other than opioid production), or to work through them.

Now, if you mean "would we all individually experience pain in the same way", then I'd still say no. The brain is adept at receiving pain information. We'd still have people who get pricked with a needle who jump 5 feet in agony, and those who barely flinch. The physiological processes would be similar, but perhaps the adaptations, defense mechanisms, or regulation might not be possible without a mind. Given the studies on pain and personality, they indicate that pain is subjective due to numerous factors which influence it (I've added a section about that in my notes attached).

What do you think, Ren?
 

Attachments

"The logical weakness of the ontological argument is so obvious that it even requires psychological explanation to show how a mind like Anselm's could advance such an argument."

A very damning assessment of Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God! Anyone wants to guess who said the above? You might be surprised...
 
Okay, I'm finally ready to answer this. I apologize in advance for how wordy this is. I got excited in my spiral of research and ramblings. If you read this (and the attached notes in further detail), well, then you are a saint. haha. :sweatsmile:

Pain is multifaceted. It is both experiential and emotional. Pain is a natural defense mechanism which warns the body about potential injuries, threats, diseases. It alerts the individual that protective actions must be taken. 'Fight or Flight' response is also common.

There are physiological processes which occur when we experience pain; specifically, 2 distinct pathways in processing via the spinal cord to the brain.

This process is also psychological considering the psychosomatic aspects. The latter is just now being researched in studies by Dartmouth, U. of Michigan, U. of Melbourne, U. of Colorado, etc. -- as there has been a neurological pathway overlap discovered in how emotional pain is processed similar to physical pain. Furthermore, there is work that was conducted by the late Dr. John Sarno, regarding experience of emotional pain, and how it corresponds to chronic pain disorders in the body. A lot of his work found that external stress or anxiety can manifest as referred pain in other parts of the body as the brain tries to make sense of it. Wherein someone experiences unprocessed past traumas as pain or tension in their lower back, or tightness in their chest, for example.

I will outline the physiological processes first, as I find biology highly intriguing, and love the way the body conducts a series of fail-safes just in case we need to protect ourselves. haha. I will explain the psychosomatic correlations after, and then answer your last question as a hypothetical, once I've gone through how we actually experience physical/emotional pain and what the body does to respond. For the sake of not being too verbose, I will do my best to explain these pathways as concisely as possible. However, I will add my additional notes in an attachment for the more technical aspects of these processes, pain phenomena, and further research, should anyone care to read them.


First, imagine you are stabbed in the abdomen by a sharp object. There are a number of things your body will do quickly in response (there are 2 pathways Ascending and Descending to process the pain information and regulate it).

3 types of pain:

Somatic Pain: Pain from injury to the skin, muscles, or joints.

Visceral Pain: Pain from internal organs. Often experienced in a different location- a phenomenon known as ‘referred pain’. This is due to the convergence of the pathways in the spinal cord at certain levels. The brain does its best to make an assumption of location based on the number of receptors which are stimulated. (Ex: Heart attack -> felt in shoulder, left arm, or back instead of in the chest where the heart is actually located.)

Psychosomatic Pain: Pain from emotional or mental states. This pain is processed similarly to physical pain, and will often manifest in physiological forms (new studies suggest an overlap of brain processing).

How the brain processes pain:

Nociception- a biological process, and part of the nervous system’s protective response to harmful or potentially harmful stimuli. This response travels two distinct pathways.

-Ascending Pathway: Responsible for transmitting the pain signal up to the brain for processing. Sensors in specialized nerve endings detect mechanical, chemical, or thermal threats. If enough sensors are activated, electrical signals ascend up the nerve to the spine, via the spinothalamic tract and into the Thalamus, then carried further into other regions of the brain. The brain ‘weighs’ the importance of these signals, localizes the source of pain, and produces pain sensation if it decides the body needs protection.

-Descending Pathway: Responsible for controlling and inhibiting the ascending pathway. The brain sends signals to the brainstem, which stimulates the production of serotonin and adrenaline as inhibitors to the electrical signals and chemical processes (limiting production of the chemicals released in cell-inflammation or death). It also signals an interneuron to create endogenous opioids to inhibit the processing of the information of the pain, and to prohibit the synapses of the neurons within the spinal cord. Thus, the pain information is lessened, and the brain is able to process more clearly how to proceed.

Psychosomatic Pain: (often referred to as ‘mind-body connection’)

-Pain which is experienced first in the mind, and then in the body. Physical pain has sensory, cognitive, emotional, and social elements, rather than a unitary phenomenon analogous to nociception. Emotional and physical pain are linked in brain processing.

-Due to the social aspect of human behaviors and experiences, and given that we are social creatures, when we face emotional traumas, social rejection, heartbreak, loss, loneliness, or fear; often, the processing of these emotions psychologically can lead to physiological pain, referred pain, or chronic pain (pain lasting more than 3 months).

-Often, there is a psychological cause when there are no physical reasons for the experiencing of pain. This is evident in those with anxiety, stress, or recall of trauma. The body reacts physiologically, increasing heart rate, constricting blood flow (muscle aches, headaches), etc.


Would we experience pain in the same way if we didn't have a mind?

There are several ways I can answer this given the context of the question. If you mean brain when you say mind, then no.

However, If you mean cognitive processing when you say mind, then I'd say if we didn't have cognitive processing, we'd experience pain only in the physiological processing of it-- likely mechanical as a means of survival (the 2 pathways might exist, but the brain would lack capability to process, adapt, or regulate). Regarding psychological pain, if we didn't have a 'mind', then we'd likely be incapable of being affected by social-emotional pain or traumas. We'd experience them, but have no means to process them, to create defense mechanisms (other than opioid production), or to work through them.

Now, if you mean "would we all individually experience pain in the same way", then I'd still say no. The brain is adept at receiving pain information. We'd still have people who get pricked with a needle who jump 5 feet in agony, and those who barely flinch. The physiological processes would be similar, but perhaps the adaptations, defense mechanisms, or regulation might not be possible without a mind. Given the studies on pain and personality, they indicate that pain is subjective due to numerous factors which influence it (I've added a section about that in my notes attached).

What do you think, Ren?

This is a rich and detailed post, Lore, and I'm excited by the prospect of diving into it and responding in like detail. I hope others will do so, too.

I feel like there is potential for a really fruitful discussion.
 
I have zero background in philosophy, but I am a pretty strong critical thinker.

Of course, I have passionately given thought to gospel theory concepts and I am sure there is overlap between this and philosophy.

I have to do up my thoughts on free will.

YESS!!! I completely agree!!! I see how they must considering philosophy is defined by morals, I just don’t want anyone to feel left out, so I understand how this forum has had some issues with it. It CAN get dogmatic and that’s the last thing I would want to do, so I’m sorry if it anything I said offended you.
 
"The logical weakness of the ontological argument is so obvious that it even requires psychological explanation to show how a mind like Anselm's could advance such an argument."

A very damning assessment of Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God! Anyone wants to guess who said the above? You might be surprised...

I don’t think there’s a way to prove or disprove it. It depends on the person and what they choose to believe. We all lose our faith every once in a while, but we also have choice. I’ve chosen to remain silent about a lot of things for a long time, I’d hate to see anyone feel that way too. Granted, I’d hate to see anyone disregard their belief systems as well and I see how that is a process in itself where a and b not being a replacement of parts but renewal on a constant.
 
I don’t think there’s a way to prove or disprove it. It depends on the person and what they choose to believe. We all lose our faith every once in a while, but we also have choice. I’ve chosen to remain silent about a lot of things for a long time, I’d hate to see anyone feel that way too. Granted, I’d hate to see anyone disregard their belief systems as well and I see how that is a process in itself where a and b not being a replacement of parts but renewal on a constant.

I agree with you. I don't think it makes sense to try to prove the existence of God logically. It is a matter of faith and faith alone, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, the quote about Anselm's argument is from none other than Carl Jung!
 
"The logical weakness of the ontological argument is so obvious that it even requires psychological explanation to show how a mind like Anselm's could advance such an argument."

A very damning assessment of Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God! Anyone wants to guess who said the above? You might be surprised...
I prefer a different sort of logic myself - which is that whatever is possible is mandatory. This is a far simpler assumption than that some possible things exist and others do not and so by Occam's razor ......

There is third possibility, which is nothing, but a simple observation demonstrates that at least something is there so this is not possible.

The existence of God follows as long as this is possible.

PS Jung is remarkable in his omnivorous appetite for knowledge isn't he?
 
I agree that there is nothing necessarily dualistic about software, of course. I'm happy to consider the possibility that it is higher-level/emergent from hardware, or something along those lines.

But Descartes wasn't really talking about software. In 'mind' he included qualia, free will, and so on -- properties that don't fit neatly within the concept we have of 'software'.

Which is why present-day monist philosophers struggle a great deal with qualia and free will, among other things, lol. They are hoping that neuroscience will eventually show consciousness to be some kind of higher-level property of the brain, along the lines of computer/software, but even that wouldn't seem to provide the answer to why we have qualia, free will, etc. And while they might try to argue that free will is an illusion, they will have a harder time proving the same of qualia.

One attempt to account for qualia in physicalist terms is called epiphenomenalism. It's basically the idea that mental states are caused but not themselves causal -- hence, 'epiphenomena'. But I don't find this idea very intuitive. It seems to me very clear that when I feel thirsty, or when I feel like playing a video game, this very much has causal efficacy on the fact that I end up drinking or playing a game!
Sorry I'm so slow in getting back to this Ren - I got diverted again and lost track of the thread a week ago.

Exactly - software is quite in keeping with monism as far as I can see. My personal view is that what we think of as the hardware of the universe is a secondary manifestation, and that it (in a sense) emerges from the software. My reason for this is that the universe appears to have a beginning, according to the most accepted theories. There was no matter before that, and in fact there wasn't even a before-that because that's when time began. There must have been some rules of physics though that applied even when there was no universe, otherwise it could never have got started. There is an alternative such as the old 'Let There Be Light!' beginning, but I can't see things emerging from literally nothing, because then there's nothing for them to emerge from.

On the other hand I find it hard to grasp why there is a dichotomy between mind and matter as represented by Cartesian philosophy. I can't help feeling that there is the same problem of semantics and imagination in philosophy as there is in physics with the particle / wave dichotomy. Essentially we become too bound to our hard edged philosophical or scientific definitions and axioms of mind and matter, wave and particle, but these are human models of the way things are, and are approximations that break down outside their boundaries of applicability. Empirically, I experience stuff in the world and that stuff behaves in predictable ways; I also experience minds that to some extent seem to be emancipated from the way that other things are bound to behave - my own mind in particular, but others by projection and introjection. The simple observation therefore is that the world has a single nature that encompasses all these things: if any explanation I create for how this can be doesn't actually work, then that simply falsifies my explanation. That's really exciting in both physics and metaphysics because it's where the new ideas and knowledge, even the paradigm shifts, comes from isn't it? Of course I'm being very much the amateur here because I'm sure this sort of issue lies at the heart of the philosophical experts' explorations for centuries.

Not so much in science I suspect. Interestingly, there are some predictions that arise from this that could be used to test out hypotheses scientifically. Take free will for example - this goes far beyond the nature of mind, because if we have free will, and if reality is monistic, the laws of physics must allow for such choices and this must be manifest in the most fundamental scientific theories. Free will is completely inconsistent with Newton's and Einstein's physics which are deterministic, and probably also with quantum mechanics which is based on probability theory. Not only must it be present in the correct fundamental laws, but it will be strictly limited in extent because more than a little freedom would result in utter chaos in the way matter and energy behave and there would be no ordered world for us to exercise our choices in. That is a pretty tight constraint on what a scientific theory of everything should be like - if we do have free will.
 
I think often, people confuse free will with moral obligation. Two people with similar backgrounds (siblings) may have similar ingrained morals and values, yet make completely different life choices. Think of two siblings that individually become parents. They may parent similarly, or one may choose to abuse their children due to factors which influence choice. Free will doesn't negate external factors from influencing it. However, those external factors don't supersede 'free will'; they only expound on the possibility of a lack of moral obligation as justification contingent on free will.
I agree. In fact it confuses the issue badly to examine free will only in the context of moral choice. I excercised free will in replying to your comment instead of making a cup of tea, which I now choose to do shortly. There is no morality involved. Morals are just one of many inputs to our will when we decide between real alternatives.
 
Hey @Ren, @John K and anyone else,

Ren, I have replies to your reply to me (mine are in my blog).

A liability in my writing is that I tend to be very wordy because I am poor at not being so and being thorough.

You misinterpreted much of what I wrote, which is a-ok. Just sayin!

My thoughts are now much clearer as a result of this process. I have more to say. I feel like I am honing in a bit.

https://www.infjs.com/xfa-blog-entry/free-will.8052/#comment-26796
 
Hey @Ren, @John K and anyone else,

Ren, I have replies to your reply to me (mine are in my blog).

A liability in my writing is that I tend to be very wordy because I am poor at not being so and being thorough.

You misinterpreted much of what I wrote, which is a-ok. Just sayin!

My thoughts are now much clearer as a result of this process. I have more to say. I feel like I am honing in a bit.

https://www.infjs.com/xfa-blog-entry/free-will.8052/#comment-26796

No problem o2b, I'll happily have a look at your response and further clarification when I get a bit of time. :)
 
I was inspired by @Anomaly's thread on Interpersonal questions to introduce a new philosophical problem that may be of interest.

What is the nature of pain? Is it physiological? Is it mental/psychological? Is it both?

Would we experience pain in the same way if we didn't have a mind?
It would be good if we could get @Skarekrow to comment here, given both his experiences and his expertise in the subject of pain.

Some thoughts to see where they go ....

It seems that in biological terms, living things that are aware of actual or potential damage to themselves and take action to cure or avoid it have a distinct evolutionary advantage. I guess that there is a balance where the reaction becomes over sensitive, or risks even greater harm than the cause itself - so intuitively it seems that nature has fine tuned us to be as sensitive and reactive to such causes as far as it can push it without triggering evolutionary disadvantage. This impetus from such external threats in creatures with central nervous systems is experienced as pain, but this must surely be akin to qualia - it is a reaction to damage, and the immediate threat of damage, rather than the damage itself, albeit at a level of neurolgical processing below our level of consciousness. Similarly our experience of red is based on the way our central nervous system processes light of particular wavelengths but the photons themselves are not coloured, and again we aren't aware of the mechanisms of processing from photons to colour in our optical system.

But then nature can do strange things and borrow mechanisms it invented for one purpose and make use of them in another. There is great pain in many mental states that have nothing to do with threats to our physical bodies, and we experience these as pain, or at least we use the same word to describe them. Such pain in my view is purely psychological - which isn't to say that it's any the less real of course, but it has no physical cause. What complicates things is that such mental pain can actually cause physical problems and this reverses the cause and effect that nature originally designed. To complicate things still further, chronic physical pain can lead to psychological problems that cause more physical problems that cause more mental distress in a very nasty vicious spiral. From what Skarekrow and others have said, if you can break this spiral, it's possible to reduce someone's actual experience of pain very significantly even with no resolution of the physical problem.

It seems to me that this repurposing of the pain mechanism by evolution is probably fairly recent and it has a lot of flaws in it compared with its original intent. That's because such pain tends to pull people down rather than pushing them away from harm.
 
Back
Top