I THINK therefore I AM

@Whoever,

Whoever;73445 wrote:

Hi richrf

I'm sure most people have encountered false memories in their lives. Indeed, I wonder sometimes if we have any other kind. But a memory is a memory, regardless of how accurate it is.

Yes. Memory is what it is until we decide to change it to something else. As far as lost memories are concerned, who knows what we don't remember? And how much of dreams are creation and how much of it is memory? I sure don't know! Smile

Rich

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;73378 wrote:

There you go again! In the know, not in the now.

You really have to work on your spelling.

In the "NOW" not in the know &%#@#(In this moment)

@Alan McDougall,

Hi all,

In today's WSJ )June 30, 2009), pp D3, there is a story about the healing powers of art. In the article, there is referenced a very large 2004 study known as Interheart that involved nearly 30,000 patientss in 52 countries. The study found that "psychosocial factors", including depression and stress, were as strong a factor for heart attack as high blood pressure and nearly as important as diabetes.

These types of observations would seem to confirm the strong interlink between mind and body. And based upon my own experiences, I think that additional studies would confirm the strong link between emotions of all types and body behavior. One can easily show tension by clenching ones fist. Where does this tension (stress) come from? The mind. Your mind affects your physical presence and its health. They are co-joined. Does the mind create the presence is the question at hand. It woudl seem so.

Rich

@Whoever,

Whoever;73445 wrote:

Hi richrf

I'm sure most people have encountered false memories in their lives. Indeed, I wonder sometimes if we have any other kind. But a memory is a memory, regardless of how accurate it is.

You cannot remember being present at the battle of Waterloo. You were not there. So even if you believe you remember being at the battle of Waterloo, you do not remember it at all.

---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

richrf;73644 wrote:

Hi all,

In today's WSJ )June 30, 2009), pp D3, there is a story about the healing powers of art. In the article, there is referenced a very large 2004 study known as Interheart that involved nearly 30,000 patientss in 52 countries. The study found that "psychosocial factors", including depression and stress, were as strong a factor for heart attack as high blood pressure and nearly as important as diabetes.

These types of observations would seem to confirm the strong interlink between mind and body. And based upon my own experiences, I think that additional studies would confirm the strong link between emotions of all types and body behavior. One can easily show tension by clenching ones fist. Where does this tension (stress) come from? The mind. Your mind affects your physical presence and its health. They are co-joined. Does the mind create the presence is the question at hand. It woudl seem so.

Rich

What makes you think that depression and stress are not physical? Physicians think so. They give drugs to relieve depression and stress.

@richrf,

There are neurochemical changes in the brain that are produced when a depressed person is treated by a therapist (i.e. psychotherapy, group therapy, whatever).

The exact same changes happen when such a patient gets a drug like Prozac, Paxil, etc.

And the clinical outcomes are the same in both groups, but better when in combination.

Mental processes absolutely have physical manifestations and ramifications, and vice versa. But let's not overestimate the role of the mind in physical processes, I mean your mind cannot make an amputated leg grow back.

@Aedes,

Aedes;73675 wrote:

Mental processes absolutely have physical manifestations and ramifications, and vice versa. But let's not overestimate the role of the mind in physical processes, I mean your mind cannot make an amputated leg grow back.

Hi,

But let's not underestimate it either. The mind/body is constantly regenerating aspects of itself - within limits. What are the limits? Well, that is unclear, since the line is constantly moving and the possibilities changing. Reversing heart disease was considered impossible by the medical profession not too long ago. I think it is high time to begin looking at the mind/body as co-joined as this article points out. What's more, the concept of I THINK therefore I AM becomes even more substantive as one ponders the nature of the mind/body.

Rich

@richrf,

I agree that the power of the mind to prevent diseases and to weather their storms remains poorly understood (and we certainly don't have a good way of exploiting it for people's benefit).

I had a patient recently, a young woman who has been in the hospital for a couple weeks, and just would not hear it from me that she was getting close to being ready to go home. Every day there would be some new symptom. She has a baby at home, and tons of responsibilities. And it became clear that even though she has real disease that I was treating, there was an avoidance of her real life's trials that was making her sick without even realizing it. I don't argue that it caused her physical disease, but 99% of other people would have found any excuse to leave the hospital and she just couldn't bear it. A stress management consultation was the best thing I did for her.

@Aedes,

Aedes;73696 wrote:

I agree that the power of the mind to prevent diseases and to weather their storms remains poorly understood (and we certainly don't have a good way of exploiting it for people's benefit).

I had a patient recently, a young woman who has been in the hospital for a couple weeks, and just would not hear it from me that she was getting close to being ready to go home. Every day there would be some new symptom. She has a baby at home, and tons of responsibilities. And it became clear that even though she has real disease that I was treating, there was an avoidance of her real life's trials that was making her sick without even realizing it. I don't argue that it caused her physical disease, but 99% of other people would have found any excuse to leave the hospital and she just couldn't bear it. A stress management consultation was the best thing I did for her.

Hi,

Thanks for sharing this case with me.

In my class, I provide a simple demonstration of how mind affects the body. I ask my class to clench their fists tight. Very, very tight. I ask them to consider what they are feeling. The tension in their arms, shoulders, and the stress it is causing them overall. Then I ask them where did all that tension they are feeling come from? What initiated it? What was the impetus (my suggestion?)?

Then I ask them to look at their stiff arms and tense shoulders, and I ask them if they think that energy, blood, and other fluids can flow more easily or with more difficulty in the current state of their body? Just feel it. And then I suggest, suppose you living with the stress and tension throughout your life, and it manifests as a stiff back or spine, or stiff shoulders, or migraines?

Yes, there are many ways for disorders to begin, but I suggest that they look at temselves and what you are doing first and foremost. There are many surprises to be found and explored. I think this article, that I mentioned is a good opportunity to examine the notions of persistence, ideals, goals, etc. and what problems they might cause to physical existence.

Thanks again for your response.

Rich

Rich

@Aedes,

Aedes;73675 wrote:

There are neurochemical changes in the brain that are produced when a depressed person is treated by a therapist (i.e. psychotherapy, group therapy, whatever).

The exact same changes happen when such a patient gets a drug like Prozac, Paxil, etc.

And the clinical outcomes are the same in both groups, but better when in combination.

Mental processes absolutely have physical manifestations and ramifications, and vice versa. But let's not overestimate the role of the mind in physical processes, I mean your mind cannot make an amputated leg grow back.

But what makes you think that talking is not physical? So that talking to people may not create physical effects?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;73706 wrote:

But what makes you think that talking is not physical? So that talking to people may not create physical effects?

That's the secret Wink

It IS physical. But to explore this idea further means that one has to accept a physiologic / biological view of consciousness, and while I'm perfectly comfortable with that, many people want consciousness to be something "apart" from the body.

@Aedes,

Aedes;73708 wrote:

That's the secret It IS physical. But to explore this idea further means that one has to accept a physiologic / biological view of consciousness, and while I'm perfectly comfortable with that, many people want consciousness to be something "apart" from the body.

Why does it matter what people want if talking to people is no different from giving them prozac, and the combination is more effective than each is alone?

@richrf,

It seems to me that a clear sign of the relationship between mind and body is the placebo effect. How this can be explained without the mind being involved I don't know. There could be no placebo effect for a zombie.

@Whoever,

Whoever;73889 wrote:

It seems to me that a clear sign of the relationship between mind and body is the placebo effect. How this can be explained without the mind being involved I don't know. There could be no placebo effect for a zombie.

But the placebo effect would not show that the mind was immaterial, and the body, material. All that the placebo effect shows is that if you think something will work, then it may work. But nothing metaphysical. If there is no metaphysical separation between mind and body, then how can there be a "relationship" between them? You are assuming a metaphysical separation.
Since zombies don't think, they could not think the placebo will work. That's all.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;73712 wrote:

Why does it matter what people want if talking to people is no different from giving them prozac, and the combination is more effective than each is alone?

It only matters in terms of the pragmatics of treating them. People with mild to moderate depression will do no better, no worse, as a general rule, if they're given an antidepressant than if they're given formal therapy. It's WAY more expensive and difficult to get therapy -- I mean to pay for 3 one hour sessions per week, or even one for that matter, is exorbitant and most insurance companies will not cover it. And this assumes that the service is even available to begin with. It's cheap, effective, and safe to use antidepressants.

For people with refractory or severe depression, people who have needed hospitalization for it, people with suicide attempts, etc, they are more often going to get a combination of treatment modalities (they even still use "shock therapy" for some cases).

As for what people want, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but for people who want therapy it's available -- but for a price, unfortunately.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;73972 wrote:

But the placebo effect would not show that the mind was immaterial, and the body, material. All that the placebo effect shows is that if you think something will work, then it may work. But nothing metaphysical. If there is no metaphysical separation between mind and body, then how can there be a "relationship" between them? You are assuming a metaphysical separation.
Since zombies don't think, they could not think the placebo will work. That's all.

Of course, you can call everything material and case is done, but then you would have to show it is composed of matter. Matter, is usually something that can be measured in some form. E.g. occupies space/time.

Do you think you can measure everything in terms of space/time (position/momentum)? If you can, then you are going to have to overturn the Heisenberg Principle. Photons are not material. No one knows what they are.

The placebo occurs happens when someone thinks they are receiving something that will help them, but they are receiving something completely neutral - e.g. sugar. They think it will help. How do you measure thought? What is material about it. I am speaking about the thought - as in a thought in a dream. That is what is causing the change in the body.

BTW, as you look at the screen and read this message, pause and observe what is looking at this screen. The observer. That is what is being referred to as the Mind. Can you measure it?

Rich

@richrf,

The trouble is, it's not possible to demonstrate that mind is not material. Either it's obvious to us or it isn't. To you and me it's obvious, trivially true, to others it's not. Perhaps an an imaginary elephant is bigger and heavier than a unicorn. But kennethamy is not alone in being a materialist.

Quote:

All that the placebo effect shows is that if you think something will work, then it may work. But nothing metaphysical.

Ah. If only. Unfortunately, if you think you think then a number of metaphysical questions arise.

Quote:

If there is no metaphysical separation between mind and body, then how can there be a "relationship" between them? You are assuming a metaphysical separation.

Well, not quite. I'm assuming a distinction between them which is not fundamental. That is to say, I'm not assuming that either mind or matter is fundamental. For now this could be thought of as a neutral monism, much like Russell's but without the problems.

Quote:

Since zombies don't think, they could not think the placebo will work. That's all.

Quite. This proves that zombies are not human beings, as Chalmers notes.

Your objections are fair, but they amount only to the claim that mind is matter, or that matter is mind. Both claims are found to give rise to contradictions, but this doesn't stop many people adopting one or the other view.

@richrf,

richrf;73983 wrote:

The placebo occurs happens when someone thinks they are receiving something that will help them, but they are receiving something completely neutral - e.g. sugar. They think it will help. How do you measure thought? What is material about it. I am speaking about the thought - as in a thought in a dream. That is what is causing the change in the body.

Rich

If thought is identical with a firing of neurons, and if the firing of neurons is measurable, then thought is measurable. Therefore, you are right, the discharge of neurons is causing the change in the body. As one expected would be true all along.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74011 wrote:

If thought is identical with a firing of neurons, and if the firing of neurons is measurable, then thought is measurable. Therefore, you are right, the discharge of neurons is causing the change in the body. As one expected would be true all along.

What or who is firing the neutrons? That is the mystery. The impetus. That which initiates. That which is looking through the eyes.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;74040 wrote:

What or who is firing the neutrons? That is the mystery. The impetus. That which initiates. That which is looking through the eyes.

Rich

The neurons are being discharged by the environment around the person. But how is that the issue? Isn't the issue whether the thought is identical with the discharge of neurons? You said it could not be so. Why? Never mind how the neurons discharge. So the discharge of neurons in the body causes the other change in the body. What could be more reasonable, or obvious?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74292 wrote:

Isn't the issue whether the thought is identical with the discharge of neurons? You said it could not be so. Why?

If a thought is identical with a discharge of neurons, then everything that is true of one should be true of the other. But a discharge of neurons can be observed, whereas a thought (in the normal sense of the word) can only be experienced at first hand.

You can only claim to "observe" someone else's thought if you define thought and neuron discharge as identical in the first place, thus begging the question.

Philosophy Forum

I THINK therefore I AM

Quick Links

My Account

able2know