Andy Clark - What is the Mind-Body Problem?

How is it possible that mushy masses of brain cells, passing chemicals and shooting sparks, can cause mental sensations and subjective feelings? How can brain chemistry and electricity be 'about' things? Can physical activities literally be mental activities? Physical and mental activities seem so radically different.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the hard problem of consciousness: bit.ly/2HQKF4y
Andy Clark is a professor of philosophy and Chair in Logic and Metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@carloc352]

So fascinating concepts! The parallel with movie compression algorithms, though only an example of efficient compression, did ring a bell. It looks reasonable that concentrating on the prediction errors would be similarly efficient. It reminds me of the fact that one would not notice his/her own hair on the skin (here the sensory input is predicted due to its integration over a long time), whereas a small foreign object would be easily noticed.

[@guilhermesilveira5254]

Andy Clark is a good philosopher of cyber topics.

[@romliahmadabdulnadzir1607]

Only a small percentage of the whole iceberg is visible above the surface. In this way, the iceberg is like the mind-body. The conscious mind-body is what we notice above the surface while the unconscious mind-body, the largest and most powerful part, remains unseen below the surface. Once the intuition is fluent, it will continue easily, unless it is plugged. The most usual blockages are because of the conscious judgmental mind-body (Harsh judgements or inflating judgement are destructive of both.) of the intuitive information. The best way to avoid this is to get the cooperation of the conscious mind-body so it will step aside and become the observer when intuition is being accessed.

[@xspotbox4400]

That's more like it, this is a good approach because we can study what brains can do and explore various possibilities without physically tempering with brain mass of a living subject. I'm quite sure we will learn more about brains by simply using it than what they can do with this organ in eugenic labs.

[@Peter-rw1wt]

Another perspective on the same scene is to explore the contrast between efficiency and intelligence, and its relationship with time.

[@limonina1000]

I think that the Invisible Gorilla Test is powerful evidence for the predictive brain concept, or in other words - the extent to which the brain is active in organizing - and not just interpreting - the huge flux of sensory input from the outside world. At least, I remember how shocked I was after taking this test and realizing firsthand how much my own brain designs ahead of time what part of the scene I would see and what part I would not, even if that part is one huge gorilla standing and pounding its chest on the middle of the frame!

[@osip7315]

a "good show" by the interviewer and interviewee, andy clark is certainly coming along in developing his hypothesis in depth and consistency, proof of course as to the validity of "extended mind" interestingly i notice some parallels with emmanuel levinas what makes for a good interviewer is some humility about their own ideas and a willingness to explore the ideas of the interviewee, doesn't seem difficult and its done well here, but so rare in most of the web and media content

[@danrayson]

"The basic idea is that we needed a property that brains could self organise around, that would bring body and world directly into the equation; And for my money, 'prediction error' is that property."

[@tedgrant2]

I've booked a flight to the USA and the agent told me I will not have a "physical" ticket. Instead, I will have an "eticket". So there really are non-physical things in the world ! And therefore, we have solved the mind/body problem.

[@bajajones5093]

still no closer

[@tomashull9805]

It won't be...

[@bazstrutt8247]

Never will be... There is no money to be made if he ever decides what the truth is.... Lots of money to be made by never reaching a conclusion

[@tomashull9805]

@@bazstrutt8247 One would think that after 20 years Robert would stop to pretend that he wants God to exist...

[@bazstrutt8247]

Tomas Hull Exactly

[@dimaniak]

A question for materialists: What is the evolutionary purpose of subjective experience if p-zombies are just as good at survival as conscious humans?

[@lukaszsmith3236]

Imagine some population of p-zombies with a simple model of the world in their brains. Let the world models vary across population and be inherited from generation to generation. Now, let the zombies be selected by the environment, roughly based on the accuracy of predictions. Surely, given sufficient time, we would expect to see more and more zombies with better world models. (Better models lead to more accurate predictions, hence better chances of zombie survival). And what would "more accurate model" actually be ? Well, it would produce more accurate representation of the world. But wait, the most accurate representation of the world should also contain some model of p-zombie itself. After all, it is part of that world. It is also not a surprise, that having such self-model is hugely advantageous for p-zombies to make better predictions. Without proper accounting for p-zombie itself in p-zombie's world model, p-zombie is doomed to make actions causing it to be "terminated" by the environment. And, what does it really mean to be a p-zombie with "a super accurate model of itself interacting with the world", actually interacting with the real world ? It sounds awfully lot like a self-aware p-zombie... In conclusion, it may even be the case, that evolution of self-replicating predictors operating in complex environments must necessarily cause them to acquire some level of self-awareness. And since self-awareness is a core part of subjective experiences, it could be accounted for, even in materialists worldview. In other words, the subjective experience may not have a purpose, but be a by-product of evolution. It may just be "what it feels like" to have a complex model of oneself, within oneself. (ps. I am not materialist, and neither must you when granting this argument some merit)

[@wiscgaloot]

That's like asking "why is a mouse when it spins". Since there are no evolved p-zombies, it's a non-falsifiable question, thus irrelevant.

[@kuldeepjoshi8010]

It just happened I guess. You see, not everything that exists is for a reason or usefulness, the only fact is it came and survived with us at some point of time. U getting stuck in natural fallacy.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does cognition use mathematics for mind (computation)?

[@somethingyousaid5059]

What is the mind-body problem? Simple. That there _are_ the mind and the body.

[@xspotbox4400]

Body without a mind is called corpse.

[@somethingyousaid5059]

@@xspotbox4400 I wouldn't mind to be a body without a mind. It wouldn't be ideal mind you. Even so, for me it definitely would be better only because my mind is so much more of a problem for me than my body ever could be.

[@tomashull9805]

@@somethingyousaid5059 Good point. The mind and the body are irreducibly complex...

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

@@tomashull9805 the mind is complex....said the mind....

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

@@tomashull9805 the mind is all " man, I'm so complex, so amazing, I bet only god could make me"......talk about ego geeeeezzz.....

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does the mind act on brain like writing on piece of paper or typing on computer?

[@bruceylwang]

Again, Mind is the boss. Critical thinking is using the Mind’s mental abilities such as Observation, Comprehension, etc. Play tennis is using the Mind’s mental abilities. Use your Mind is the Way to extend your Mind and your mental abilities. What is the Mind? How does Mind produce mental abilities? How does Mind-brain interface? What is the radical way of relating Mind to God? I will tell you later when the fate is blessing.

[@1SpudderR]

bruce yl Wang Hmm? “Your Mind?” Hmm? I doubt that... “The Mind” Maybe! Cos’ when you are/were never There....”The Mind did not Mind” because it was still there!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

As the physical brain moves from past to future, it uses prediction, then extension, then cognition?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Extended cognition / mind also uses mathematics in the environment? Does extended cognition demonstrate mind in the environment?

[@Joker25076]

OMG. Dear cameraman: please let that thing standing on a stand. Don't touch it after you pushed "RECORD". Okay?

[@mikedziuba8617]

It's a well-known fact that the human brain has a limited working memory. So, working out some complicated mathematics on paper, rather than in your head, is a lot easier and more efficient. Because you extend your working memory on paper, when you write things down. Instead of keeping it all in your head, you write it down and have much more information in your view, than is biologically possible to hold in the short-term memory of your brain. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory That's what Richard Feynman meant when he said that working things out on paper was a part of how he came up with his ideas. He extended his working memory and made it much bigger by writing things down on paper. It's the same kind of thing with other devices, such smartphones for example. These are tools that extend limited abilities of the brain to recall information and find it. People are now talking about integrating computer chips with the human brain and extending human mental abilities this way. So, if you could put in a chip that increases your working memory a lot. Then you won't need a pen and paper anymore to work out some complicated math. You would be able to do it in your head. Because the chip that enlarges your working memory would be a substitute for the pen and paper, and it would work a lot faster and better too.

[@mikedziuba8617]

@@freesatellite3204 I suggest you check out the link I've provided. There is no dispute in the scientific community about the fact that the human brain has a very limited working memory. And the size of the working memory is related to general intelligence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory So, if you can increase your working memory either by using pen and paper or through technological means by implanting a chip that the brain can use to extend its working memory, then this will increase your intelligence. Reading and writing isn't just useful for communicating ideas and information. You can also use it to increase your intelligence by working out ideas on paper, rather than trying to hold it all in your head and working on it only inside your mind. But this is a crude way of doing it. If you can actually increase your biological working memory through technological means, then this will probably work a lot more efficiently and better than just using a pen and paper.

[@freesatellite3204]

@@mikedziuba8617 ha.. ha.. ha.. I don't discuss this subject any longer here. There are too many wackos here.. and too much DARPA.

[@1SpudderR]

Hmm? Years ago a crystal radio ....without batteries or internal power....with nothing but a piece of wire and a crystal.....I used to listen to the invisible undetectable noise in the box! I opened it up and looked at all the bits ...bits...bits..And then went to school and all the bits were never put back from what I learned in The Established Education “””””Rut””””””. But I self discovered that all is not in the box of crystal and wire.....Er? Brain, except Biological Wet food, crystal and wire....The Mind, Conscious, And Intelligence we’re still figuring out how to communicate that to the Brain....Our brains! “One Consciousness” many brains (crystal radio receivers).

[@aaron2709]

Very interesting. I feel like he's pointing to obvious things (we're affected by the environment) and trying to talk about them in a different way. Problem is, I don't think it's a better, more insightful way. It's the same stuff we know with a slight shift in emphasis, like paying more attention to verbs in a sentence rather than nouns... but it's the same sentence. Thoughtful but a bit thin.

[@divertissementmonas]

At least Andy Clark does not equate the mind with the brain. I'd like to know how he defines 'mind' as he believes it is extended to external objects. It can't be the immaterial "thinking thing" of Descartes.

[@jesselopes5196]

he sorta does equate mind and brain but adds something about 'subtle parts of the body and the world' - like sitting on your hands while talking or being in a desert doing algebra - so basically mind=brain + anything else picked up by the nervous system

[@didack1419]

Probably it has to do with the mind being a procedure.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Might the predictive brain use quantum probabilities for the evolution of information?

[@dennistucker1153]

I think Andy Clark is on to something. To me, his take is pretty good.

[@tomashull9805]

On to something like what? Nothing?

[@jesselopes5196]

Andy Clark is just repeating Descartes' man with a stick example from the Optics

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is the predictive brain about information into the future?

[@missh1774]

Hmm... is this at the top of ethics for use or design of algorithm? ... Does responsible design consider this function as something they want to protect or not cause cognition damage, despite society messing it up anyways. I spose limitation or avoidance of internet would be highly recommended but not really detectable as the main cause for changes in mental states? Crazy though, got more answers in the last 2 years than in all of my prior 40 years put together 😳. Makes you wonder if internet is empowering autonomy or helping the user, help the designer, dream up a future meta-kong. Can almost hear Πborg singing now... 🎶 what a wonderful world. Stranger things no? Idk maybe it was simply another cigar smoking, whiskey drinking space cowboy. Urgh gawd I wish it was Friday already!

[@wiscgaloot]

no problem at all unless you're stuck in the philosophy of Descarte and haven't learned anything newer than that.

[@jesselopes5196]

not even a problem for Descartes

[@tomashull9805]

"How is it possible that mushy masses of brain cells, passing chemicals and shooting sparks, can cause mental sensations and subjective feelings?" The simple answer is they don't. There has to be a centralized information system stored outside the human brain cells....How else can hemispherectomy be explained when half of the brain mass is removed and it seems as if it was never needed...

[@tomashull9805]

@DOC TOR Years of evolution without the mechanism to test it if it's true is like years of fairy telling without ever getting to when the a long time ago really was...Just a way out for materialists...

[@waerlogauk]

@@tomashull9805 the "Natural Selection" part of evolution is the test of it's truth.

[@tomashull9805]

@@waerlogauk Natural selection selected for one part of your brain to be useless or stupid?

[@user-nh7nb8pr3f]

It might be better to consider ourselves as like A. Square in ‘Flatland’. Then a ‘newborn’ higher dimensional organism shows up and out of childlike curiosity pushes buttons inside humans and forgets how things were originally.

[@thomasridley8675]

They won't find god there either. Its not like our abilities are something new. We are just better at it. This mind body connection took several yrs of your life too get it too work together consistently.

[@cvsree]

Mind is more subtle than physical/brain and interacts weakly with physical Consciousness is more subtle than mind and interacts very weakly with Mind Yoga helps unify these diverging entities that are moving farther away due to technology addiction

[@jesselopes5196]

But unfortunately technology addiction is more subtle than yoga...

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Listen! Your destinction is wrong. The real „living“, the „beeing“, the „god“, the „creator“, the „mind“, the „self“, "Geist", the „subject“ (of knowledge) does never appear in science. It is already substracted out (in the process of thinking, respectively in the constitution of this perspective), otherwise this tool (science) would be completely useless to it. The „subject“ (of knowledge) can never appear in science and even not in reflexion! It is always bigger than everything you can demonstrate to it. The actual and real beeing will always remain invisible, like Thales explained. So thats the difficulty with the philosophical self-knowledge (Selbsterkenntnis), because it is about the invisible! And this invisible beeing is what „mind“ and „spirit“ („Geist“) really means! ✌️

[@xspotbox4400]

Invisible yes, but universal no. We can't talk about the spirit if we don't know alternatives, but we can see with our own eyes how some weird forces move molecules of microscopic creatures body around. So only thing universal in this story is property of all living to control atoms of their body, but this is simply a distinction from material world than, not some esoterical essence.

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

We dont subtract god from anything. That's like saying we think harry potter isn't real because we said hes not. If harry showed up we would have a reason to include him. Your a presumptuous person. Science is not.

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

The scientific method ONLY says what happens. It doesnt make world claims, it doesn't subtract anything ever. Literally doesnt do that. The scientific method is less than a paragraph. Read it and tell me how that subtracts god?

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

@@neffetSnnamremmiZ you dont know what you say. Read the scientific method again, it's less than a paragraph. Science is the child of epistemology, which is the Child of philosophy.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

I know what I say, and all big thinkers, philosophers from Nietzsche to Husserl, physicists from Planck to Schrödinger will all explain you exactly that! And science is not thinking! Science has nothing to do with truth or self-recognition, with science the self intervenes on itself for reason of self organization or transformation. Science is its tool! And this subject of knowledge can never be subject of science. It’s like Nietzsche said, science is a way of (methodic) self-alienation. With these „renunciation in thinking“ the self (or subject of knowledge) „buys“ its knowledge, like Jaspers explained, a „self-limitation“. It theoretically dimmed, shadowed and shortened its thinking to intervene and operate on itself like with little arms for reason of self organisation or transformation. It subtracts itself out to find its isolated laws, it’s own structure; otherwise these tool (science) would be completely useless to it. What we see in science is not the living, it’s more its „dead corpse“! This „self-misunderstanding“ of science is a „productive illusion“, if not even „idiotism“ or „insanity“ (Geisteskrankheit), like Nietzsche explained. Kafka called it „Selbstverkenntnis“. The only way back to the self is through philosophy, leading you back to the „self“ (Selbsterkenntnis), the composer, who built that renunciation; means to raise back consciousness to its own height. Like Jaspers explained: science is not knowledge of being! ☝️

[@pity4777]

Another panpsychist?

[@jesselopes5196]

another bs artist