Post Reply
3 years ago  ::  Mar 18, 2012 - 4:29PM #1
Mesothet
Posts: 119

Epiphenomenalism will declare there’s no problem because mind is a passive causal byproduct of physical substance which cannot causally affect physicality in any manner.


Subjective Idealism will declare there’s no problem because all apparently physical substance will ultimately be a product of mind.


Ontologic dualism . . . well, I’ll just state that it isn’t parsimonious.


I’ve been working within the worldview of SI for a while now and have come up with a possible (ready self-published) hypothesis to resolve the mind/body problem—but, it is more than merely tenuous. So I’d like to hear responses to it.



Here’s the short version:


* Let causation be denoted as condition B (the effect) being dependent on condition A (the cause) for its being.


* Let object be denoted as a given which holds a distinguishable existence from other.


A form of non-sequential causality herein termed “interdependent origination” is first premised as not only possible but actual. A rock, for example, will be a whole which goads all its constituents into order and behavior which facilitates the rock’s being (top-down causation) while, simultaneously, the near sum of all constituents will interdependently originate the rock/whole (bottom-up causation). The respective whole, herein termed the “kentron”, will remain relatively stable compared to its constituents [in the case of the rock, molecules will move, atoms will leave and enter, and so forth through subatomic constituents, etc.]


This concept of kentron may then be indiscriminately applied to any given: e.g. material objects, immaterial objects (e.g. ideas, concepts, and paradigms), cultures . . . and—what would be of main interest here—the mind.


A distinction is made between hierarchical-kentrons and equilibrated-kentrons. The first will hold hierarchical ability to alter the overall structure/behavior of constituents (can be conceived as being negentropic entities); the latter will remain fully equilibrated to the overall structure/behavior of constituents (can be conceived as being entropic entities).


From this context, the question may be raised, will an individual neuron be an equilibrated-kentron (thereby being fully entropic) or a hierarchical-kentron (thereby, somehow [please don’t ask me the specifics, I don’t know them] goading the firing of its axon(s)). The same may be asked of any presumed to be sentient entity.


Addressing the human mind (hence, here focusing in on organisms which hold a Central Nervous System (CNS)), consciousness/the-agent-of-perception can be deemed to be a hierarchical-kentron. This, in one view, will then necessitate 1) that it can alter some of its constituents ordering/behaviors via such things as neural plasticity and 2) that it will be fully “synchronized” (for current lack of a better word) to the overall structure/behaviors of its constituents (i.e., to the physiology of the CNS) from which it, as kentron, emerges.


(1) allows for a “kernel” of true freewill.


(2) allows for consciousness to be altered (etc.) via physiological changes to the CNS.


 


I hope I’ve explained myself sufficiently for an introduction to this philosophical hypothesis.


Thanks in advance for any insight as to how this perspective might not cohere to empirical data (etc.).

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 18, 2012 - 5:14PM #2
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

I hope I’ve explained myself sufficiently


 


Not for the average person.  You go out of the way to make things difficult to understand.  For instance why call something kentron when you can use the english word "center?" I suppose that if someone is sufficiently interested to understand what you are saying he will make the necessary effort, but for the average person, like me, "why bother?"

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 18, 2012 - 6:06PM #3
Mesothet
Posts: 119

Mar 18, 2012 -- 5:14PM, JimRigas wrote:


I hope I’ve explained myself sufficiently


 


Not for the average person.  You go out of the way to make things difficult to understand.  For instance why call something kentron when you can use the english word "center?" I suppose that if someone is sufficiently interested to understand what you are saying he will make the necessary effort, but for the average person, like me, "why bother?"




Well, I thank you for informing me of what may be unclear with the brief outline.


While “center” is derived from the etymology of Ancient Greek “kentron”, the Ancient Greek “kentron” will denote, among other possible denotations, something which goads (i.e., something which prods, stimulates, incites, etc.). On account of this, I’ve preliminarily chosen “kentron” to indicate “a whole (which will be found “central” to the given entity/object addressed) which also goads its constituent parts into a quasi- stable order/structure/pattern-of-behavior”. I hope that helps in understanding why the term “kentron” was here chosen.


I’ll be more than happy to clarify any other aspect that may have been unclear in the first post.

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook