The Mind-Body Problem

Which came first,
the chicken, or the egg?

Neither. They were born together
in a resonant synthesis.

From Wikipedia:

'The mind-body problem examines the relationship between the human body and the mind. Philosophical positions on this question tend to be predicated on either the reduction of one or the other, or a belief in the discrete coexistence of both.'

But, there is another way.

Let us begin by examining the mathematician's conceit that the conclusions of mathematics represent a truth more pure than those produced by means less reliant upon the formal systems of direct symbolic knowledge and manipulation. Before the existence of symbols, the use of which is required to do mathematics, there was bound to have been a period during which symbols were conceived and developed. Symbolic logic depends on rules and definitions, a developed syntax, in order to be employed. It would have required development by methods not using symbols to begin with.

The basis for this development, it seems to be required, would have been the internal reactions and imagery produced as a result of having to survive in the reality of the world 'out there' based on the sensory input from our experiences. Through generalizing and inference these experiences became metaphors useful for developing abstractions which could then be applied to other, different situations. Symbolic logic and language were born when it occurred to the ancients to attach either a verbal or graphical symbol to some aspect of experience. We learned to communicate our perceptions of reality to each other once we discovered how to attach a symbol (a certain grunt, for example) to a particular thing or event. Hence, metaphor was the progenitor of symbolic logic and remains its partner in extending logic's reach.

For example, can we prove that 1+1=2? No, not at the level I mean to have it proved. What is proved is a symbolic tautology.

What does it mean to write 1? 1 is a complex concept, represented symbolically by a physical, dimensional shape, a mark, defined as the number one. Without the 'feeling of understanding' (FOU) of what the mark represents, or means, it is nothing more than an arbitrary shape. The 'feeling of understanding' (FOU) of 1 is gained through our experience, and filtered through our brains; our thinking apparatus as human beings. It is not a priori knowledge. We could not have arrived at this FOU of 1 without the actual experience of the real world.

If it were possible that a baby could be born totally senseless, that is, blind, deaf, no sense of touch, smell, or taste... no sensory input at all... and laid into it's crib, we can not know what it would 'think.' We would have no means of communicating with it, and visa versa. It's thoughts would be truly a priori, but as soon as any means of communicating with it opened up, we could no longer define its thoughts as a priori, knowing that it was now capable of receiving input experientially and interpreting it, thus poisoning its a priori sterility.

We saw many sets of 1 as we grew up and matured. By the time we were starting school, 1 was already firmly entrenched metaphorically; experientially, it's truth established without thought. Attaching a symbol to it was easy by this time. The method by which the rules (axioms) of arithmetic were established is similar. All of arithmetic is derivable by FOU about certain concepts. Adding two numbers is the most obvious. We see over and over as we grow, we experience, a set of 1 combined with a another set of 1, and we see a new set of the original ones. We see both at the same time. We see s set of 2. 1+1=2 is a symbolic representation of a (symbolic) proof that follows axiomatically from the experiential, metaphoric truths; the reality of 1 and addition.

The Platonic mental side of the concept being formed is not independent of the experiential side of it. Platonism says essentially that the world of perceived phenomena is an imperfect representation or reflection of the perfect world of ideas. This is not true. What is true is that the two worlds are parts of the same thing. The world we perceive is based on experiential truth which gives us the metaphors required to form the symbolic, axiomatic formalism by which we attempt to understand the world.

We are in the set of all sets. We can conceive of the set of all sets. This conception itself is either in or out of the set of all sets. If this conception of the perception of the set of all sets is valid, then it must not be in the set of all sets that it is perceiving. By looking at the set of all sets, we are looking at it from outside. This is a paradox.

The ultimate reality can't be expressed or proved in language or communicated because all communication must take place through symbols, which are in the set. Language (symbols) is a self referential quagmire. But, we DO exist. We are here. There is order. Something exists. There is reality. But it is not humanly possible to understand ultimate truth in provable or communicable terms. We must ask for truth in a high quality manner and receive the philosophical grace (see More on Quality) that allows us to understand a truth that is completely real, although not provable. All symbolic knowledge is limited at the boundaries. All communicable truth is tautological.

Without the metaphoric appreciation of mathematical beauty based on literally ineffable concepts such as simplicity, elegance, economy of means, and other qualities, a mathematician would not know he had created something worthy. A mechanical intelligence such as a computer might be programmed with the possibility of producing new and signifigant results symbolically. But, the difficult part would be ours to do. That is, we would need a way to know of the existence of, find, and retrieve these results. For, whatever our ability to program the computer syllogistically, we have no means available to program it with the ability to make quality judgements of this sort. Quality judgements at the highest levels, that is, at the very boundaries of our set, must be based on that which is outside the set to avoid the major pitfall of making a tautological judgement, or proof. The human ability to attach meaning by grouping information in coherent blocks and patterns, that is, metaphorically, is an essential feature of the mind-body duality. Neither reduces to the other. Each plays a part in the resonant synthesis they form. The mind requires the body in order to exist, as it uses symbolism developed through the metaphors of real world experience. The body requires the mind in order to animate and define itself in a meaningful manner in relation to the world out there.

- WHS


	The Mind-Body Problem