Dualism II

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Dualism II

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:37 pm

PauloL wrote:I don't have a living example of a brain in a tank, but the most extreme examples of minimal consciousness I know are the works by Adrien M. Owen, published by Nature and perhaps better read in Scientific American (May 2014), in which he could communicate with some comatose people through sophisticated medical imagery. ...
These are still embodied minds.
I think a mind is a mind irrespective of the being. ...
If by "irrespective of the being" you mean without a body then I think you'd have to show me a mind without a body. If you mean other animals have minds in their own sense then I'd agree with you.
Damasio gives human examples and explains that there can be thoughts without language and vice versa, as I transcribed. According to Damasio, a mind without language is still a mind and can think. ...
I'd say they can still thought. As I reserve thinking for thought via language.
I am searching for a definition of mind, an essential step in the formulation of an opinion on dualism, not taking any a priori position. ...
It depends what kind of 'mind' you are talking about? If you mean like ours then I'd say it was a consciousness that knows it is or a self-referring consciousness or a consciousness that can be conscious of itself as an other or some such.
I'd like to better understand what you mean by "thoughting and thinking".
Thoughting is thinking without language and Thinking is thoughting with language. :)

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Dualism II

Post by PauloL » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:34 pm

.




Arising:

Thanks for your contributions.

I only have examples of embodied minds, indeed. Do you have examples of non-embodied minds?

Of course I mean other animals have minds, perhaps even insects do have one.

Being conscious of oneself requires a mind indeed, but that doesn't help define what you need to have in the first instance so that you can be conscious of yourself, or anything else, except calling that a mind.

Damasio explained that there can be thoughts without language and you gave that a name :)




.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Dualism II

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:52 pm

PauloL wrote:I only have examples of embodied minds, indeed. Do you have examples of non-embodied minds? ...
No as I don't think there can be any but I thought this is what you are claiming can exist, i.e. non-material or non-physical 'minds'?
...

Being conscious of oneself requires a mind indeed, but that doesn't help define what you need to have in the first instance so that you can be conscious of yourself, or anything else, except calling that a mind. ...
I think this will depend upon what kind of 'mind' you are talking about but essentially you need to recognise others in some way and then apply it to oneself, so at a bare minimum you need a memory and personally I think you need a language to Think in or with.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Dualism II

Post by PauloL » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:00 pm

.




Arising:

For discussing dualism, I don't think we need an example of a non-embodied mind, as this is a rational discussion, and, first of all, there are no such examples. I don't even know if it is necessary that there be non-embodied minds for dualism to be true. Only embodied minds are known to exist and I don't have an a priori position, as I told before.

We have already seen that memory and language are unnecessary.




.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Dualism II

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:52 am

PauloL wrote:We have already seen that memory and language are unnecessary.
No we haven't. What we've seen is that a very limited memory still produces what we'd call a mind.

I'd also question the idea that a langauge wasn't being used in the example you gave as how would the doctor know or understand the answers or the patient the questions?

If you or a dualist is going to claim that a mind is not based upon, or is, a physical embodiment then I think it apt to ask to be shown a non-embodied mind.

Walker
Posts: 4098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Dualism II

Post by Walker » Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:42 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:37 pm
If by "irrespective of the being" you mean without a body then I think you'd have to show me a mind without a body.
Show me a mind with a body.

You can’t.

You can only infer its presence by subjectively interpreting actions (including words) as being intelligent.

Walker
Posts: 4098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Dualism II

Post by Walker » Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:56 am

PauloL wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:48 pm
Walker:

David does have perception of objects, yet he has no memory. He smokes and enjoys beautiful women, but he can't know what happened 1 minute ago.

You make a point that memory influences perception of objects & as such is part of consciousness . But memory loss doesn't impair object perception, even if memory no longer influences such perception. Thus, memory is a contingent part of perception, not a necessary part of it. Accordingly, the proposition "memory is part of consciousness" can't be unconditionally true, unless I'm missing something.



.
When present, memory influences perception. When not present, it doesn’t.

It’s like any appendenge that you may have. When present, it influences the body. When not present, it doesn’t.
(Although, not entirely true. Lose a leg and you'll be a bit off balance. However, born without a leg and the body mitigates into balance.)

Consciousness filters perception of object, and assesses value according to the consciousness. For instance, tongue consciousness will filter the perception of a little round ball and determine it’s a potent little packet of sour candy. The object of perception can also be the mentation of memory.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Dualism II

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:18 am

Walker wrote:Show me a mind with a body.

You can’t.

You can only infer its presence by subjectively interpreting actions (including words) as being intelligent.
Which is why I tend to think the word 'mind' doesn't refer to any object but to a process or function that a body can perform, in a sense it is a trick of language which leads to the idea that it is or could be an object elsewhere than a body.

Walker
Posts: 4098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Dualism II

Post by Walker » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:40 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:18 am
Walker wrote:Show me a mind with a body.

You can’t.

You can only infer its presence by subjectively interpreting actions (including words) as being intelligent.
Which is why I tend to think the word 'mind' doesn't refer to any object but to a process or function that a body can perform, in a sense it is a trick of language which leads to the idea that it is or could be an object elsewhere than a body.
“I think, therefore I am.”

This implies that existence requires relationship, or duality. And, it’s true. In the particular statement, the relationship is between awareness and thought, which is dualistic, because it is a relationship.

The only way this works is if “I am,” is not the body.

Consider the implications of non-conceptual, sensory-based meditation that leads to no-thought, which is the purpose of meditation.

In such a situation, the body is, but “I am” is not. “I am” does not exist without thought and only subsequently infers, through clues such as a slept-in bed (for deep sleep), or the passage of time and memory of how continuity of narrative fills in the unaccounted-for portions (for meditation), that the body did in fact exist in the past, when “I am” did not.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Dualism II

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:02 pm

PauloL wrote:
Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:14 am
This is my first topic. There's another topic in Metaphysics on dualism by member bahman and I'd like to place one here for three main reasons: First, the original topic is extensive enough, 11 pages now; Second, I think it's more proper to be placed it in the Philosophy of Mind; Third, I'd like the discussion on dualism to start on the very first, and tougher, question, what's the mind. I hope this is not against forum rules and that members will consent. This all is why I titled it Dualim II.

Dualism is, in my opinion, a hard philosophical question, if not the hardest question of all.

Atoms are perhaps just energy and nothing we can imagine, there are 9 dimensions within the atom, something not even a Physicist can imagine what's that.

If you could see an atom, how could you imagine that it could create a solid thing?

Even less imaginable would be the creation of sentient matter from atoms.

Duality has to do with mind only, as anything else in Nature is physical only.

Mind depends on the body, but that doesn't grant that mind is a physical entity beyond any reasonable doubt.

We should start with the definition of consciousness, something never done before. How on earth could so many intelligent people fail to define what is consciousness?

Next, no neurological experiment done so far proves that the mind is a physical entity. Not even a change in personality after a partial brain ablation proves anything, because it is accepted beyond any reasonable doubt that mind needs the body to express itself, and this includes all neural networks.

Language, memory, sensory organs and anything else outside the central nervous system aren't necessary for a mind to be there.

So, perhaps the mind is something much more primitive, if not elemental, than the being it is nested on.

So this is the first challenge, define conceptually first, then perhaps neurologically, what's the mind.

Is it a complex purposeful software or something as simple as a battery that will feed both a bulb and a complex computer indifferently?

Or something else?
Consciousness will never be explained or even studied by Science as long as Scientists proclaim that there is no such thing as Consciousness or that it is just an Illusion. What can you do when people say there is no Hard Problem or Explanatory Gap and it is all already solved Scientifically? They say its all in the Neurons. They don't understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness that leads to the Explanatory Gap.

I think that Science will develop new Concepts that are not known yet. These Concepts will describe Consciousness in a Scientific way. It will be a new branch of Science. But first Science must acknowledge the existence of a separate Consciousness concept that is Not Explained yet and that can be studied. The very fact that Consciousness exists in the Universe means that we must explain it. It is basic human Scientific curiosity that will drive it. It might take thinking in new Scientific ways.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Dualism II

Post by PauloL » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:16 pm

.



Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:52 am
Arising:

I don't think David has not even a very limited memory, unless you call that his 30-second working memory, something that doesn't allow him to retain any memories.

Patients without language communicate, but any mammal communicates, too and it is widely accepted that they don't have language, and so they don't have a consciousness. Anyway, Damasio demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that language isn't required for a human mind to be there.

Whether an embodied mind may show up non-embodied is something that dualism can't grant and is out of its scope.
Walker wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:42 am
Walker:

I agree with you on a mind as an inference, and that's what we're trying to infer here, if a mind must be physical.

Your thoughts on cogito are interesting to me.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:02 pm
Steve:

In fact scientism boycotted any further investigation on the mind by deriding its study as associated to spiritism, for instance, something scientifically unsound, but curbing anyone interested in studying honestly the mind as an entity.




.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Dualism II

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:35 pm

Walker wrote:“I think, therefore I am.”

This implies that existence requires relationship, or duality. ...
For sure, a body with senses in an external world for example but not sure if 'existence ' itself needs an other.
And, it’s true. In the particular statement, the relationship is between awareness and thought, which is dualistic, because it is a relationship. ...
But is it two separate entities, I doubt it as it's all happening in the one body.
The only way this works is if “I am,” is not the body. ...
Not sure what you mean here, you mean that there is some non-embodied 'I' floating about somewhere without a body?
Consider the implications of non-conceptual, sensory-based meditation that leads to no-thought, which is the purpose of meditation. ...
And how does 'it' get there, by training the body to not notice itself.
In such a situation, the body is, but “I am” is not. “I am” does not exist without thought and only subsequently infers, through clues such as a slept-in bed (for deep sleep), or the passage of time and memory of how continuity of narrative fills in the unaccounted-for portions (for meditation), that the body did in fact exist in the past, when “I am” did not.
But that's not really the case is it, as what is actually happening is that first one puts the body in abeyance which tends to lead to the thought that it's the body that is the 'I' and the 'I' is a construct from the body and probably or maybe language. I do think we might be agreeing here but maybe not.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Dualism II

Post by PauloL » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:59 pm

PauloL wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:16 pm
.




SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:02 pm
Steve:

In fact scientism boycotted any further investigation on the mind by deriding its study as associated to spiritism, for instance, something scientifically unsound, but curbing anyone interested in studying honestly the mind as an entity.




.
To substantiate this boycott by scientism, just look at this quote from a book in Neurosciences:

"Progress in addressing the mind-body problem has come from focusing on empirically accessible questions rather than on eristic philosophical arguments with no clear resolution."

There's no dispute between any scientific areas, Philosophy included, so why do people think that they may feel in the right to call whatever they like to other legitimate scientific areas, to the point of disparaging and vilifying them? Isn't this devious behavior eristic on its own?
Last edited by PauloL on Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Dualism II

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:00 pm

PauloL wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:16 pm
In fact scientism boycotted any further investigation on the mind by deriding its study as associated to spiritism, for instance, something scientifically unsound, but curbing anyone interested in studying honestly the mind as an entity.
It does almost seem a little conspiratorial.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Dualism II

Post by PauloL » Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:51 pm

PauloL wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:47 pm
Arising_uk wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:09 am
.




Arising, on your questions:

I don't have a living example of a brain in a tank, but the most extreme examples of minimal consciousness I know are the works by Adrien M. Owen, published by Nature and perhaps better read in Scientific American (May 2014), in which he could communicate with some comatose people through sophisticated medical imagery.

I think a mind is a mind irrespective of the being. Damasio gives human examples and explains that there can be thoughts without language and vice versa, as I transcribed. According to Damasio, a mind without language is still a mind and can think.

I am searching for a definition of mind, an essential step in the formulation of an opinion on dualism, not taking any a priori position.

I'd like to better understand what you mean by "thoughting and thinking".




.
.




I have just learned that a book by Adrian Owen (not Adrien, as I wrote before, correction here) has been released on the subject of communication with comatose patients and a reflection on the borders of life and death:

Into the Gray Zone: A Neuroscientist explores the Border between Life and Death. By Adrian Owen. Scribner. 2017 (US$28.00).




.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests