Laura Weed takes us on a tour of the mind/brain controversy.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/87/Phil ... n_Overview
Philosophy of Mind: An Overview
Re: Philosophy of Mind: An Overview
I found this article to be quite informative, in regards to the history of how we consider mind/brain. Many interesting issues were raised. This one jumped out at me.
As example, the human body is one thing, which we conceptually divide in to parts to facilitate a more detailed discussion. Conceptually, we have a long list of body parts, but in reality, the human body is a single functional system.
The human body as a whole is conceptually divided from the environment it depends on, air, water, food, sunlight etc.
The earth's environment is conceptually divided from the larger cosmic environment it depends on.
And so on...
So the word "intelligence" is a useful conceptual device, which helps us focus our attention on a specific aspect of a larger system. Sometimes we use the word "intelligence" to reference only human abilities, while other times we use the term more broadly to include many forms of animal life as well. The variety of ways we use the word illustrates it's arbitrary nature.
Point being, intelligence is not an isolated event disconnected from everything else, except in the neat and tidy abstract conceptual world. In the real world, intelligence is most likely intimately connected with larger systems, just as everything is.
Big bang theory says all matter arose from almost nothing. This matter turned in to life. Life turned in to intelligent life. That is, intelligence arose from nothing.
It would be silly to say that rocks have human style intelligence. Using the commonly accepted definition of "intelligence" such a statement would not be correct.
However, it may be more reasonable to propose that an essence of intelligence exists in some form in all things, and expresses itself in the right conditions. This might be compared to seeds that sit dormant in the ground for years, until a big rain comes, and then the tiny seeds sprout and grow in to big trees.
Perhaps the whole conversation about intelligence suffers from the limitations of the language of intelligence.
That is, the boundary lines we draw between intelligence and non-intelligence are creations of our own mind, not an accurate representation of a single unified reality.
"Intelligence" is of course a word, and like all words is a conceptual division of a unified reality. A good question for philosophers might be, do divisions actually exist in reality, or are apparent divisions merely a useful conceptual device?Intelligence, for example, is not a thing that exists apart from and parallel to a body, but rather is a collection of properties a body has.
As example, the human body is one thing, which we conceptually divide in to parts to facilitate a more detailed discussion. Conceptually, we have a long list of body parts, but in reality, the human body is a single functional system.
The human body as a whole is conceptually divided from the environment it depends on, air, water, food, sunlight etc.
The earth's environment is conceptually divided from the larger cosmic environment it depends on.
And so on...
So the word "intelligence" is a useful conceptual device, which helps us focus our attention on a specific aspect of a larger system. Sometimes we use the word "intelligence" to reference only human abilities, while other times we use the term more broadly to include many forms of animal life as well. The variety of ways we use the word illustrates it's arbitrary nature.
Point being, intelligence is not an isolated event disconnected from everything else, except in the neat and tidy abstract conceptual world. In the real world, intelligence is most likely intimately connected with larger systems, just as everything is.
Big bang theory says all matter arose from almost nothing. This matter turned in to life. Life turned in to intelligent life. That is, intelligence arose from nothing.
It would be silly to say that rocks have human style intelligence. Using the commonly accepted definition of "intelligence" such a statement would not be correct.
However, it may be more reasonable to propose that an essence of intelligence exists in some form in all things, and expresses itself in the right conditions. This might be compared to seeds that sit dormant in the ground for years, until a big rain comes, and then the tiny seeds sprout and grow in to big trees.
Perhaps the whole conversation about intelligence suffers from the limitations of the language of intelligence.
That is, the boundary lines we draw between intelligence and non-intelligence are creations of our own mind, not an accurate representation of a single unified reality.
-
strangetruther
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:55 am
Re: Philosophy of Mind: An Overview
I believed for some time that Searle’s Chinese Room argument claimed that for a system to be able to do something it must contain some subcomponent that could do the whole task itself. Then I heard Marvin Minsky say it. I hadn’t told him, and I doubt if he’d take my advice anyway so that’s two of us at least. Might be an idea to mention this as a standard argument against.
If Searle’s saying something using simple rules and a dictionary cannot translate Chinese language, especially if spoken, then fine; however I think he wants to say no computerisable specification ever could.
I wonder if Global Workspace Theory counts as a philosophy of mind? I think the positions Laura lists can be well addressed through the paradigm, even if it isn’t a ‘P. of M’ itself, and even without what it says about consciousness. I think an implementation of GWT inside the Chinese room could cover most of Searle’s objections.
Thanks for the overview (which I came to via John Hawks’ blog). Handy, and I learned a lot (or will have if I remember the new stuff!)
If Searle’s saying something using simple rules and a dictionary cannot translate Chinese language, especially if spoken, then fine; however I think he wants to say no computerisable specification ever could.
I wonder if Global Workspace Theory counts as a philosophy of mind? I think the positions Laura lists can be well addressed through the paradigm, even if it isn’t a ‘P. of M’ itself, and even without what it says about consciousness. I think an implementation of GWT inside the Chinese room could cover most of Searle’s objections.
Thanks for the overview (which I came to via John Hawks’ blog). Handy, and I learned a lot (or will have if I remember the new stuff!)
Re: Philosophy of Mind: An Overview
R.I.P. Putnam. Thanks for the valuable insight, Laura.