Philosophy of Mind

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

RG1
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by RG1 » Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:46 pm

bergie15 wrote:This does sound a lot like dualism, as someone else said. So you think that the brain and the mind are the same thing?
No. There is no mind. There is only a brain that experiences the illusion of a mind.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:16 pm

No, there is a particular and peculiar species of animal (humans) with a particular and peculiar kind of neurological complexity that allows for self-reflection and self-direction.

'Mind' is just a name for that self-reflection and -direction.

'Mind' is on-going action, it's what that particular and peculiar animal does (the success, the sharpness, of that action being dictated by what any one animal brings to the table).

There is no inner theater, there is no indwelling spirit, there is no magic, there's only good, old fashioned, chemicals and electricity, working together in a certain way.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:21 pm

bergie15 wrote:
So you think that the brain and the mind are the same thing
Mind is a function of the brain so they are not the same thing

clueless
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:42 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by clueless » Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:14 am

attofishpi wrote:To me...the mind has three states as it only has to deal with three things regarding its path through time. The past, the present and the future:-

The past is a memory.

The present is a process.

The future is speculation..also a process.
Interesting!

If you look at an event record (such as an oscillograph), with time progressing toward the right, you will notice that at every point in the record (every instant in time), except for the starting point and the endpoint, the past is represented by what lies to the left of the point and the future is represented by what lies to the right of the point. The point itself represents the present. You will notice that the present (the "now") is of zero duration.

Are we to suppose that a present of zero duration can have an effect on the mind?

In realtime, we are always immersed in the present, engaging in activities which may include reflecting on the past, and anticipating the future.

For some reason, the "hand" on my path-through-time clock is always pointing to NOW. It doesn't keep a record.

At any instant, I am the cumulative total of all my experiences.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re:

Post by The Inglorious One » Tue Dec 01, 2015 2:40 am

henry quirk wrote: There is no inner theater, there is no indwelling spirit, there is no magic, there's only good, old fashioned, chemicals and electricity, working together in a certain way.
This is merely a belief, and one that is rather hollow.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:31 pm

"This is merely a belief..."

As is the notion the universe is an Artifact, as is the notion there is an Artificer.


"...and one that is rather hollow."

Better hollow than fanciful.

I'll take a real bowl of real ramen over an imaginary feast laid out across an imaginary table any day.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re:

Post by The Inglorious One » Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:02 pm

henry quirk wrote:"This is merely a belief..."

As is the notion the universe is an Artifact, as is the notion there is an Artificer.


"...and one that is rather hollow."

Better hollow than fanciful.

I'll take a real bowl of real ramen over an imaginary feast laid out across an imaginary table any day.
Now you sound like Leo: inferring things from things never said or implied.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:21 pm

I musta side stepped into an alternate reality, then, cuz the Inglorious I've been communicating with is all about God (the biggest friggin' Artificer one can imagine).

So, since I'm in a new universe, and we've never met: Hello! I'm Henry!

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re:

Post by The Inglorious One » Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:18 pm

henry quirk wrote:I musta side stepped into an alternate reality, then, cuz the Inglorious I've been communicating with is all about God (the biggest friggin' Artificer one can imagine).

So, since I'm in a new universe, and we've never met: Hello! I'm Henry!
Artifact: A man-made object taken as a whole.

You inferred 'artifact,' but I implied no such thing. I have repeatedly said...

:::sigh:::

Never mind. I won't waste my time. You're in a universe of your own making and can see no alternative.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:26 pm

So: god, for you, is not the architect/creator/sustainer?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Obvious Leo » Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:41 pm

clueless wrote:Are we to suppose that a present of zero duration can have an effect on the mind?
It is a principle which dates back to the pre-Socratics that time is not infinitely divisible. There MUST be a minimum possible instant of time in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened and a time interval too brief for anything to occur in it is generally regarded as a metaphysical absurdity. This generalised metaphysical principle was also empirically proven true by Max Planck in his early work on black body radiation and this minimum possible interval of time actually has both a name and a defined duration. It is called the Planck interval and it has a duration of 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re:

Post by The Inglorious One » Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:18 am

henry quirk wrote:So: god, for you, is not the architect/creator/sustainer?
Like I said, it's a waste of time. You will be satisfied only with a 'yes' or 'no' answer, but I can't give you that.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:29 pm

I'm just lookin' to understand your perspective. It's not about my being satisfied or you having a definitive answer.

So, if you can, put aside our past squabbles and help me out.

clueless
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:42 am

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by clueless » Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:56 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
Are we to suppose that a present of zero duration can have an effect on the mind?
It is a principle which dates back to the pre-Socratics that time is not infinitely divisible. There MUST be a minimum possible instant of time in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened and a time interval too brief for anything to occur in it is generally regarded as a metaphysical absurdity. This generalised metaphysical principle was also empirically proven true by Max Planck in his early work on black body radiation and this minimum possible interval of time actually has both a name and a defined duration. It is called the Planck interval and it has a duration of 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds.
Yes...so, rather than being "an infinite sequence of moments", time is an infinite sequence of Planck intervals? If so, time is not continuous? Or is it just that no interaction between particles can occur within intervals shorter than the Planck interval? In other words, no change of state can occur in less than 1 Planck interval?. If so, there must be an interval shorter than the Planck interval during which a change of state is destined but delayed.

Strange stuff this TIME and these changes of state.

Interesting how we use terms that describe space and movement to describe TIME.

Interesting how TIME is relative and can only be measured with a clock, the "speed" of which depends on its velocity.

Interesting how space can only be measured with a measuring stick, the length of which depends on its velocity.

Is a zero rest mass particle a metaphysical absurdity?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Philosophy of Mind

Post by Obvious Leo » Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:39 am

clueless wrote:
Yes...so, rather than being "an infinite sequence of moments", time is an infinite sequence of Planck intervals?
Exactly so. This is what Max Planck managed to show as a result of his research into black body radiation and it was this principle which then went on to form the basis of the quantum theory, which underpinned practically all of 20th century physics and thus all of the remarkable new technologies which flowed from it. It is also perfectly in accord with pre-Socratic philosophy which postulates a non-continuous time as a metaphysical first principle. Zeno's paradox is often used to illustrate this principle.
clueless wrote: In other words, no change of state can occur in less than 1 Planck interval?.
Exactly. I don't know how much physics you know but you don't need much to get this. The minimum possible change of state within the atom is when a subatomic particle either emits or absorbs a photon. You might think of this as the speed at which an atom can become a different atom and since photons ALWAYS move at the speed of light it then makes sense to regard the speed of light and the rate of change in a physical system as synonymous constructs. This interpretation also accords perfectly with Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle, generally expressed in his famous equation E=mcc. He derived this equation from Special Relativity but it was actually in General Relativity that he showed that the rate of change in a physical system is gravity-dependent. This means that when you're standing up the atoms in your head are changing state more quickly than the atoms in your feet. It might sound a bit weird but it's perfectly true.
clueless wrote: If so, there must be an interval shorter than the Planck interval during which a change of state is destined but delayed.
This statement fails the test of logic by assuming that the change of state is determined in advance. In a self-causal universe this is impossible because the change of state is simply being determined by all the other changes of state which are taking place within other physical entities. this defines the subatomic particles as both causER and causEE and naturally this same principle applies to any other hierarchy of informational complexity which we choose to define for ourselves, including of course the human mind which is both ACTOR and ACTED UPON.
clueless wrote:Interesting how we use terms that describe space and movement to describe TIME.
Yes indeed. This is both interesting and confusing because it tends to make us think of reality as a place but this notion is bollocks. Reality is an EVENT which we merely model as occurring within a place. This is a conceptual myth because no such place exists. Because the speed of light is finite it is utterly impossible for us to observe the real world. Instead of seeing the world as it is we can only ever see it as it was.
clueless wrote:Is a zero rest mass particle a metaphysical absurdity?
Yes it is. A zero rest mass can only be applied to a relativistic relationship between one particle and another and whilst it may have meaning for that particular relationship it can by definition therefore have no meaning for the same particle's relativistic relationship with any other. Just as the notion of absolute rest is an absurdity in reality so too must be the notion of an absolute rest mass.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests