Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:Obvious Leo argued for increased complexity, this use of 'intelligence' in these matters is mistaken I think as the cetaceans have more complex brains than us but does that make them more 'intelligent'?

Ok, but how are you defining 'complexity' with these biological systems?

attofishpi wrote:Ok, but how are you defining 'complexity' with these biological systems?

You can take your pick I guess, neuronal connections, chromosomes, genes, language, etc. depending upon what facets or aspects of the system you are concerned with.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Obvious Leo argued for increased complexity, this use of 'intelligence' in these matters is mistaken I think as the cetaceans have more complex brains than us but does that make them more 'intelligent'?

Ok, but how are you defining 'complexity' with these biological systems?

You can take your pick I guess, neuronal connections, chromosomes, genes, language, etc. depending upon what facets or aspects of the system you are concerned with.

The aspect in question is what constitutes a human mind.
What is this 'complexity' within a cetacean that exceeds the complexity of the human brain. How are you differentiating the difference?

attofishpi wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote: Ok, but how are you defining 'complexity' with these biological systems?

You can take your pick I guess, neuronal connections, chromosomes, genes, language, etc. depending upon what facets or aspects of the system you are concerned with.

The aspect in question is what constitutes a human mind.
What is this 'complexity' within a cetacean that exceeds the complexity of the human brain. How are you differentiating the difference?

Quantitative relationships in delphinid neocortex https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4244864/

We found that the long-finned pilot whale neocortex has approximately 37.2 × 109 neurons, which is almost twice as many as humans, and 127 × 109 glial cells. Thus, the absolute number of neurons in the human neocortex is not correlated with the superior cognitive abilities of humans (at least compared to cetaceans) as has previously been hypothesized. However, as neuron density in long-finned pilot whales is lower than that in humans, their higher cell number appears to be due to their larger brain.

It looks like "swings and roundabouts" here. My guess is that our advantage comes from our social structures that can build and store bodies of knowledge. As the body of knowledge grows, progress grows ever faster.

Greta wrote:It looks like "swings and roundabouts" here. My guess is that our advantage comes from our social structures that can build and store bodies of knowledge. As the body of knowledge grows, progress grows ever faster.

Thanks Greta, i think you're right there. I should apologise to Arising...i posted quite late after a noon on many beverages and thought by Cetacea he meant snails!

A nice Wiki list:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... of_neurons

NielsBohr wrote:

bahman wrote: First definition of mind: Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act.

1) Intellect is utility of mind
2) This means that it is impossible to understand mind because intellect is utility of mind
3) This means that it is impossible to perform an act to create mind

Okay, nice,
but I am rather interested in the impossibility to destruct the mind. Depending on me, it is impossible to imagine a thing as being endless in the past and having an end in the future, (when it is possible to imagine a thing having a beginning with no end).

What do you think of all this?

It is possible to have a beginning for a thing but no end.

bahman wrote:

NielsBohr wrote:

bahman wrote: First definition of mind: Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act.

1) Intellect is utility of mind
2) This means that it is impossible to understand mind because intellect is utility of mind
3) This means that it is impossible to perform an act to create mind

Okay, nice,
but I am rather interested in the impossibility to destruct the mind. Depending on me, it is impossible to imagine a thing as being endless in the past and having an end in the future, (when it is possible to imagine a thing having a beginning with no end).

What do you think of all this?

It is possible to have a beginning for a thing but no end.

Thanks, but do you think possible, can you imagine that a thing - whatever it is - may have an endless past with an end in the future?

Personally, I am in the impossibility to imagine it; that is why I ask - if you can - and why it is most probably impossible.

I am in the impossibility to find a (somewhat nor rather) "scientific" principle to explain this impossibility! Some ideas, there?

Terrapin Station wrote:

attofishpi wrote:You may need to re-read. I am not talking about a simulation, rather some advanced 3D 'printer' that could build a human - lets say replicating yourself atom by atom...all the molecules are rebuilt precisely as the original you. Do you believe this 'human' would be conscious, would we have a working mind?

As long as it's undergoing the right processes, yes. You need the right materials, in the right structures, undergoing the right processes. It should be easy, well or relatively easy, in this scenario to have it undergo the right processes if it's the (nominalistically) same materials in the same structures. You'd just need to jumpstart its heart to get its blood pumping, etc.

Yes, i'm tending to agree. I wonder if the ability to manipulate matter at the atomic level to permit the above would come about prior to us ever truly understanding the human mind.

attofishpi wrote:

Greta wrote:It looks like "swings and roundabouts" here. My guess is that our advantage comes from our social structures that can build and store bodies of knowledge. As the body of knowledge grows, progress grows ever faster.

Thanks Greta, i think you're right there. I should apologise to Arising...i posted quite late after a noon on many beverages and thought by Cetacea he meant snails!

A nice Wiki list:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... of_neurons

Or maybe Crustacea? I find weed more conducive to philosophy than booze

Greta wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Greta wrote:It looks like "swings and roundabouts" here. My guess is that our advantage comes from our social structures that can build and store bodies of knowledge. As the body of knowledge grows, progress grows ever faster.

Thanks Greta, i think you're right there. I should apologise to Arising...i posted quite late after a noon on many beverages and thought by Cetacea he meant snails!

A nice Wiki list:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... of_neurons

Or maybe Crustacea? I find weed more conducive to philosophy than booze

You're right Crustacea, I think thats where my confusion came from!

Yes, everyone is an instant philosopher after a spliff!

NielsBohr wrote:

bahman wrote:

NielsBohr wrote: Okay, nice,
but I am rather interested in the impossibility to destruct the mind. Depending on me, it is impossible to imagine a thing as being endless in the past and having an end in the future, (when it is possible to imagine a thing having a beginning with no end).

What do you think of all this?

It is possible to have a beginning for a thing but no end.

Thanks, but do you think possible, can you imagine that a thing - whatever it is - may have an endless past with an end in the future?

Personally, I am in the impossibility to imagine it; that is why I ask - if you can - and why it is most probably impossible.

I am in the impossibility to find a (somewhat nor rather) "scientific" principle to explain this impossibility! Some ideas, there?

Something cannot have an endless past since it take infinite waiting to reach from endless past to now.

bahman wrote:First definition of mind: Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act.

1) Intellect is utility of mind
2) This means that it is impossible to understand mind because intellect is utility of mind
3) This means that it is impossible to perform an act to create mind

Minds do not exist.

It's just a metaphor.

A Human wrote:

bahman wrote:First definition of mind: Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act.

1) Intellect is utility of mind
2) This means that it is impossible to understand mind because intellect is utility of mind
3) This means that it is impossible to perform an act to create mind

Minds do not exist.

It's just a metaphor.

You've provided your opinion, one with which I disagree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Minds may appear to be real or unreal depending on whether the perspective is in the moment, considered over a period of time, from the outside, from the inside, and based on different stimuli (or lack), and whether considered individually or collectively.

It seems to be a standard philosophical game to declare the obviously real as unreal with some kind of epistemological "disappearing trick". I expect that, using the right angle, peristalsis and other body reflexes can be declared non existent too.

Greta wrote:

A Human wrote:

bahman wrote:First definition of mind: Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act.

1) Intellect is utility of mind
2) This means that it is impossible to understand mind because intellect is utility of mind
3) This means that it is impossible to perform an act to create mind

Minds do not exist.

It's just a metaphor.

You've provided your opinion, one with which I disagree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, exactly, provide information about any scientific experiment where we can take any particular person and prove that person has a mind.

There aren't any.

A Human wrote:

Greta wrote:

A Human wrote:
Minds do not exist.

It's just a metaphor.

You've provided your opinion, one with which I disagree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, exactly, provide information about any scientific experiment where we can take any particular person and prove that person has a mind.

There aren't any.

We appear destined to play a game of words that becomes increasingly abstracted and disconnected from the basic reality of being. If you feel that is a fruitful approach:

Mind. noun
1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.
2. Psychology. the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities.
3. intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence.
4. a particular instance of the intellect or intelligence, as in a person.
5. a person considered with reference to intellectual power: the greatest minds of the twentieth century.
6. intellectual power or ability.
7. reason, sanity, or sound mental condition: to lose one's mind.

Which of these do you accept or deny?

What is the broader point you wish to make by denying the existence of minds? People I've run into before who make such claims have either been trying to advocate for a stronger focus on the significance of the present moment or treating "mind" as an analog for "spirit" and using the denial as another plank in the well worn materialist v spiritualist debates.