Page 3 of 4 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

01 May 2009, 10:43 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
But we have not yet been able to rad whatever "dump" remains in our nervous system. When we can do that we may discover mind. I hate to get involved with religious aphorisms but in general they are habitually saying that not being aware of something does not mean it does not exist. Nevertheless, you may not be aware of your mind. I am aware of mine.


The point I make is that you are not aware of a mind in anyone's body but your own. How do you know your notion of mind is not a delusion or an hallucination? Where is the objective evidences that a mind exists in anyone's body?

ruveyn

Everybody lives, not with facts, but with probabilities. The probability that I am the only conscious human in a world of unconscious humans is nil.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

01 May 2009, 11:03 am

Sand wrote:
Everybody lives, not with facts, but with probabilities. The probability that I am the only conscious human in a world of unconscious humans is nil.


Consciousness is produced by brain activity, a very physical chemical process which is governed by physical laws. There is res extensa. There is no res cogitens. The latter is b.s. invented by philosophers ignorant of physical science.

Descartes' nonsense has survived far too long.

My brain is my mind. What is your mind? What is your brain?

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

01 May 2009, 11:19 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
Everybody lives, not with facts, but with probabilities. The probability that I am the only conscious human in a world of unconscious humans is nil.


Consciousness is produced by brain activity, a very physical chemical process which is governed by physical laws. There is res extensa. There is no res cogitens. The latter is b.s. invented by philosophers ignorant of physical science.

Descartes' nonsense has survived far too long.

My brain is my mind. What is your mind? What is your brain?

ruveyn


My brain is the organic machine that produces my mind.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

01 May 2009, 11:22 am

Sand wrote:
Everybody lives, not with facts, but with probabilities. The probability that I am the only conscious human in a world of unconscious humans is nil.


Not nil, but so low and remote that we can take it in all respects, except in realm of highly speculative thinking, as nil.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

01 May 2009, 1:08 pm

Sand wrote:

My brain is the organic machine that produces my mind.


May I assume that you think the mind is an epiphenomenon of your brain's operation?

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

01 May 2009, 1:27 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

My brain is the organic machine that produces my mind.


May I assume that you think the mind is an epiphenomenon of your brain's operation?

ruveyn


I do not regard the brain as an independent organ. It is an intimate functional sector of my entire body and the epiphenomenon is the result of the interaction of all parts.



merrymadscientist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 569
Location: UK

01 May 2009, 4:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The point I make is that you are not aware of a mind in anyone's body but your own. How do you know your notion of mind is not a delusion or an hallucination? Where is the objective evidences that a mind exists in anyone's body?

ruveyn


To be honest, having thought a lot about this over the last few years, I now doubt that there is a mind inside my own brain. The more I observe myself, the more I realise that I am not the same person from one moment to the next, that I don't consciously make the decisions I seem to make, that my moods and feelings are just chemical states that my brain passes through. This delusion that most people seem to have, of continuous self, with the ability to influence the universe (what arrogance!) is really difficult to get rid of - after all, it seems to have evolved, so must have a strong survival value. Even though I now realise it, I spend most of my time assuming that I do exist - I 'make' decisions and assume it will be me that experiences things in the future. But there is no objective evidence for the existence of the self, but its almost impossible to convince anyone else of their own non-existence, and to be honest I wouldn't even want to - let them be happy in their delusion of selfhood if that is what they need.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

01 May 2009, 11:05 pm

merrymadscientist wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

The point I make is that you are not aware of a mind in anyone's body but your own. How do you know your notion of mind is not a delusion or an hallucination? Where is the objective evidences that a mind exists in anyone's body?

ruveyn


To be honest, having thought a lot about this over the last few years, I now doubt that there is a mind inside my own brain. The more I observe myself, the more I realise that I am not the same person from one moment to the next, that I don't consciously make the decisions I seem to make, that my moods and feelings are just chemical states that my brain passes through. This delusion that most people seem to have, of continuous self, with the ability to influence the universe (what arrogance!) is really difficult to get rid of - after all, it seems to have evolved, so must have a strong survival value. Even though I now realise it, I spend most of my time assuming that I do exist - I 'make' decisions and assume it will be me that experiences things in the future. But there is no objective evidence for the existence of the self, but its almost impossible to convince anyone else of their own non-existence, and to be honest I wouldn't even want to - let them be happy in their delusion of selfhood if that is what they need.


I agree that what you say is true but that does not destroy the existence of mind as a focus of interaction between the organism and the world. Our decisions naturally result from consensuses of negative and positive influences and these influences are most probably not all conscious. Nevertheless I find it impossible to deny I (as a sense of self) exists, whatever the source of that consciousness. Oliver Sacks, in his writings, has demonstrated how malleable that self is as it can be radically changed by both physical damage or manipulation of the nervous system or by activating nervous complexes already resident but normally quiescent. The process of learning as we grow is a process of formation and sophistication of nervous complexes which interact with each other and the outside world to present the envelope of our character and our consciousnesses are surface phenomena reacting to all this dynamic interaction. Most people take it for granted that this consciousness is in control (thus the delusion of "free will") but although it probably is the mere envelope of multiple unconscious dynamic interactions its existence is undeniable.



peterd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,353

02 May 2009, 6:27 am

So, my mind exists as the set of interactions between me and the world. Since I have aspergers', those interactions largely exclude any sets where repeated interactions between me and another shape behaviour (socialisation).

The theory of mind I have is therefore different from that of normal individuals. I'm unaware of this, by definition. Responses to my actions indicate an error of some sort but in the absence of awareness of difference, I'm helpless to improve things.

I go somewhere else and start again.



philosopher
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 102

18 May 2009, 7:59 pm

i emote therefore iam



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

18 May 2009, 8:21 pm

philosopher wrote:
i emote therefore iam


But animals, even reptiles, show emotional reactions. Therefore we had to assume that emotions are also present in reptiles. But we have no indication of a self aware continuous.

Could we therefore not better assume that our continuous does just recognize such emotions in the first place and there are not essential for the self awareness.

---

May to point of being an Aspie: My emotional structure is different of the structure of a NT, but I am obviously self aware. So the self awareness seems to be independent from having emotions.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,229
Location: Boötes void

18 May 2009, 8:25 pm

Dussel wrote:
Sand wrote:
Everybody lives, not with facts, but with probabilities. The probability that I am the only conscious human in a world of unconscious humans is nil.


Not nil, but so low and remote that we can take it in all respects, except in realm of highly speculative thinking, as nil.

Now, how does one derive such a conclusion?


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

18 May 2009, 8:55 pm

twoshots wrote:
Dussel wrote:
Sand wrote:
Everybody lives, not with facts, but with probabilities. The probability that I am the only conscious human in a world of unconscious humans is nil.


Not nil, but so low and remote that we can take it in all respects, except in realm of highly speculative thinking, as nil.

Now, how does one derive such a conclusion?


Because the model "the other humans are conscious too" does explain the behaviour of other human very well and is confirmed by all evidences I receive via my senses. Especially the mixture of random and egoistic behaviour of other humans and their reaction to my actions (including communication) can be very well explained by a model which works with a conscious on its own.

The alternative would be world either constructed by any supreme being surrounding and manipulating my environment in a perfect way, which would raise the question why I do not play in this world a more prominent role and how this artificial environment could always react in such a consistent manner regarding my actions or a self inflicted illusion, like a dream in which my brain does construct for a while its own world. From dreams and other experiences alike I know that those self inflicted illusion are not consistent. So such illusion creating the environment creating the kind of consistent environment I do experience, does not fit in my experiences of environment which are illusionary.

Therefore I must assume with a high degree of probability that other human beings are in a very similar way conscious as I am, until proven otherwise.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

19 May 2009, 1:52 am

Dussel wrote:
twoshots wrote:
Dussel wrote:
Therefore I must assume with a high degree of probability that other human beings are in a very similar way conscious as I am, until proven otherwise.


Quite so. But this does not logically preclude the possibility of a machine that faithfully mimics the external behavior associated with consciousness. So having an intelligent online conversation with an unseen correspondent does not prove that the correspondent is conscious. It could possibly be a very cleverly contrive 'bot.

For example, I have corresponded with you (whoever or whatever you are) on several occasions and I have assumed you are as conscious as I am, but this is still not proof that you are conscious. Have you considered the possibility that I am a 'bot? Suppose we both are? No logical contradiction flows from that assumption, however unlikely it may be.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

19 May 2009, 2:08 am

ruveyn wrote:
Dussel wrote:
twoshots wrote:
Dussel wrote:
Therefore I must assume with a high degree of probability that other human beings are in a very similar way conscious as I am, until proven otherwise.


Quite so. But this does not logically preclude the possibility of a machine that faithfully mimics the external behavior associated with consciousness. So having an intelligent online conversation with an unseen correspondent does not prove that the correspondent is conscious. It could possibly be a very cleverly contrive 'bot.

For example, I have corresponded with you (whoever or whatever you are) on several occasions and I have assumed you are as conscious as I am, but this is still not proof that you are conscious. Have you considered the possibility that I am a 'bot? Suppose we both are? No logical contradiction flows from that assumption, however unlikely it may be.

ruveyn


In life it is not necessary to act on the logic of any particular perception to form a consistent picture of the whole. Of course we all may be some sort of zombie robot except you but what kind of distortion does that impose on the totality? It would seem to imply that you are somehow very special and again that is not logically deniable but its probability in the light of a sane view of reality is exceedingly low and in the name of a reasonable universe can, I think, be easily discarded.

It may be worthwhile to add that throughout your previous submissions you have evidenced a rather strong absence of compassion in the matter your personal property rights and the delight in the instant incineration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As odd as it might seem I am seriously in doubt that you do assign consciousness to anybody not of your ethnic persuasion and perhaps you regard the disintegration of all humans outside your family circle as of little consequence as peeling a potato or dicing an onion for a quick snack. Since you seem so eminently rational and sensible in many other matters I sincerely hope I am wrong in this.