Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Origin of the Mind/Mental States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Unfortunately you're also implying that whatever happens to the {monorail car/rocket/wind-turbine blade/oil pipeline} as a result of the program being run only has significance when interpreted through a human mind, regardless of how many {buildings are damaged/asteroid orbits are affected/bird are killed/trees die from spilt pollution from overpressure}.

    When a tree dies in a forest and no-one sees it, does it have significance?
    Well, I don't believe any of those things have significance, unless there exists persons out there who are affected by them. Significance is ultimately a subjective judgement (in the sense that it's subjects who assign significance to things/events, significance isn't an inherent attribute of things/events themselves)

    But I have a feeling you're misunderstanding what I'm saying when I say that a "program being run only has significance when interpreted through a human mind". I'm not saying that the consequences of running the software/program doesn't have any significance (provided that these consequences actually affect anyone). I'm saying that the instructions carried out by the CPU as a result of the software doesn't mean anything by themselves, it's only when you know what the programmer's intentions behind the combination of instructions that make up the software were that the software actually starts to become meaningful. It's the programmer's, or end-user's intentions with the software that gives it significance, not anything inherent to the software itself.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      think of a computer running a 3D model of a bat hitting a ball. Neither the ball nor the bat exist in physical reality, nor do they exist in the various circuits of the computer, nor in the software itself. yet the software can model the bat and ball, even computing where the ball and bat intersect, the trajectory of the ball, etc. the software is basically nothing but transistors turning on and off in the CPU in varying sequences. Yet we have a model of a ball and bat that don't exist physically and can be acted upon by other parts of the software. It doesn't depend on you seeing it or interpreting it. It runs regardless. Forget the screen. The screen is just a display of what the computer is modelling. No different than you writing out your thoughts for someone else to read.
      Well, I think that's where our main disagreement lies. I don't think the computer is actually modelling the bat and the ball at all. Nor is it calculating the intersection or
      the trajectory. It's simply manipulating the state of the transistors to either on or off, which then get's interpreted by us humans on the lowest level of abstraction as symbolizing 0's and 1's, on a slightly higher abstraction level as the computer doing mathematical operations on variables and constants, and on the highest level of abstraction we say that these variables, constants and algorithms symbolize, or model, physical objects and physical laws. But the objects that are being modelled don't actually exist anywhere in the computer, they exist in the mind of the user of the software. We're the ones who look at the data that the computer spits out and decide what it represents.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
        Well, I think that's where our main disagreement lies. I don't think the computer is actually modelling the bat and the ball at all. Nor is it calculating the intersection or
        the trajectory. It's simply manipulating the state of the transistors to either on or off, which then get's interpreted by us humans on the lowest level of abstraction as symbolizing 0's and 1's, on a slightly higher abstraction level as the computer doing mathematical operations on variables and constants, and on the highest level of abstraction we say that these variables, constants and algorithms symbolize, or model, physical objects and physical laws. But the objects that are being modelled don't actually exist anywhere in the computer, they exist in the mind of the user of the software. We're the ones who look at the data that the computer spits out and decide what it represents.
        considering we can work with the data and correspond it with the real world, then yes the modeling is actually happening in the software. It isn't just some random flipping of transistors that we just interpret. It is an actual model. They exist in the software and NOT in the mind of the user of the software. There doesn't even have to be a user. The modelled results can be used in other programs. Or in controlling a robot.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          Well, I think that's where our main disagreement lies. I don't think the computer is actually modelling the bat and the ball at all. Nor is it calculating the intersection or
          the trajectory. It's simply manipulating the state of the transistors to either on or off, which then get's interpreted by us humans on the lowest level of abstraction as symbolizing 0's and 1's, on a slightly higher abstraction level as the computer doing mathematical operations on variables and constants, and on the highest level of abstraction we say that these variables, constants and algorithms symbolize, or model, physical objects and physical laws. But the objects that are being modelled don't actually exist anywhere in the computer, they exist in the mind of the user of the software. We're the ones who look at the data that the computer spits out and decide what it represents.
          The computer manipulates binary numbers, but those binary numbers have to be manipulated and configured in a certain way so that the user can see certain things on the screen such as a bat and a ball.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Hornet View Post
            Are there any good arguments in favor of the view that our minds or mental states are not physical entities and cannot come from something that is physical? I'm asking just out of curiosity.
            I think if there were any such good argument, you'd have heard it by now. Memories are stored in the physical brain and are brought to consciousness through physical stimulation. Afaik there is no evidence whatsoever that mental states exist apart from the physical brain. There is the idea, derived of quantum mechanics, that perhaps it is the mind that is the only thing that actully exists, that it is the pysical world, including the brain, which is all just an illusion, but I'm not aware of a good argument in favor of that view.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Hornet View Post
              Are there any good arguments in favor of the view that our minds or mental states are not physical entities and cannot come from something that is physical? I'm asking just out of curiosity.
              Well, if our minds and mental states are merely physical, totally caused by the motion of atoms in our heads, then we have no reason to trust our thoughts!

              See the argument from reason, notably by C.S. Lewis:

              Source: C.S. Lewis

              … those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                Well, if our minds and mental states are merely physical, totally caused by the motion of atoms in our heads, then we have no reason to trust our thoughts!

                See the argument from reason, notably by C.S. Lewis:

                Source: C.S. Lewis

                … those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Blessings,
                Lee
                Or...

                1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
                2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
                3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, the no belief is rationally inferred.
                4. If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally inferred, then it should be accepted and its denial accepted.
                5. Therefore, naturalism should be rejected and its denial accepted
                .

                http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/20...wiss-post.html
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Or...

                  1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
                  2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
                  3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, the no belief is rationally inferred.
                  4. If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally inferred, then it should be accepted and its denial accepted.
                  5. Therefore, naturalism should be rejected and its denial accepted
                  .

                  http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/20...wiss-post.html
                  As Daniel Dennett, philosopher, writer and cognitive scientist superbly opines: "It continues to amaze me how attractive this position still is for many people. I would have thought a historical perspective alone would make this view seem ludicrous: over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially "supernatural" mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science... The "miracles" of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being? Besides, the notorious problems with the supposed transactions at that dualistic interface are as good as a reductio ad absurdum of the view. The phenomena of consciousness are an admittedly dazzling lot, but I suspect that dualism would never be seriously considered if there weren't such a strong undercurrent of desire to protect the mind from science, by supposing it composed of a stuff that is in principle uninvestigatable by the methods of the physical sciences".

                  Daniel C. Dennett, "Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    As Daniel Dennett, philosopher, writer and cognitive scientist superbly opines: "It continues to amaze me how attractive this position still is for many people. I would have thought a historical perspective alone would make this view seem ludicrous: over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially "supernatural" mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science..."
                    Ah, but the explanation that thought itself is due solely to the mechanics of atoms in my head explains away thought as valid perception.

                    "The 'miracles' of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology."
                    Is he talking origin of life here? That is decidedly up in the air.

                    Why should consciousness be any exception?
                    Any proof of the validity of thought has to assume the validity of thought in order to make the proof! This won't do.

                    Best wishes,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Ah, but the explanation that thought itself is due solely to the mechanics of atoms in my head explains away thought as valid perception.


                      Is he talking origin of life here? That is decidedly up in the air.


                      Any proof of the validity of thought has to assume the validity of thought in order to make the proof! This won't do.

                      Best wishes,
                      Lee
                      "If a philosopher or social scientist were to try to encapsulate a single principle that yoked together the intellectual process of civilization, it would be a gradual dismantling of presumptions of magic. Brick by brick, century by century, with occasional burps and hiccups, the wall of superstition has been coming down. Science and medicine and political philosophy have been on a relentless march in one direction only -- sometimes slow, sometimes at a gallop, but never reversing course. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation. ("Holy cow, Dr. Pasteur! I've examined the pancreas of a diabetic dog, and darned if it's NOT an insulin deficiency, but a little evil goblin dwelling inside and he seems really pissed off!") Some magical presumptions have stubbornly persisted way longer than others, but have eventually, inexorably fallen to logic, reason and enlightenment, such as the assumption of the divine right of kings and the entitlement of aristocracy. That one took five millennia, but fall it did." -- Gene Weingarten

                      So, as Professor Dennett says: "Why should consciousness be an exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?" IOW: Why would one assume, in the light of the history of science, that anything lies outside the realm of having a natural, rational explanation?
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Ah, but the explanation that thought itself is due solely to the mechanics of atoms in my head explains away thought as valid perception.
                        Why? How do you expect that your immaterial mind thinks? You want to argue that "thinking can't be a function of the physical brain" but do you have an explanation as to how your believed "immaterial mind" does it, i.e. how it thinks?

                        Any proof of the validity of thought has to assume the validity of thought in order to make the proof! This won't do.
                        Not following. I don't think the above makes sense, perhaps you could re-word it, make your meaning more clear.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          "Brick by brick, century by century, with occasional burps and hiccups, the wall of superstition has been coming down. Science and medicine and political philosophy have been on a relentless march in one direction only..." -- Gene Weingarten
                          I would point to the scientists such as Fazale Rana, who was convinced of the existence of a Designer by the complexity of the cell, and of Antony Flew, who became a Deist by regarding the start of the universe from nothing, among other things.

                          So, as Professor Dennett says: "Why should consciousness be an exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?" IOW: Why would one assume, in the light of the history of science, that anything lies outside the realm of having a natural, rational explanation?
                          Because if thought has a mechanistic explanation, you have explained away the validity of thought. Every brain, every mind is a point of supernatural activity, if reason is valid.

                          Best wishes,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Why? How do you expect that your immaterial mind thinks? You want to argue that "thinking can't be a function of the physical brain" but do you have an explanation as to how your believed "immaterial mind" does it, i.e. how it thinks?
                            No more than I can tell you how my physical brain operates!

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill
                            Any proof of the validity of thought has to assume the validity of thought in order to make the proof!
                            Not following. I don't think the above makes sense, perhaps you could re-word it, make your meaning more clear.
                            All proofs have to assume the validity of thought from the outset. This would include any proof of the validity of thought! So such a proof would involve circular reasoning.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              I would point to the scientists such as Fazale Rana, who was convinced of the existence of a Designer by the complexity of the cell, and of Antony Flew, who became a Deist by regarding the start of the universe from nothing, among other things.
                              The vast majority of scientists do not.

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_technology

                              Because if thought has a mechanistic explanation, you have explained away the validity of thought.
                              Why have you "explained away the validity of thought" by positing a mechanistic explanation. Everything else in the Natural Universe has a "mechanistic explanation", why not consciousness?

                              Every brain, every mind is a point of supernatural activity, if reason is valid.

                              Best wishes,
                              Lee[
                              Who says that "Every brain, every mind is a point of supernatural activity"? Many animals have self awareness, i.e possess consciousness. Are they too at a point of alleged "supernatural activity"?
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                No more than I can tell you how my physical brain operates!
                                But you already did explain it from the physical perspective, it's mechanistic. Then you make the assertion that thought is itself something other than the mechanistic functioning of the brain. In other words you are first making the assumption as to what thought is, i.e that it is non-physical, and thereby concluding that it isn't mechanistic. It's true we can't explain exactly how the brain works, but assuming there is something else, an immaterial thinking thing, and having no idea how that would work, or even how such a thing could interact with the physical brain, is not only not evidential, but useless.

                                All proofs have to assume the validity of thought from the outset. This would include any proof of the validity of thought! So such a proof would involve circular reasoning.
                                You seem to have a preconcieved notion of what thought is from the outset. I think that's clouding your thinking!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                510 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X