Synaesthesia

WJ
Dennett strikes me as being an important thinker in two main ways. One, like many good philosophers, he produces excellent expositions of assumptions and bad habits that are taken for granted when we think about thinking. Perhaps central amongst these is the tendency to think in terms of a cartesian theater, the insistent belief that any theory of the mind must bring in a magical element totally unlike materiality.

Secondly, he is a philosopher with a very clear understanding of the interdisciplinary, multi-layered approach that is demanded by a problem such as the structure of the mind. He recognizes the futility of bifurcating the mind sciences and clearly understands why a heterophenomenological approach is so important.

With regards to your comment, you have to remember that Dennett does not accept the existence of a hard problem that is possible to solve save within the framework of a structural, cognitive and psychological understanding of the brain.

There is obviously no one 'in there' doing the understanding, yet we are obviously there. I see no remotely acceptable reason to think that we are Ghosts. The conclusion we appear forced to draw (one which Dennett establishes with force) is that we will have to reformulate our conception of ourselves if we ever want to understand the mind. An exorcism of ghosts is in order.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

owleye

John....

"I can touch brains physically but minds only metaphorically. No-one has been able to show me a mind so I conclude it is either a delusory concept or the abstract phenomenon likely associated with brain + nervous system + emotional system etc."

I can readily understand that a brain is a physical entity. However, that it can be touched (or, more generally, observed) doesn't seem to make it physical. Indeed, all the phenomenal experiences that we possess are no more than phenomena -- i.e., a concoction of the mind. To be physical, I would think it better to represent it as being subject to causal forces.

There is a further and more signficant problem, I think. Being a delusion is a property of minds. Thus, either a mind exists that has a delusion, which contradicts the thesis that the mind is a delusion, or that you are once again making a category mistake.

"On the other hand, I have difficulty understanding how a state of mind can represent something (through its intentionality) without that something becoming abstracted."

When I see a bear, the bear I see represents a concrete entity. The content of the act of seeing is the representation of a particular and concrete bear. That I'm able to classify it as a bear can be considered as my being in possession of the concept of bear, though such a concept is no different than what the bear might have if it recognized me as belonging to the class of people. The concept of bear may very well be considered an abstraction. However, the content of the act of my seeing is the bear itself. Thus, the content of a mental act (in this case, seeing) is something concrete, not abstract. Abstractions (or abstract entities), at least in humans, are something that require more sophisticated handling of concepts than those used above in discrimination (recognition).

owleye

excreationist

And I'd say that if you have a decreased amount of useful working memory (e.g. you've got alzheimer's or are sleep-deprived) then less long-term memories can be triggered into the STM and your responses are less insightful.

Well I think your working memory only consists of a few thousand bits of information. Most of the brain is the other areas. But I'm focussing on consciousness here so that is a major box.

Well they're quite different. The perceptions compress sensory data based on your focus (so if you are listening to a speaker they get more detail or if you are listening to the background, it gets higher detail). New Scientist talked about how limited our working memory storage capacity is. You can read the article <a href="http://www2b.abc.net.au/aftershock/posts/topic12497.shtm" target="_blank">here</a>.
Other groups include - working memory of course, long-term memory - which would be learnt patterns - most of the upper brain - and a part of the brain that translates certain impulses into muscle movements.

Well this is a generalized model of it - but anyway, those different kinds of information are just different data types using similar channels. That's why they can get mixed up sometimes - e.g. with LSD you might be able to see the music (sounds affecting your sight), etc. People with synaesthesia have some of those data types permanently mixed up. (e.g. seeing coloured numbers that are actually black - so there language/visual symbols are being mixed up with colours!)
I think the reason why kinds of data can often occur in similar parts of the brain in different people is because our neural networks have a similar size with similar inputs.

excreationist

As I said in that post to John Page, I don't think our "working memory" can store much information. It is similar to the registers in a CPU. A CPU can only store a few bytes in its registers and yet they can do lots of amazing things. CPU's (or at least old ones) just do a couple of operations based on what is in the registers. I think our processor also can do a very limited number of operations. It would only work at maybe 40 Hz and process a few hundred or thousand pieces of information. These are very tiny pieces of information.

Well maybe working memory isn't localized...
Lots of chain reactions would be involved although only a very small number of them would be conscious.

BTW, I still haven't read much about it yet, but I think <a href="http://www.phil.vt.edu/assc/newman/" target="_blank">the thalamus</a> plays a very important role in consciousness. (That link talks about different theories of consciousness such as Crick and Koch's)
This "association cortex" is what would be involved when pieces of information in the working memory trigger associations - which are then put into the working memory. The items in working memory with the weakest emotional strength/priority would be discarded. That is why you could lose your train of thought if someone distracts you. The distraction could have a stronger emotional response than the rest in your working memory and many associations are triggered in an effort to respond to the distraction. Now that I think about it, surprise/shock would be an emotion as well - this is where it hasn't been determined if the new thing is desireable or undesireable - but it has to have a high priority anyway.

excreationist

Just about abstraction...

It's about grouping and processing inputs really. And it seems to be a purely physical process.

Now what about the abstraction itself? e.g. is the concept of "number" physical?

Well I think "number" is just a kind of group - that is physical.
e.g.
1, 2, * * *.

They're physical because they exist on computers and your physical brain interprets it.

What about the concept of "group"?
123 abc xyz

Well those things were groups. There is a template in our brains that we've learnt that defines was a "group" is.

What about the concept of "equals"?
"3=1+2", "2+2=4", "0=1-1"

This involves processing inputs to fit a template.

Anyway, information needs a physical decoding mechanism for it to be of any use. (Unless ghosts can read things) And information is always stored on a physical medium. (As far as I know)
The information can be transferred from one physical medium to another (so it seems transcendent), but that requires physical decoding and encoding mechanisms. (e.g. DNA copying systems or photocopiers, etc)

WJ

I'm really bummed...last night the discovery channel talked about the mind body problem/phenom. and I missed all but the last 5 minutes. Of course there were both sides presented, but I caught the one that speculated the mind existed outside the body, in the universe. I guess the question could be relative to *source*.

For instance, regardless of the theory, let's assume that electricity is the medium that provides for thought, and without it no thought occurs (no power to the brain). Where is the source located in the brain/mind? And if it can be identified, what actually does it drive when we feel the need to be? And where is this 'thing' that the electricity is driving?

If the source then, of conscious existence [consciousness] cannot completely be identified within the body, perhaps this is why the alternative is to look outside in 'space' or 'no thing' for such identifiable source. As a loose analogy, we can't see air or space, yet it provides for life. So no thing is something.

If we could 'see' consciousness, I wonder what it would comprise?

(?)

Walrus

excreationist

I think you're asking where the initiator of our thoughts is... well basically it would be the previous thoughts we've had plus our current perceptions of our environment plus triggered long-term memories which we use to work out what to do (what to seek/repeat, analyse or avoid). From that we'd generate new thoughts. Without the rest of the brain's machinery, and a body that allows us to train our brain to be intelligent, those parts of the brain which handle thought generation would be pretty useless.

What do you mean by "feel the need to be"?

Our brain is compelled to seek/repeat, analyse and avoid various patterns. The brain can learn to think about its "self"... this could be the person's body - or their personality (their habits, etc) - or they could identify with something larger like a political organisation(?) or the universe.

Well in computers you can have virtual reality worlds and videos and hours of music, etc. Maybe it's kind of like that. VR worlds aren't really located exactly... they involve virtually the whole computer (as well as some electricity)... but it would still "exist" if parts of the computer were replaced.
Anyway, if you think of your "self" as being your physical body, then that obviously has a physical location. If you think it involves your personality then that actually also has a location - they exist in specific parts in your brain. If those parts of your brain were destroyed or corrupted then you would lose those aspects of your personality.
Personality is about how you respond to things in a way... (and this can be internal) so it is about behaviours (that can be internal).
It can be somewhat meaningless to talk about the precise location of behaviours. e.g. if a dog is barking, it would be strange to ask "where is the bark?"

Do you mean the "observer"? Well it would just be some neurons that fire a lot - perhaps thousands or billions of them.

John Page

owleye:

Maybe there is a disconnect in our trains of thought. I believe (define) all abstract entities as representations of other things - much the way that excreationist talks about information coding in the post above. This representation is rendered on physical matter thus all abstract entities are also subject to the causal laws of physics.

I agree that my "touch" example is not a foolproof test of physicality. The knowledge that we are touching something is a conscious awareness that involves the mind. We can "triangulate" our senses, though, to observe that our body is touching something.

IMO, the best proof that physical reality does not emanate from the mind is the fact that we cannot control physical effects through the mind. Whether a pedestrian has observed a car bearing down on him or not as he crosses the road, he still gets run over.

You use the expression "concrete". I think this is useful for illustration but IMO ends up as a subset of the category of physical entities. If two concrete objects cannot pass through each other (*foot kicks stone*) where does this leave the physical neutrino particle that can pass right through our body without us noticing - concrete, abstract..?

I agree we cannot consciously know physical entities directly, only through our senses and all the other manipulations that our mind/brain performs. All we can say is that there are effects - phenomena - so for example "matter" is a concept supported by the measurement/detection of effects associated with that phenomenon (mass, solidity....) the varations in effects informing us there are different types of matter etc. and relations between them and other effects such as energy etc.

Finally in this post, I think we believe the world is causal because it is the phenomenon of causality that enables our senses to operate. We simply cannot know the non-causal universe (if there is one) because the very means of acquiring knowledge about it is denied us.

I'd be very interested if you could confirm whether you regard phenomena as a category that includes all manner of things with two sub-categories of concrete and abstract (this is what I think you're saying). In this context my topic question relates to the dividing line between phenomena of the mind and external phenomena.

Cheers, John

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

John, why am I harbouring a feeling thinking I know you (electronically).

When looking at mind and body, I tend to use a breathing example. Breathing it seems has 2 masters, an unconscious master, and a conscious master. When we think of breathing, we can hold our breaths, perform noises with the air, even annoy others. When we are tired of this activity, we turn aside from it and the breathing continues without our seemingly conscious aid. I use this to show there are things about the body which are fixed or hard-wired as it has been said, and things directly controllable. I tend to call the part of the body LowerBeing which acts unconsciously like a finite state machine.

LowerBeing has determined functions. Some of these functions include, providing energy to prolong our existence, providing representations of the outside world, and many other heart, lung and body functions.

Part of the brain must be attatched to LowerBeing, it drives us, we do not drive it. This could be interpreted as automation (I should add more here before the following conclusion).

IT IS HERE I DRAW the distinction between MIND & BODY. THE body provides through automation. The mind is a provision for itself affected by the body and where the body finds itself (it exists in the brain as a goal in itself).

The mind is the ThinkingBeing, an infinite state machine, which through the knowing of itself can further itself.

The body acting as LowerBaing can only further itself through predetermined goals, like feed me, and keep that cold away from me, Aaiee, no, please no, don`t kill me!

Sammi Na Boodie ()

WJ

Excreation/John!

"What do you mean by "feel the need to be"?"

Perhaps this speaks to 'phenomenon' within the brain/mind (but am not sure) but what about the stream of consciousness and the tension of existence? I mean, when one is alone with no thing but their thoughts, and while trying to think about no thing, it seemingly at some point, becomes impossible. The next question of course might be what comprises the will to exist as part of the make-up from consciousness?

I don't think that there is an instinct to live (or be) say like that of lower life forms which do not possess higher levels of consciousness.

Anyway, if the mind's stream of consciousness relates only to what we have previously percieved from life's experiences, what drives this intrinsic need to be? In otherwords, if materialism (which is only part of the question) is simply another computer, it still cannot account for sentient existence and all the rest as part of that stream of conscious existence and will to believe and live life and express oneself in the world. What is that *need* to be?

We have seen that movie with Steve Martin where 'brains are in jars' that seek bodies to manifest their being. Why is matter conscious?

Walrus