A3

Hi Laurentius and all,

Wether or not to believe in the existence of the mind revolves about the same old dilemma of nature verses spirit. In most hospitals we can now be probed by an instrument and displayed on a screen we see there is brain activity. A machine can tell us That we think, no machine, however, will ever tell us What we think. (This is freedom for yeh)
This is because our thinking happens on a different plane, the spiritual plane. The only “connection” between these two is by way of correspondence, as Swedenborg call it. There are two kind of degrees or levels, continuous and discrete.
When we see a hammer we only see a shape. From experience we know it has a use but there is no use visibly attached to it. The two are on different planes. In fact, (as I think Daemon pointed out) on the pre-molecular level there is no difference between the human body and the hammer. That’s also why they both stay here when we leave
We think on the spiritual level and speak on the natural level. The spiritual world is the world of causes and the natural world is the world of effects. On a moments notice we can decide to change our mind, not our brain.
BTW I think hypnotism is being allowed to come between someones mind and his/her brain. This phenomena is partly the reason why some people believe in the fallacy of past lifes.

Sorry, I don’t know how to play chess
A3

Synaesthesia

A3,
Before I begin, I should point out that there are billions of machines that can produce highly accurate verbal reports about what you think. If there are ghosts in these machines it is you, the dualists, who must produce them.

Let’s take a closer look at your argument.
1)Dualism is true. (ie. our thinking happens on a different plane, the spiritual plane.)
therefore
2)Materialism is false (No machine will ever tell us what we think)

Your argument is, in essence, the claim that materialism is false because materialism is false. This is commonly known as begging the question. Surely you have more to support your theory than the assumption that it is true.

Adrian Selby

"The termites' colony and the human social, legal and political organization difer in that the former is entirely instinctive (the termites may almost be said to form one large invariable organism), while the latter comprises many elements of voluntary decision "

What we call voluntary decision is merely the self reflexive consciousness that is a huge number of neurons organised into brains. Where is the mind in voluntary decision making? You're still exhibiting a prejudice towards the physical.

"The Mind is generated by the Brain, obviously, but the order that rules in its realm fails to observe basic physical laws, such as causality and conservation. There is nothing to lead (in a deterministic manner) to the belief in God"

You mean we can't currently explain how the events in a brain can be tracked with regard to a particular human's interaction with fellow humans such that this human comes to gain structures of neurons that develop and, through tools of communication (voicebox) express noises that have socially agreed meanings that provide some function for the specimen (religious faith), so, it must be impossible to do so, and dualism is our only course?

I disagree. You say the mind is infinitely creative? Prove it. Or, less facetiously, though no more legitimately, tell me why the brain can't be complex enough a thing to be conscious and have the properties in virtue of itself such that to be a brain is to experience what you would rather term a 'mental life', i.e. the having of a mind. Is it because you think the mind is infinite the brain can't be the be all and end all, or do you think that brains, being subject to physical laws cannot exhibit behaviour that could be classified as free in virtue of the complexity of arrangement of the matter? Is the word 'law' something that is an affront to your ideas about creativity etc.?

You say the mind is generated by the brain, what is their relationship? Is the mind ontologically distinct a thing from matter, despite its 'connection' to matter? Your language loses me I'm afraid, you say the mind is a sublimation of complex matter. Is it matter or isn't it, or rather, is it no more or more than the arrangement of a sufficient number of neurons that behave remarkably instinctively in that they simply fire or don't fire, like a thermostat.

"human communities vary impresively, allow change brought about by either individual or common decision, and - most importantly in relation with the discussion here - their evolutions do not trace physical processes, although their existence is indeed physically recordable."

vary impressively in relation to what? termite communities? we have more complex central nervous systems, I should hope so, but have we made a paradigm shift or are we simply an ultra complex example of termite colonies? Human communities look remarkably different, but they are also remarkably similar, they generally procreate, hunt or grow food, seek and use shelter, bicker over territory, personal or communal, raise offspring which are cared for zealously and have rules, rituals and laws that proscribe behaviour considered important to that community. Isn't all the rest just a product of highly developed central nervous systems and sense organs?

The evolution of societies cannot clearly be traced to physical brain patterns of course, but how is this any easier with regard to the evolution of species in general. Those birds that use the wheels of traffic stopped at traffic lights to crack nuts for themselves. Could we track a few birds down and show specific changes that led to this behaviour? I think the enterprise in the natural world is a little more complex than you make out.

Adrian

Laurentius

will
Will pertains to the Mind.

Traditionally human will implies a number of elements such as:
-motifs
-anlysis
-decision
-action
-engagement
-patience
-responsability
-consciousness
...
mind = (a) the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons.

AI...
AI may partly resemble the Brain, but it does not resemble the Mind.

When a human artifact, either a thermostat or a computer, executes an action, it serves a purpose that it is not its own, while living things possess projects that are immanent to their structure. If I set the thermostat to heat the room and the room is heated by the heating system, who can be held responsible for the rise in the temperature, me or the heating system? If I am a terrorist and set an airplane computer to destroy the aircraft when it reaches a certain altitude, should I refuse to be held responsible on the grounds that "the computer did it"?

Only living things possess will.
They are "objects endowed with projects".
These "projects" are immanent to their structure, not planted, modifiable or removable.
Living things' immanent "projects" ensure their unity, self-preservation and replication.

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
(1)a supernova blows up
(2)a man commits suicide.

A supernova blows up.
Under the action of physical laws operating the same throughout the universe and as a natural end of its internal evolution, the supernova blows up. Each supernova explodes, and they all explode the same.

A man comits suicide.
Under the pressure of his inner conflicts that and as a personal deed driven by his own will, the man commits suicide. Not all people commit suicide, and when they do, they all have unique motifs.

When a supernova explodes, we know there is a physical cause that has deterministically led to it.

When a man commits suicide, we know it has been his will.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

AVE

Laurentius

Christofer Lord
The idea that all matter ranges on a discreet ladder, from simple to complex, from non-life to life, from unconsciousness to consciousness, should look very appealing to the materialist - it does to me. It implies that there is some implacable determinism that sustains evolutions toward the highest degree of complexity, and to the unavoidable appearance of the Mind. But determinism stops here.

The Mind is the manifestation of a procedural execution of the complex neural network it runs on? Hmm. By this definition, you seem to narrow the Mind down to only one acceptation of the Webster definition I posted originally: mind = (b)the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism. I think the Mind is more than a property of the Brain, or even of the nervous system as a whole. Human decisions are ultimately irrational (i.e. emotional, instinctual, etc.) and the job of the Mind is to harmonize all these in a coherent structure that can serve to the immanent "project" of Man.
AVE

Laurentius

Adrian Selby
Laur, it's the brain that knows what's happening, not the mind, as us reductionists or identity theorists keep arguing. The relevance of all this is to the brain, the mind doesn't exist in my opinion. The brain processes these things, it finds value in it, so it directs its goals towards it, for whatever reasons there are to do with the environment, memory etc. I don't think so. I look up a word in my computer dictionary and it is the software that finds the meaning, not the equipment. Were the complex Brain - Mind a vehicle, the Brain would make the engine chamber and the Mind its crew. This crew thing is not supposed to represent more than just a level of organization which supersedes the Brain, including multiple functions of the human personlity that are mentioned in the definitions I've been reminding.
AVE

Laurentius

Synaesthesia
You must understand that we all agree that the physical instantiation of the chess board isn’t what makes chess, chess. There is only one important issue here: The rules. (I will assume that the structure of the playing field is defined in the rules) Whether it is wooden or metal, galaxy sized or simulated on a computer is irrelevant. The one and only thing that we are interested in when it comes to chess are the rules and the rules can be instantiated in a purely physical Von Neumann machine, a computer. No additional laws are added, this is the same old newtonian interaction that we all know so well. It is like I make this original poem and show it to you, and you say there is nothing new to it, you've seen these words before. So what the chess rules can only found on material support? My point is that their existence cannot be explained deterministically.

There is no physical (as in physics) difference between non-living matter and living matter. Living things show selective permeability dictated by their needs, active adaptation, assimilation, self-mending, reproduction, individuality and autonomy. Physics deals with phenomena. Biology deals with harmonious assemblies, each one of a restless unity.

Your argument is a non-sequiturs. It seems so to those who stick to matter in understanding the world. How do you justify your humanism in the context of your deterministic picture of the universe?

Synaesthesia

The terrorist, presumably, is aware of the consequences of his action. He places metaphysical idea or political goals ahead of human live and organizations. An informed decision is made (the full reasons for which are never totally accessible to the individual who’s decision it is.). A barometric fuse is not capable of comprehending moral consequences to it’s functions, nor is an infant nor one who is severely mentally impaired. It is foolish, therefore, to treat them as though they could appreciate moral culpability.

An essence, in other words. Some undetectable stuff that doesn’t really make a difference to anything, a ghost in the machine. You repeatedly assume that this essence exists, but you remain silent on what it adds to our understanding.

I do not grant that intentionality requires an essence, it requires the appropriately functioning cognitive structures. Moral judgement must involve how one understands (not magically understands) of their position and what they can make of it. (ie. how they can affect their thoughts and actions by the information that they have.)

I do not care whether a criminal has this magical version of will, I care about the circumstances of the action they performed and their intentional state at the time.

Living things are good at self-preservation and self-replication for one reason only: because those that were bad at it are dead. This is, as you should know, evolution; A purely physical process requiring no more than purely physical structures.

Whether or not the universe is deterministic or statistically determinant isn’t really important. Chess was invented by a biological organism that evolved over the course of 3.8 billion years from (relatively) simple self-replicating molecules which evolved out of stable molecular components. Atoms and brownian motion and relentless unfairness. The result is chess, a system in which past changes can constrain future changes but needs and can produce no violation of the laws of physics.

Again and again you assume that the two are mutually exclusive. Modern evolutionary biology, on the other hand, shows that life itself is a manifestation of the physical structure of our world. There is no explanatory need to breath life essences into biological organisms at some point. They are alive and thought of as alive by virtue of what they can DO and what they do is entirely physical.

Your conception of materialism (a false generalization) may indeed conflict with your humanist proclivities. You have given a moral reason why you should reject materialism, not an epistemic one proving that matter is not all there is. The upshot, in case I haven’t been clear, is that you have not proven that “there can’t be only one principle: matter.”, you have only stated that you dislike the idea that no single approach to the world is ever likely to prove sufficient to grasp everything we can about it.

I myself find the idea of an epistemic Godelization somewhat fascinating.

owleye

Laurentius...

The post in which I'm responding is one you directed to me, but I'm afraid I can't be sure what is was I said the provoked the response.

The only thing I sense is that you are trying to provide more details on your theory.

One reason for my confusion us due to their being another chap in a different forum that has his own theory and I find I'm having to say many of the same things to both of you.

With that understanding, let me turn to your post.

"When I say that the Mind cannot be reduced to the Brain I mean that the Brain is a mere organ, a material structure, whose functioning is carried out according to natural laws and parametres. As a result its functioning can be thus anticipated, since its physical manifestations are limited by the physical order to which it belongs."

I take it what you mean is that there can be a science of the brain. Neuroscience, then, might be a candidate.

"The Mind is generated by the Brain, obviously, but the order that rules in its realm fails to observe basic physical laws, such as causality and conservation."

Some have indicated that it is governed by rules of thought or the laws of logic or of language. Would this be what you have in mind? Note that computers can be said to operate in this realm as well. This approach has a very long history. Rationality itself, as the rule governing body of the mind, would satisfy this requirement.

But there are other difficulties with your conclusion (which is not to say that I am against it). Causality and conservation may merely be products of the mind, in the sense that these elements are required if our mind is to make sense of the world. Moreover, natural laws, generally, at least those we associate with the physical world, are not specifically causal. Indeed, the mere expression of the natural laws of the universe in mathematical terms involves in the very deepest sense that they follow the laws of logic -- i.e., rules of rationality.

[snipped a reference to spiritual matters...]

On auroras...

"The Mind is perhaps the sublimation of complex matter at work. Auroras are not reducible to the same essence the solar wind and magnetic fields consist of (=matter), but they should also make a special medium where new structures would be possible, new in the sense that they should not represent replicas of some physical events, but their emanations, in which the new patterns might evolve on their own."

I'm afraid I don't understand this. Why is an aurora not reducible to matter? You may be confusing an aurora with the experience of an aurora. It may be that the experience of an aurora is not reducible to matter, but this would be quite different from the claim you are making.

On social systems, colonies, etc... about which you went on at length....

I confess I'm not sure the relevance of this, except as I brought it up in connection with what could have been a reference of yours to the exclusion of artifacts, and possibly my last reply to the response you gave to my question it in which I sensed you didn't wish to exclude the possibility of groups being endowed with mental properties, depending on how the "self" is defined. In any case, I could not discern anything in what you elaborated on that helped in informing me whether or not a larger groups of individuals or colonies could be said to have minds.

I'm not sure whether I asked this question of you or not, but where (approximately) would you draw the line, if at all, such that on side there is no conscious thought, and on the other side there is. Donald Davidson, for example, draws it at or near the boundary of humans, and probably at or near the age of two.

Fell

Adrian Selby

"(It)is the software that finds the meaning, not the equipment."

What's this software hardware thing, the distinction isn't real. The neurons firing in certain ways, are, when in an organised brain that processes such information, the meaning, or rather, the meaning of something isn't ontologically distinct from the patterns of neurons that, in the firing, generate an organ wide response to the shapes that the eye sees, i.e. the words. The meaning of a word in a dictionary is simply a symbol that furthers the goals of the brain, as it has learned through years of sense experiences and the structures that form memory. I.e. the eye recognises a shape, and its definition, other shapes, and their shape is constituted of signals that the brain reflexively responds to, and these responses to signals like these have been learned because of past experience with such shapes (words). It's hard to describe because the brain is just so complex. I should have been a neuroscientist 300 years from now.

Adrian