Laurentius

excreationist
I've noticed your attempt, and I've read about Piaget's highly controversial but exquisite intuition. I would rather use his work to apply his conclusion to fully grown entities - they are the relevant ones from my point of view.

As far as I am concerned I don't have time to draw up a respectable picture of my own intuitions, let alone others'.
I look forward to seeing further personal insights/achievements of yours.
AVE

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

A3

Hi Laurentius and others,
Sorry to barge in. I feel like a not very smart librarian overhearing a very interesting conversation. There are, however, some books on the subject. I have no formal training whatsoever on your subject but please allow me to paste a section of the book "The Human Mind" by Hugo Odhner. Printed by the Swedenborg Scientific Association. It is lengthy so you may want to copy this to read it at your leisure.

The Mind and the Brain

Thus we may see that what is called “the mind” is only a further organization of the soul. And the body is only the soul and mind in their ultimate aspect. In this world the body projected by the soul is indeed infilled with material substances which serve its uses here on earth. But the body, as to all that is vital in it, is still only the ultimate “degree” of the mind (Inv. 14).

The soul, the human “inmost,” thus forms the body which is born into the world. We all are therefore born human as to form —barring physical accidents; and all have the faculties of freedom and rationality. The soul acts only as the viceregent or tool of the Divine Creator. But the paternal inheritance also contributes a mind —with inclinations and a genius specific to the family and modified by the influence of the mother. This mind cannot interfere in the creation of the body, although it gives a certain individual character to it, visibly modifying its features. Yet when an infant is born it cannot properly be said to have a “mind.” There is the soul, and there is the body; and there is certainly a communication between them (Can. Redr. iv). But what we generally mean by a “mind” is based on sense-experience; and this the infant lacks (AC 1900, cp HH 345).
However, for “communication” there must always be a medium. And the Writings describe this medium as consisting of three mental “degrees,” or as three minds —the celestial, the spiritual, and the natural. At birth, we are assured, everybody has this mind of three degrees (DLW 432). They are at first “potential” rather than actual, but they are substantial and real and are meant to be opened or entered into successively, beginning with the lowest or natural (DLW 237, 239). These three degrees of the mind are said to be, as it were, “transparent” —suggesting that they can transmit spiritual light, communicating the discrete powers of wisdom, intelligence, and reasoning even to the newly born babe who can as yet utilize none of these powers (DLW 245).
It is stated that these three minds or mental degrees answer to the three discrete heavens. By the use of one of the two higher degrees, we become a spiritual or a celestial angel. None the
less, the lowest or natural degree, which answers to the first or ultimate heaven, is at least partially opened to us on earth for actual conscious use. This spiritual-natural degree, which is called the ultimate spiritual (DLW 345), is the degree in which is built up what the Writings call “the natural mind.”
Therefore it may be said that we have two “minds”: a natural mind which is for our use in this world, and which is opened and formed through such things as are in the natural world; and a spiritual mind which is to be for our use in the spiritual world and is opened and formed from such things as are in heaven or have been revealed from there (AE 790; F 32; Life 86). Yet no ideas are connate (TCR 335).

It may be difficult to visualize what is meant by the three “degrees” of the mind being already present in every infant at birth. While one degree is called “natural,” even it cannot be regarded as anything but spiritual in essence, and, indeed, as the ultimate spiritual. All the mental degrees are present at birth, but unopened or unformed. This means, of course, that the newly born infant is utterly unconscious of anything of his mind until knowledges are formed by the medium of the senses. It is universally recognized that life becomes distinct only so far as conscious ideas are formed, and these can be formed only on the basis of sensations.
Before any of these mental degrees are thus opened and furnished, they may be called “degrees” indeed, but not as yet mental “planes.” The “degrees” of the mind, before they are furnished, are only the paths of influx for the life which comes from the Lord. They serve for accommodating and directing this inflowing life, and thus for actuating the lower degree. The Arcana illustrates this in connection with the regeneration of man, showing that before the interior degrees are “terminated” by becoming planes of conscience, they cannot receive (or respond to) the good inflowing from the Lord; but the life flows through it as water through a sieve, and goes all the way down into the sensual degree where it is felt as the voluptuous delights of self and the world (AC 5145, 4167, 6207). But if a higher degree has been “terminated” it can hold the influx, which then develops and brings out the potentialities of that degree. So far as the will is concerned, these “terminations” are affections of good and truth. In the understanding the “terminations” consist of truths, the natural mind consists not only of spiritual substances but also of substances of the natural world (DLW 260, 270, 273, 257).

This might suggest the idea that natural substance as such could be responsible for the existence of evil. New Church doctrine rejects the myth that angels were created before the natural world, and that some rose in rebellion under Lucifer and became devils. Instead, it teaches that evil, although certainly of spiritual origin, arose with man on earth, and was caused by a separation of the “ultimate spiritual,” which is called the spiritual-natural, from the higher degrees. This separation and perversion of the lowest spiritual could occur only in the natural minds of men (DLW 345).
Such was the origin of evil and of hell, and thence came all “evil uses” in both worlds. Evil is a perversion of order; and the spiritual cannot pervert its order except by approving and preferring the resistance-to-life which is inevitably found in natural substance. This negation to life and its purposes is normal in dead matter which is deprived of purpose or intent. But for the spiritual to come to delight in such spiritual inertia is to separate itself from its source, and oppose the order of its creation.
Why, then, is it necessary for man to be born on earth? The answer is given in various forms in Swedenborg's Writings. One treatment shows that the mind or spirit can be formed only in man, and cannot be propagated except through man, because spiritual substances are not constant but need a material basis to become permanently formed (Wis. viii). Other treatments combine to show that the exercise of man’s freedom of choice requires the fixed ultimates of earth by which man’s spirit is compelled to undergo varying states and be in situations which do not accord with his native inclinations, but resist them.
For this cause, we start our life in a body of flesh, kindred to the dust. The degree of the mind into which we enter by birth is the natural degree. By means of knowledge, this degree is formed into a mind or an organized plane of thoughts and affections.
Knowledge then accumulates, increasing continuously without any apparent discrete stages. Yet, within the general degree of the natural mind we may distinguish three ascending degrees, the last of which is reached when we become rational (DLW 67, 239, 256).
Thus the natural mind is said to be able to ascend through three degrees, or descend through three degrees (DLW 274). It can ascend by being formed from goods and truths, or it can descend by confirming evils and falsities. The three ascending degrees are in general identified with the sensual, the natural, and the rational (AE 1147, 1056: 2). The natural degree, at birth, is in a perverse state and form, as to all its inherited inclinations. The tender infant, we are once told, is born in a “state of damnation” (DP 83: 2). But this perversity has not become finally identified with the person that is to be. This person, or this mind, is yet to be formed. The natural degree is to be the scene of this formation, or of the observable part of this formation. And Divine mercy —nay, Divine justice— provides that into the natural degree, despite its perversity, there can be introduced a new element, knowledge, which in itself is not perverse, but which may lay a new foundation of order within the natural mind as it grows and unfolds. Around these new foundations of knowledge, which reflect the order of creation, new affections can entwine which may in time become subservient to the spiritual ends of life; so that the child, from being merely sensual in its reactions, may be increasingly enriched with knowledge, and then come to sense within the symbolism of sensory life a deeper set of meanings ; until at last these may he seen in their reasonable relations amid build up a control over the natural impulses, so that we assume intelligent charge over our natural mind, and thus become spiritually a free person, not a slave.

The spiritual degrees of the mind, consisting only of spiritual substance, are beyond the power of the body. In the course of life they may be more and more shut off —alienated, closed, dis— owned. Or they may be opened and appropriated; not indeed opened to our consciousness while here on earth, but opened for a future use, just like a source of mental wealth and power which unknowingly accumulates if we exercise our ordinary freedom rightly in the realm of our natural mind, which is immersed into the interior organics of our body.
The natural mind is formed in the body. It “consists” not only of the spiritual substances from which its thought and mental activity take their origin, but simultaneously of natural substances which can carry out its behests in the natural body, and makes, in the interiors of the body, a plane which corresponds to the states of this mind (DLW 257).

Swedenborg devoted himself to an intense study of the organics of the body, and especially of the brain, with a view to seeing how the mind was associated with the body. He was the first scholar to demonstrate that the conscious mind —the voluntary mind— had its seat and control-centers in the tiny cells which are scattered in profusion within the cortex of the cerebrum or forebrain. The cortex, or “bark,” means the layer of gray matter which is spread over the whole brain. From these cortical “glands,” as he called them, proceed innumerable nervous fibres, some connecting the cortical cells together in a perfect web of association, some projecting themselves into the middle portions of the brain, some bundling together forming motor nerves or sensory nerves or nerves of mixed functions, and going forth into the body.
But Swedenborg was led to confirm a further conclusion: that the cortical cells were the laboratories for the vital fluids which were the carriers of the life which came from the soul. These fluids vitalized the blood —exerting a control over all bodily functions by regulating the secretion of subtle organic chemical elements which (like “hormones”) were concocted not only in certain organics in the brain but in the internal secretory glands all over the body. These vital fluids, he thought, also traveled through the nerve fibres, distending them so that they should he able to carry the currents of sensations up to the brain, or, in the case of motory nerves, cause the muscle fibres to be stimulated into contraction.
This chemical function of the brain was carried out by all its parts —by the cerebrum, by the midbrain, by the cerebellum and the medulla. Each cortical gland was a recipient of a flow of pure lymph or “purer blood” from the arteries. This purer blood circulated through the cortical glands. and was there recreated by undergoing a reconstruction, a critical rebuilding, before it was again poured out through the nerve fibres.
========
On the aspect of creating AI, would the freedom be built in that a computer might fall in love with another. Or hate it? Or decide not to come to work today?

Adrian

owleye

Laurentius...

"I'm glad to have stirred your interest..."

What gets the juices going are bald / provocative statements that on the surface strike me as unfounded, quite insufficient to their purpose, or there being merely pretentious. Being compelled to challenge them, I don't waste too much time if they remain in this state. I sense this not to be the case with you.

My experience with these forums is that stimulating dialog can arise, and that we can all actually learn something from it, when we are not allowed to get away with rash statements. One advantage of the internet is that we are given at least some time to think about our responses and actually attend to the points being made. In matters of politics, politicians are those who become skilled at a kind of deception. This skill allows them to readily deflect questions that would otherwise be penetrating because they recognize the value of time-limits that media, that otherwise intend to hold them accountable, are under (as well, of course, that we realize that they too are limited by time-constraints). As such, they can move from venue to venue without concern that they will be tripped up. Presumably this is why they have courts, as well as why fiction is important.

Of course in these forums, we are always free to leave it at any time as well. This leaves those who do not wish to be misunderstood or to learn where they might be going wrong to stay the course.

"I am synchronic, rather than diachronic in my all approaches (with notable exceptions, though)."

Though I'm not clear what model of human cognition you are calling attention to (which probably means I don't really know what you are talking about), it sounds like you can be characterized as "analytical" as the term is used in pop psychology (and has fairly wide use in many circles).

"...the intentionality Husserl speaks reminds me of transitivity. In my native language there are three categories of verbs: intransitive, transitive, and reflective. Analogically, INERT MATTER may be said to be intransitive, LIVING MATTER may be considered transitive, while CONSCIOUSNESS would be reflective."

I suspect there is some value to the categories you take from verbs, though, as you would undoubtedly be aware, when we speak analogically, or metaphorically, we not only lose precision (which probably is its positive feature, since we many be able to capture the intended insight intuitively), but if we then wish to apply this analogy more precisely and try to advance, discursively, the state of our project, we must attend to how the analogy breaks down (as it surely will). As I'm sure you are also aware, your "analogies of experience" (taking a page from Kant) need a bit of work if they are to achieve philosophical worth.

"... the mind resides in the whole nervous system and beyond it, ..."

Merlot-Ponty would be quite happy with this characterization. He describes brilliantly how "a woman ducks her head to allow the feather in her hat to clear the doorway" (heavily paraphrased), which indicates how our mind projects itself even beyond the body, or that there is an important phenomenological difference between the feeling the finger gets from touching a part of one's body and the feeling the body gets from being touched by the finger. (Again, I am paraphrasing what I've learned, and the example may not be as exemplifying as the one he uses.)

"As for the legal system, is it an "artifact"?"

Good question. The distinction I would make between being artificial and being natural, is that the latter represents a state of mind that lets nature be, whereas the former (intentionally) interferes with what would happen "in a state of nature." It may very well be the case that humans cannot live "in a state of nature" and must, of necessity, build institutions that keep us from acting "naturally." Alternatively, it might very well be the case that my characterization of legal institutions represented humans living in a state of nature. That is, considered organically, humans cannot but help to keep the organon going.

In any case, I didn't bring this up as a criticism of your larger point, and I do appreciate that you could find a way, if you found it appealing, to include colonies and groups of individuals as living things in themselves as you indicate in a part of your response that I snipped.

"I had been thinking of giving the example of the human organization, which is also material, but does not follow natural laws, no matter how deeply they are determined by the material reality."

Here again, to make this insight meaningful you will need a vocabulary which distinguishes how human organization is material but does not follow natural laws. Otherwise you could be criticized as suggesting (in a manner similar to the way I called attention to your claim regarding reduction) that matter (perhaps in the right configuration) is not subject to the laws of nature.

One feature, taken from my philosophy instruction that I've found attractive is to distinguish between types and the tokens that instantiate them. Tokens, being physical, are subject to natural laws, but their use as types, follow formal laws and (considered sematically) express meaning. (This is probably what excreationist has in mind, in his interpretation of information as symbols and meaning by what they represent but I'm pretty sure he is blocked by having a peculiar view of information.

owleye

NialScorva

1997, Deep Blue beats Gary Kasparov, a grandmaster, with nothing more than knowledge of spacial coordinates, the existence of the pieces, and strictly mathematical models of using them. Whatever the spiritual essence of chess is, a purely material machine has masted it to a level that few people in the world can even approach it's "understanding".

Bill Snedden

I'm not sure exactly how this might fit into the discussion, but it's worth mentioning that DB beat Kasparov by virtue of its ability to calculate the millions of different possible outcomes resulting from all possible moves at any given point in the game.

In other words, by brute force. Human players gain advantage by making strategic choices based upon relatively (compared to DB) short-term evaluations of possible outcomes. Entire strategies are gainsayed based upon the necessity of making one or two choices (based upon a player's ability). DB doesn't share this necessity because it can simultaneously consider all possible strategic responses and counter-responses, and counter-counter-responses, and so on.

So, to say that the machine has "mastered" chess is, I would say, somewhat of a matter of opinion. In terms of ability to win, perhaps (although I would like to see it play Fischer ). In terms of actually playing the game, not at all.

Of course, this will only hold true if you, like I, believe that there is more to chess than simply "winning."

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Laurentius

NialScorva
I'm not the type of guy who likes to memorize quotes, but I know there's a famous one (Pascal's?) saying something like this: "The Universe is so mightier than Man, because It could crash him in a split second without any effort, and yet Man remains superior to the Universe, since he would be the only one of the two to actually know what is happening..."
Similarly, the Mind supersedes the Brain.
(I just had to repeat this leitmotif, at least for the effect...)
AVE

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Laur, its the brain that knows what's happening, not the mind, as us reductionists or identity theorists keep arguing

Did you have any comment regarding my point about vocabularies?

Bill

While DB does crunch far more numbers that alone isn't sufficient, it has to be given the rules about chess too, and what the goal is. The same rules and goal that human players use. Does it 'know' what it's doing. Well, if you mean is it self conscious, no, but then I don't self consciously manage very many things in life to do with my brain and body.

These points don't combat the arguments that if something of a brain's complexity were transplanted into DB, it would have self consciousness. Simply because we have far more subtlety to our goal directedness and far greater variety and complexity too, doesn't mean we aren't very complex purely biological organisms without non definable strings that link our brains to the ether where the mind lives.

Strange that there is some mental realm that attaches to our brains, rather than a mental vocabulary. I don't know what's easier to believe, that words like mind and love are convenient ways of talking about states of consciousness that are neural networks, or to say, no, a mind is something beyond, something non material that interacts with something material.

I don't see why the extra step is being taken, of us of all things in the universe.

"My interest is in the Mind right now, and how it may not be reduced to the Brain with which it obviously cohabites."--Laurentius

Here the mind is somehow equivocal to the brain, they are considered 'things' such that they can 'cohabit'. I don't seem to have a description of the brain's cohabiting partner, no experiential evidence, no shape, no substance that can be defined. I'm glad such a 'thing' seems obvious to you, because I can't begin to understand it. And I'm interested in the word 'reduced' which to me seems to indicate a prejudice towards the possibility that this 'mere' brain can't be the whole of what it is to be a self conscious aware human being, when attached to the body. I happen to find 'mind' that other half of a dualist position far more simplistic and ridiculous than this immensely complex thing in our skulls, its workings barely scratched, its complexity barely described. The brain is an awesome thing, without parallel in the universe when it comes to complexity. Perhaps that's my prejudice, that I find it a great disservice to the brain that one cannot advocate of it's structure the faculty of consciousness and all that goes with it.

What evidence do you have that along with the brain thing there must be a mind thing, and what is the nature of their connection. Only, a bit like Franc28, I have to wonder how this idea of a mind thing comes to someone, except insofar as they're not convinced by reductionist explanations and so think there must be non material substances. I can understand their being not convinced, but dualism has very many flaws. To talk of minds and brains cohabiting is dualism, to talk of mind separate from brain is dualism.

Ontologically speaking, is there only one substance or two, and if only one, aren't mental predicates just a vocabulary we employ to describe states within our organism, that also have physical predicates and a vocabulary for objective experiential definition?

Adrian

excreationist

Bill Snedden:
I think Kasparov and Deep Blue would do about the same number of calculations except that Deep Blue does them sequentially in a simplistic clean way and Kasparov's brain does it in parallel with his strategies smeared across many neurons.

excreationist

Another thing about Deep Blue is that it doesn't monitor and react to its environment very much. We can do this several times a second. (Much of our brain is synchronized at 40 Hz) But Deep Blue would only do this once every few minutes. So it doesn't processes its input or react very often like self-motivated things like animals.

Laurentius

AVE
(Sorry. What may look like long silences to you are 12hour-work days for me; that's how a regular guy can afford a decent computer and permanent Internet here on the quiet side of the Balkans.)

chess
I was originally saying:The chess game consists of rules, relationships and developments that institute a different reality, which - although propping on the material - escapes any natural explanations.Throughout the chess game the way that each piece can move and control the fields creates a certain tension that is not determined by natural laws. Physically speaking, there is mainly gravity keeping the pieces glued to the board and having no significant effect between the pieces themselves.

Now, I know that the game can be perceived and described through material/physical means only, but what I want to know is how in the world do you think physical laws have determined how each piece should move, kill another, what strategy should be followed etc. What is that particular law that tells us that stale mate should exist? And so on. I think these all make up an order that has relevance only to the Mind and can only be understood, explained and controled by it.

As for Deep Blue, this is a mere artifact. It can perform physical tasks better that the Brain, but not better than the Mind. I mean, the computer knows that there are no longer valid moves when the game ends but it does not notice the wholeness of that particular game.

And, last point, personally I consider AI artifacts, and not only those, extensions of the human mind. If one day such a human artifact could be so much more sophisticated and learn how to conserve, replicate, adapt and will to do all these on its own, well, maybe on that day I would agree there is another intelligence other human. Till then, which I think is never, AI represents only human intelligence actively stored in artifacts meant to serve human purposes and which have no will of their own.
AVE