John Page

Syn:

Nice to know you're keeping an eye on us. Pray tell what the above means. That the border between the body and the mind is a useful fiction? That the contents of the brain are a useful fiction? That the mind is an impediment to understanding itself? That something I said has no factual basis.

Just curious.

Cheers, John

owleye

John...

Since nine is the number of planets in the solar system, I fail to see how your telling me that the physical representation of this number consists of signals is in any way is informative. Indeed, I suspect you are not in any position to tell me what signals correspond to '9'. Indeed, if anything '9' is one of the many physical representations of that number and not signals. Instead of clarifying this representation you have made it not only murky but uninformative.

"However, let me distinguish between a representation and a token. A representation is a likeness, a direct image if you will, from which can be unpacked the characteristics of what is being represented."

What would a direct image of the number of planets be? I think your theory that the mind contains likenesses (or faithful impressions) of things in the world is incoherent. However, it seems to me to be unnecessary. Why do you need to have a likeness of what is in the world "in the mind?"

"A token, on the other hand, is an arbitrary symbol used to denote the "thing"."

It denotes that which the symbol represents (is a symbol of). It is a sign or mark, that indicates to those who know what it is referring to, that its meaning is to be found in the meaning of what it refers to. It is not always a "thing."

"So, if the letter "a" here is the thing being represented, this "a" here could be a good copy shifted in space."

This is confusing. 'a' is a token or symbol of the letter 'a'. Letters are sometimes considered types or classes. Thus, the physical representation of the letter (or type) 'a' is the token or figure of this letter we recognize through sight or sound (or touch).

"In the example above, I would consider "9" as being the symbol that represented the quantity of things that fit the abstract axiomatic concept "planet" contained in the mind."

Amending the meaning of 'concept' with the modifiers 'abstract' and 'axiomatic' seems unnecessary, superflous, misleading, and without foundation. What is wrong with saying that nine is the number of planets in the solar system. We know what a planet "is" because we possess its concept. Possessing the concept of a planet implies that objects satisfying the conditions imposed by that concept are recognizable and are deemed to be planets. The token '9' physically represents nine, which is what the number of planets would be if we counted them.

owleye

owleye

A3...

"Would you be horrified at the suggestion that maybe the mind could be influencing the brain?"

I am not alarmed at all. I was attempting to portray a theory of mind that was consistent with what I understand to be John's (and excreationist's). As for my own view, however, I can't say as i have much of one. I'm certainly troubled by the possibility that the mind could influence the brain (e.g., that I am motivated in certain ways on the basis of the pain I feel). The most interesting possibility of the mind influencing the brain occurs when we interrupt our actions or judgments mid-stream. Some have called this function of the mind as having a "veto" power over what the brain has already put in motion. Presumably this capability makes us believe we have free-will. However, I'm rather suspicious that such an analysis is fully correct (though I do believe we have this capability and that it also is highly suggestive of our having free-will -- only that the analysis is probably wrong in certain respects).

owleye

owleye

Synesthesia...

"First person accounts are produced by vocal emissions coordinated by the brain. In short, they are only a convinient way of determining the brain's organizational state."

That they are represented physically by vocal (or other) traces and that the brain is responsible for this does not tell me anything about that account. Indeed, your understanding of what the previous sentence means cannot be determined by an analysis of the brain alone even if you could spell out in great detail how the sentence was produced by the brain.

"Your assumption that brains cannot inform us of mental states is clearly false. Obviously they can."

Perhaps you could give me one example of our being informed of a mental state from any physical state without the use of a first person account of the mental state that is presumed to be a correlate of that physical state. For example, pain is a mental state. With only physical states to work with, how can they possibly tell us about the mental state known as pain. It seems to me that from physical states alone we can only determine other physical states. I would certainly agree that we have learned to correlate physical states with mental states. In each and every instance where we have learned these correlates, though, there had to have been some first person account of that mental state given to the researcher.

"In fact, (thus far) it is not possible to ascertain mental states in any way except through the brain's function. There is no such thing as direct first person access to the mind without the brain - for all purposes there is nothing BUT the brain. "

Equally, of course, I can say that for all purposes there is nothing BUT the mind since it is not possible to ascertain the physical states of the brain except through the mind's function. There is no third person account of the brain without a first person account by the mind.

owleye

owleye

John....

"Yes."

I think it is totally incredible that you hold the position that we are unable to establish the number of planets in our solar system (or at least the number known). It seems rather incredible then that we have ways of keeping track of money in our various accounts or that census takers think they are determining the number of inhabitants in a district or that elections are determined by a count of the number of votes for a candidate. I can't imagine you could convince anyone such counting does not exist.

"What do you otherwise propose enacts the counting process other than the brain?"

It could be a machine which does the counting but in any case, it is what it is being counted that is being called into question. You claim it is "impressions" that are being counted and not the actual things themselves. This is where I think your theory goes bonkers.

"It isn't a countable set, it relates to a countable set."

I don't believe I regarded it in the way you suggest I did.

"Consider that there is a 1:n relationship between the concept quantity and countable sets."

This tells me nothing, I'm afraid. But more than that it fails to explain why there cannot be infinite quantities.

"When I refered to the ability to identify things I did not mean to give the impression that they could be identified by name etc, merely that they could be identified by our powers of perception i.e. differentiated from their surroundings."

In actual fact I think they learn the name before they recognize what it refers to, but in any case this doesn't help convince me of your thesis that identification of objects through perception precedes the ability to count them. Indeed it seems more likely to be the other way around. What you may be thinking is that the ability to count the objects and get the right answer depends on our ability to identify all the objects that match its definition (or description or meaning -- as before I think "what makes it count as an object" is better). However, counting itself is an activity that must be learned prior to the ability to count any particular aggregate of objects.

"A judgement is a process and its result can also be refered to as a judgement. Can we agree judgements can be made within the brain?"

Judgements are mental acts. Their results might be considered mental states. There may be brain states and brain activities that are correlates to these mental acts and states. However, though I can understand the correlates to be in the brain (since the brain is physical and enclosed within boundaries), I cannot say the same thing about the mind. There does not seem to be any boundary to the mind except in the sense that it belongs the person so having one. Thus it is reasonable to say that so and so judges something to be the case or that he or she holds it to be the case or is in possession of a belief that derives from a judgment made. But it just doesn't seem reasonable to say that all these things are "in the mind." Indeed, the mind probably has no existence apart from the activities it carries out

"You missed my point - the color is a subjective observation."

What makes it so?

"Assuming the same physiology, all observers will get seemingly contradictory results depending on thier position."

What makes you think this is true?

"Possibly true but not my point. If you use this example as an analogy on philosophical viewpoints and observers, doesn't it indicate a strong need to place yourself in the mind (or perhaps I should say similar brain state) of the other person? Otherwise how can you become objective about the situation?"

Not at all to the first question. I don't know the answer to the second question except to say that when a judgment is objective it is represented in propositional language using the term "is" -- for example: This is a chair I'm sitting on. If someone disputed this, I'd think he or she was wrong and make a case for my judgment and against his or hers. However, to make your case I might wind up discovering that we each had developed a different concept of what being a chair was. Though this is certainly possible, all it would mean in my opinion is that one or both of us hasn't captured the conventional definition of what a chair is. A court might have to be convened and a judge might have to rule on the interpretation of the legal definition given of the chair and a jury might have to determine whether this chair fits that legal definition.

Dispute resolution on these matters may not lead to a satisfactory result, but none of this makes it so that actual chairs are not being counted.

"None, the truth is subjective. Truth is manufactured in your brain."

Taken on face-value this is sufficient to label what you have built as bizarre. It may be that our interpretations are subjective, but this doesn't mean that the truth of that which is being interpreted is subjective. In the language of the courtroom, there is your view, my view, and truth. The lawyers assume the adversarial view of the first two, while the jury presumably assumes the standpoint of the third.

"OK, how would you characterize all that is on the "human" side of the senses and all that is "outside" the senses?"

I have no difficulty differentiating inner and outer experiences. However, I suggest that your use of "inside" and "outside" in the above reflects a view having a strong resemblance to a view that behind our eyes is a homunculous (or little person) who sees what is beyond our eyes. The difficulty with this view is that the homunculous needs its own senses to make such an observation and we would wind up asking the same question of the homunculous we asked of the person -- this would then continue forever.

"Please define concrete esp. viz. physical/non-physical."

Concrete instances are not classified to reflect a physical/non-physical distinction. The basic analogy is that abstract is to general as concrete is to particular.

"Untrue, I do think they exist, otherwise how could we know them. We're arguing over form/substance as per Parmenides and Socrates in the Third Man debate where Parmenides challenged Socrates to show him where the 'ideal' man was. Socrates was unable to answer - but I am venturing that the ideal (or "axiomatic concept" although you dislike this term) is an abstract in the mind."

The problem I have with the above is what it means to be "in the mind." However, I do agree that concepts are abstractions and are mind dependent. However, existence in the context in which I was referring to it means being mind-independent. Unfortunately for you, everything is real and so there is no way to distinguish something that exists from something that doesn't exist.

"Where do you consider "Information, considered generally", that is abstract resides?"

Bad question, since it assumes that the mind is a container, something I reject.

"So, they're subjective, right?"

Judgments that were objective could change to being subjective if the person making the judgment was convinced of being in error. However, when a dispute arises, prior to its resolution both sides believe their judgments are objective.

"Now this statement is a house of cards!! You seem to like Kant yet I do not think he would concur on this (Critique of Pure Reason)."

You would be wrong, of course. Note that logic is absolutely crucial to Kant's philosophy. His lecture notes on this subject (published late in his life, though written and amended throughout his career) gives us a richer understanding of the Critique. Kant's logic is what is referred to as subject-predicate logic. There is general logic and transcendental logic.

"I think I understand your point and partially agree, however, IMO in the final analysis semantics is a go between."

We'll see.

owleye

Mr. Sammi

owleye, it seems you would be unwilling to place any distinction between brain and mind except to use the terms interchangably. If you adopt this position then when asked "where do you think"?, you would reply, "in the brain - where the mind exists". Fine, if you adopt this position then I may be willing to say that you would then be unable to fully distinguish between headache and emotional pain.

I would say in a division between mind and brain that a headache is a brain matter, due to the brain not completely functioning, while an emotional pain, emanates from the mind.

Surely Sammi, you are mad, says owleye, the emotional pain in your head must be associated with brain functions. I would reply, saying I am not adverse to this idea, but for my headache I have to take chemicals like aspirin, while to ease my emotional pain I can easily flick through a playboy magazine.

My final words would try to convince Owleye, that there is a hard part of the brain AND a soft part of the brain. The hard part is hard because it is thought-uncontrollable WHEREAS the soft part of the brain is thought-controllable.

In conclusionary terms, the proper brain has a hard part and a soft part AND we usually term the soft part which is the thought-controllable part the MIND. Nevertheless the mind is part of the brain.

This gives me a good indication where the mind-body border exists.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

A3

Hi owleye
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swedenborg call this "veto" power or this thoughts popping up and interupting, our abillical cord with the spiritual world. That we have been created in two worlds at the same time. Our spirit is in the spiritual world with its thoughts, feelings, emotions, memory etc. and the brain is in the physical world. Through for instance hypnotism or trance we can influence this "connection" and connect with the spiritual world. It is then possible to connect with a spirit who existed here before and get a 'past life' notion brought on.
This may also be the 'soft' part Sammi was talking about.

Regards
Adriaan

Ierrellus

John,

IMO, before looking for a mind/body border, one must decide whether human perception is active or passive and whether or not a&p are just another false dichotomy.

Ierrellus

Pax

Synaesthesia

Owleye,

You should be abundantly aware that this is a very controversial assumption, one which I do not take for granted. You simply assume that the mind cannot be understood in terms of our brains in a situation where physical explanation is the only serious contender.

The fact that the brain is physical, of course, doesn’t tell us all that much. We first must understand exactly how the systems are organized. We must understand the brain because there is nothing else; no ghosts in the machine!

You demand that materialists build up an understanding of human personality from scratch, without regard for the human situation, human understanding or language. Understand the mind, you say, without any notion of what it is for. That’s a ridiculous demand. Obviously if we are to have any hope of understanding brain organization, we have to take into account what we know of it!

The larger part of the data that theories of the mind must ultimately explain is our language ability, our social skills and our conception of the mind. How the heck are we supposed to understand the brain and it’s behavior if we aren’t allowed to use the data we need to explain! I need hardly remind you that we have only barely begun our exploration of brain organization.

First person accounts are a very convenient way of learning about the mind. Billions of years of evolution and tens of thousands of years of memetic evolution are going to provide some very useful ways of thinking about the very thing that it’s most important to think about. I personally take it for granted we pay attention to these capacities without assuming the theories (such as the cartesian theater, the separation of reason from emotion etc.) to be totally true.

Not only have we correlated them, we are in a position where it is not theoretically useful or even remotely plausible to posit a fundamental division. There is no theoretical need at this point to be chasing spooks.

That is a non-sequitur. Simply because we cannot “escape” our brain doesn’t mean we can determine no information outside of it. There is a distinction between how it is our mind perceives, and how we determine whether or not a theory is true. As a consequence of this distinction we do not need to presuppose the mind’s physicality in order to verify the theory that mind is physical.

In this case, the theory can be verified by obseving the utter dependance of the mind upon the brain and the various vital components of the brain.

Your response simply deflects attention from the issue. There is absolutely no evidence for anything but a physical mind. The fact that it is the mind that permits us to do fantastic things like understand the mind is no objection at all.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

Synaesthesia

Sammi wrote,
You are searching for the cartesian theater. Some place that controls things, a place in which information is funneled through to “the real you”.

It is a quest that reminds me of K.’s search for the boss in Kafka’s brilliant book The Castle. He asks a bureaucrat which of the Castle’s many agencies is the control agency. Where is the MIND that controls the important stuff?

“...but they are ALL control agencies.” the man replies.

The point Sammi, is that all of the brain is an intricate web of control agencies, but there is no single unified controller hiding in that web. It is simply not useful to divide the brain into “thought controlled” and “non-thought controlled” because the whole brain’s main purpose is to control and coordinate itself.

It’s ALL a brain matter. Physical pain is clearly linked to both cognitive and emotional issues. Trying to draw a line in the brain and isolate obviously connected capacities strikes me as a futile attempt at clinging to traditional conceptions of our mental organization.

The only variable we are dealing with here is the functioning of the brain. No mental ‘emanations’ have been or are likely to be detected.

Regards,
Synaesthesia