John Page

Hi Sammi!

"affected by the mind" Hmmmm. What about consequent effects of mind activity? Like me typing this post - its affected by the mind but indirectly.

You bring up a relevant point, most of the discussion here has been about incoming information rather than action. Care to modify you proposal? Do we need a de-abstraction layer?

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi

John, definitively, a tautological addition should be necessary to complete the idea.

I think what you are suggesting may lead to a secondary test, in order to distinguish recurring fantasy from recurring reality.

Another example I wished to demonstrate, was about mind disorders, whose primary cause was independent of the mind. After the primary cause the mind then augments the representation out of control and adds mind dependency to the equation. (Any little wonder why people who are fucked up, are so fucked up). The mind dependency could then further alienate the original representation UNTIL it is possible for the "problem", to become uncontrollable by the mind which at this point becomes mind independent, seeing the mind cannot control the problem any longer.

You may see some of these people directing traffic on bridges on hot days. Some end up indefinitely hospitalized.

To have another word here John, you can idealise the relation to complete it (if you wish).

owleye, I kindly await your learned response.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sammi ]</p>

John Page

The best word I know for this is <a href="http://skepdic.com/confab.html" target="_blank">confabulation</a>, see this link to the skeptics dictionary.

Cheers, John

owleye

John...

I'm afraid I wasn't able to locate the sought after support for excreationist's thesis that brains have beliefs in the links provided. Possibly it was due to my inability to find it.

owleye

owleye

Gurdur...

"Well, now, every theory gets put on trial here sooner or later."

Nice to hear from you. You speak with some authority on this site. Are representing the above assertion on the basis of your acquaintance with the history of this forum?

In any case, I look upon this thread of John's as a thread intending to discuss his desire to get at the "border" of mind and body, which has been a philosophical issue from the dawn of philosophy. John seems to have a particular viewpoint he wishes us to consider. I think asking me to defend my position is a way of deflecting criticism of his own position. In my mind if he wishes his theory to be considered by others as making an important contribution to a long philosophical tradition, he should be up to defending it, while at the same time offering support for his position and against alternatives.

Secondly, the particular questions querying John's ontological framework (as opposed to a possible epistemological framework) was intended to help clarify how I should understand his theory of mind/body. Unfortunately I have not succeeded in getting anything solid from him on that subject. Instead I get from him something to the effect that there is much to criticize about my theory, about which I have said very little.

"Could you please use the quote function, since otherwise it becomes far too difficult to read your posts and work out who's saying what."

I don't think I know how to do this. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

owleye

John Page

Sure, first let me repeat the original post.
Second, I hope excre will correct me if I'm wrong but the proposal is that we have an internal "first-person" account of conscious experience, the brain generating an internal commentary. One example given is the perception of voices in the head.

The link I provided on epilepsy states "A woman treated by Walsh hears voices every time she has a seizure. A stern male voice speaks to her but, like a forgotten dream, she doesn't recall what he said when the seizure is over. The woman realizes that the voice is a manifestation of her disease and not a communication from aliens or spirits." The underlying cause seems to be a defective migration of cells during brain development, in turn caused by genetic abnormality. What I am suggesting is that the epilepsy example of voices in the head is a manifestation of the process proposed by excre.

A couple of quotes from the first link I provided: This final quote, I think, shows at least tentative conclusions out of PreFrontal Cortex activity studies that the brain forms beliefs and uses them to plan activities and, indeed, to test the beliefs themselves.

Hope this helps explains why I thought the links provided support for the theory. The actual truth, well....

Cheers, John

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

John Page

Owleye:

Please! I offered to send you a paper elucidating my ontology. If you want it, send me a message stating an emal address I can send it as a file attachment.

owleye

John...

"I don't require so, I'm merely pointing out that the term "software" in its commonly used context refers to programs written by humans. Are you suggesting that computer software arose directly from Darwinian evolution? I think not. I am saying that the concept of software exists in the mind."

I'll concede the first point, though I think there is something valuable in extending it beyond being a human invention. This thereby makes the second point moot. What word(s) would you substitute for the genetic code? (Would 'code' be adequate? If so, might I ask the same questions about this term that I did about software?) With respect to the third point, I don't believe this was the subject of debate. The question is not how you would locate the concept of software, but how you would locate software, if this is indeed something that exists somewhere. (If 'code' is a satisfactory substitute, let me make the same inquiry of it.)

"Let's say its your mind. If it is concrete, can I see a picture of it? If not why not?"

No, you can't see a picture of it. I can't explain why you can't. However, I don't see why you need to have this explanation on the basis of it being a concrete mind. It seems to me that, abstractly considered, minds are such that they do not have spatio-temporal (material/physical) properties. This is to say that no concrete mind has spatio-temporal (material/physical) properties, though it's possible that the contents of mental experiences certainly can have spatio-temporal (material/physical) properties.

"It should be obvious from the above two contradictory quotes why I can't comprehend what you think is real."

I wasn't giving what I think is real. I was giving you two opposing positions, one a realist position and the other an anti-realist position.

"If I am not mistaken you also use real in the sense of definition #2 above and, in any event 7c "independent of experience" seems at odds with empirical realism!!"

Interesting problem isn't it? Well, I'm afraid I'm not going to spend any more time explaining myself to you. If you wish to know more about the subject I suggest you take a few courses in philosophy. I grant that the term "independent" causes some difficulty, and you will note that, for the most part, I used "apart from," I don't think that it is worth my time trying to instruct you on something you seem to have a strong bias against. I would suggest reading Kant slowly and also reading some of the secondary literature. Indeed, invest some time in an entire course on Kant's metaphysics.

"I can show you a physical penguin, can you show me a physical mind?"

I'm not suggesting the mind is physical, are you?

"You cannot read my thoughts, for example, but I experience them."

No problem. I had apparently misunderstood that your theory had it that the brain had thoughts.

"The part we experience. (You may recall this is relation to "imaginary things" participating in reality and you asked for a definition of "participate")."

It is your theory, then, that unicorns, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc., are real, because they are products of the mind. That is, all products of the mind are real. True?

Do you think then, that children who believe in the tooth fairy, have a true belief? If so, what would later make them believe otherwise, for example when they later become parents?

"Why? Seems clear to me."

For sure.

"You can, but it would never be completely objective since it is sensed through you."

So what? You didn't have the same requirement for subjectivity.

"To clarify, I'm saying that an abstract instance of the tree exists in the mind which is a process supported by a physical substrate, most likely the brain."

Ok.

"So, under this theory, when I perceive a tree there is a physical brain event/state that represents a tree."

What is the relevance of the term "when" in the above. There may be a brain state that represents a tree. I believe there is mental representation, known as a concept, of a tree. There is also the tree itself, as perceived -- i.e., the concrete instance of that tree. But perception is a mental activity (undoubtedly having some physical basis). Perception, as Kant points out, is of particular objects -- not of general objects. You can't perceive a general object. However, it is perfectly reasonable to perceive a specific object (say a triangle) as a general object -- i.e., that it represents the concept of a triangle in general. Indeed, as Kant wants us to think of it, we cannot represent the concept of a triangle (or other mathematical objects) except by exhibiting it in intuition. (The modern mathematician may beg to differ, however.)

"If this were not so, we could expect to find (physical) trees inside our head. In fact, there have been discoveries of pictorial images in brain measuring equipment - this is also consistent with a highly idealized concept of tree."

There have been studies that I'm familiar with which attempt to show that objects are represented as pictures and not as rules, e.g., through asking participants to move geometric objects around in your mind. In doing so, it is conceivable that a topological mapping of geometric objects may play some role in recognition of objects, though probably not entirely. However, the debate goes on. My suspicion is that rules predominate, though the content has to be translated geometrically. I understand, for example, that goggles that invert the image onto the retina, though initially disconcerting, can be rectified by many folks -- i.e. by their having the ability to reorient the world so that it conforms to ordinary experience. What pictorial images are you referring to?

"But you are using empirical realism as a yardstick so I'm just trying to wean out the differences and analyze them! I'm not trying to attack you and I don't think I'm guilty of inventing private definitions to justify my arguments and I don't think I've used any words wildly out of context."

It's been my criticism. I stand by it.

"I'd be grateful if you could address the apparent contradictions and gaps highlighted in my previous posts (as I have sincerely tried to do in my posts). I don't doubt your sincerity and I'm trying to understand your definitions of real, mind, abstract, concrete and physical in a consistent manner."

Again. These are not my definitions. I take them from the dictionary. I would say that your use of the above terms violate the definitions given in the dictionary. I wouldn't say they contradict or oppose them. Instead I would say merely that your use of the terms is a misuse. One misuse is to think that the mind is an abstract entity. The mistake, is called, I believe, a category mistake. It is using a term (in this case 'abstract') that fits one category for an entirely different one.

I think concepts (at least in the form humans deal with them -- as objects) are abstract entities. If you had stuck with this you might have fared considerably better. However, for some reason, you chose to identify the mind itself as abstract. (Note that a specific concept (e.g., the concept of a car), is what is being referred to as the abstract entity. The general concept (i.e., that which is dealt with generally, and represents what is in common with all specific concepts) is an abstract entity as well. It is the abstract entity that corresponds to the concept of a concept.

owleye

crocodile deathroll

There is probably also a irrational world wide belief in the paranormal like spirits and ghosts, or even some special paradise that Jesus or Mohammed has set aside for us. I feel people just invent these concepts because people so may philosophies dealing with death to be paradoxical. Even many atheists like myself find many each other's concepts about what happens to consciousness after death to be paradoxical. I was arguing this with an atheist friend who posited the view that we will be dead for a long time we are going to be aware that we will be dead sooner or later even if it took trillions of millennia. I argued that if you will be never regain conscious again for ever ...... then even forever will pass unnoticed. But could not help my self from think that that idea too was paradoxical.
I more of the view now that consciousness is inextricably entangled with a perception of time, and that instance you gain a perception of time you are "conscious" even if that happens to be a REM dream state you are still conscious and neurons are firing while you are dreaming.
I am far more skeptical of spirits and ghosts and I do not ever feel corpses will ever become aware of their condition, but I am of the view that consciousness is it a fundamental feature of the physical world and marks a crucial phase of the universe's evolution when it could reflect back on itself and become aware of its own existence.
The universe could not know about the existence of interesting phenomena like black holes, quasars and gamma ray bursters to its own constituent quarks if there was no intelligence to investigate them
I do not think there will ever be a day when people could "see" consciousness but they will be better enlightened to its causes.
In a nutshell I do not think consciousness will ever be observed, only experienced. You wouldn't only have to "see" those neurons you would also have to be those neurons.

I had a strong religious upbringing and as I was having doubts I too was undergoing phases of pantheism although it could not think up a word at that point of time, and instance I discovered the word "pantheism" I latched onto it and was very overt about my it at that stage in my life. I stubbornly clung to pantheism for a number years, and that progressed on to agnosticism and finally atheism.
As far as a God is concerned I feel the first conscious experience is as near as it gets, because without it the universe would not be aware of its own existence but consciousness did play any a priori part in universe's creation, rather it was just an emergent property of it like the emergence of iron. I am sure there would be billions of failed universe out there, but because their laws of physic do not permit the emergence of consciousness and as such there is no consciousness within them to think a wonder in awe about its existence.

Funny I found Sunday church services to be incredibly dull and science very interesting!!! Perhaps math was pretty dull perhaps but still a lot more interesting nevertheless .

crocodile deathroll

I asked a very conservative Catholic priest a question. What about all those hypothetical children that you decided not to have and could of had. For example you could of married somebody and had ten children in a good Catholic family. Now since those children do not exist what is going to happen to them. Will they be always eternally denied the gift of life?
Of course his answer was just a lot of holy gibberish as you could expect.
There a trillions of trillions of these hypothetical children. The Pope may of married Queen Elizabeth II and had children, or a nun may of even been raped by a gang a rascals in Papua. Since those hypothetical events did not happen then what will happen to their hypothetical offspring.
Or would you say they were born in a parallel universe just like you may of been hit on the head by a block of frozen piss that fell from an airliner.