Filip Sandor

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Theophage:
[QB]I hope so, but there are two different level of explanation that you might be looking for:
The first level is simply not understanding or accepting the idea of mind as function. You agree that there is a difference between a system and that system's function, correct?

Yes I agree.

A system is anything composed of more than one 'parts'. A function is a term which can be attributed, roughly, to describing what a particular system is doing or what it is designed to to do. This seems quite simple at first glance, to say that the mind is a function of the brain... but it's not quite as simple as it seems. I hope you will entertain me and follow me along here for a second.

Let's do a short thought experiment so we can better understand this confusing thing you call a 'function'.

Pretend you asked me what the function of my printer was. I would tell you that it's function is to print color and black and white shapes onto paper. Now of course because you are so curious to see my printer functioning, I would proceed to demonstrate it's function to you and print something out; finally, I would show you the end product of the function you just witnessed, a piece of paper with print on it. Now if I ask you what the function of a brain is, you're possibly going to give me a long list of tasks that your brain is involved in performing, one of which will probably be the manifestation of mental images. So this time I ask you to show me how your brain functions. Being a nice guy, you show me (on an MRI that you just happen to have handy ) the functioning of your brain, as you conjure up a mental image in your mind. Now naturally, I'm going to see things happening in your brain that I don't quite understand, which is ok because maybe you didn't quite understand what was going on in the printer while it was carrying out its function.

Anyway, we have both finished our demonstrations. I have showed you the function of a printer and you have showed me the function of your brain.... except there is one little problem.........

Where is your end product (mental image)??

*Filip stands there, with a piece of paper in his hand, dazed and confused as Theophage smiles in delight...*

Filip Sandor

Oh, you mean like say it again, but this time with quotations around it...? Ok, here you go then... are you ready?

Synaesthesia and Stimpson both made the following statement:

[ Note: Bracketted text added for clarification. ]

By the way, if you're just going to be an annoying nuisance in this debate then you might as well leave, unless you are actually capable of debating without makig ridiculous accusations based on your 'intuitive compass' or whatever the hell made you think I was lying.

P.S. If you decide to stay, then after you finish 'verifying' the quote I gave, because of course, what's a good debate without twisting and manipulating other people's words.. perhaps you will go and take a look at my response to Theophage's second post, which you so faithfully described as 'perfectly reasonable' without any investigation whatsoever.

It's gonna be a long and bumpy ride Tronvillain! Are you sure you can handle it?!

tronvillain

As far as I can tell, Synaesthesia does not say "The mind is the brain" in either of those threads, but Stimpson may have. I guess I can give you half credit.

You have this strange obesssion with MRI's and our inability to see mental images on them. An MRI does not show us the function of a brain, it shows us the brain functioning - there is an significant difference. Your apparent inability to grasp this difference in the case of the brain when it would be obvious in the case of a computer is somewhat strange.

tronvillain

Ah, I found one of the place Synaesthesia said it:
Of course, this is the next thing he says:
Nothing made me think you were lying, I just had no reason to take your word about what they said.

tronvillain

Oh, and my name is "tronvillain", not "Tronvillain."

tronvillain

Stimpson J. Cat:
Now, that seems closer to Theophage's position than "the mind is the brain."

Filip Sandor

I don't really expect much more than a half-hearted effort from you..

Apparently many scientists share my obsession -- they claim that it enables them to view 3-dimensional models of the living brain, but then... you don't really have any reason to believe that and I could very well be wasting my time replying to you.

You're right, there is a difference.. the functioning is the function, spread out through time. I don't comprehend what is so significant about that, in relation to the mind/brain problem; could you please explain the significance to me?

Ahh.. I see you do possess more intellect than a three year old!!

Did you read my response to Theophages second post... or is his highness much too pre-occupied to do any real investigation?? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

tronvillain

It wasn't a half-hearted effort, it was an initial effort. Since I was exerting myself to find the evidence for your assertions, you have nothing to complain about.

Obviously I read your respose to Theophage, and I find your inability to recognize my response when you quote it somewhat odd. I wouldn't go so far as to speculate that you possess no more intellect than a three year old, but...

Ah, but they are not obsessed with our inability to to mental images on them. No reasonable person, materialist or not, should expect to be able to.

An inability to understand this could explain expecting to see a mental image on an MRI. Would you expect to be able to read these words if you were scanning your computer with something comparable to an MRI and didn't have an interpretive framework for what the scanner showed you?

Filip Sandor

I'm getting bored of the insults, how about we start debating now..?

You haven't addressed the problem I pointed out to Theophage. Why don't you re-read my response to him and address the problem that I pointed out.

It's a shame because while most materialists don't actually believe this, it is one of the bizarre implications of a purely materialistic view of reality.

Just for the record, I'm not a materialist.

Thanks for respecting my obsession..

The problem with your analogy is that 'words' are a creation of our minds, there are no 'words' or 'sentences' in your computer or even on your computer screen.

If you don't believe me, try the following experiment:

Wet your index finger under a water tap and flick it at the your computer screen. Now look closely at any one of the droplets on the sreen and you should be able to see a pretty decent and clear magnification of the 'pixels' underneath the droplet that are being hit by electromagnetic radiation from the picture tube in your monitor.

While this experiment may seem silly to you, it is meant to better illustrate the fact that there are no 'words' on your computer screen; the 'words' you perceive exist mentally, in your mind.

For further referrence on what I am describing to you, read my debate with Synaesthesia on <a href="http://www.randi.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000287&p=9" target="_blank">Page 9</a> the thread that UCE started over there, where we discuss the nature of 'information'.

Adrian Selby

By words existing mentally, in one's mind, do you mean they exist as ontologically distinct from neural nets that recognise symbols and the associations and applications of those symbols.

Only the recognition of words might just be what happens when a human brain that has learned to recognise those arrangements of shapes in the visual field is able to respond to them in a meaningful way. The criteria of meaning are mutually decided, i.e. My response could be verbal garbage, and only intersubjective acceptance of meaning can show that my response is in fact garbage. Of course, knowledge of what our brains are doing is so limited expecting anything like an adequate explanation is going to be difficult.

On the subject of toy trucks, I'd argue that for something to be conscious it must have a certain complexity with regard to a specific kind of 'matter', namely, like neurons, matter that is akin to logic gates, whether it be circuitry or neurons, to give two examples. Trucks do not have this kind of matter, e.g. neural nets, and do not have sufficient complexity in the arrangement of this matter. Quite how to draw the lines is a problem, but it is obvious that a duck can be said to be conscious and a toy truck not, if only because on the above definition, the duck (barely) cuts the mustard.

Self consciousness, being a higher order function again, would require a far greater degree of complexity. A criterion of complexity in the arrangement of the matter constituting the central nervous system seems to me on the surface to offer some kind of foundation for sorting out what can be and what can't be conscious.

Adrian