John Page

Again, what does the counting and where is it located (in general)? IYO, is the brain the hardware that humans use to count? If not, what?
It seems that much has been learned by looking at the physiology of the brain separate from any issue of the mind. Why the mind first and how do you suggest we try and gain an understanding of it (in order that we may later relate it to the brian)?
Then please enlighten me with what you think the mind is, if it is not the abstract notion of what goes on in our brain/body.
Only when you are unclear in stating what you saw, whether you verified it etc. Did this "snake" exist outside you mind?
You analogy is not useful, I simply made an existential claim and advanced no theory. Furthermore, the fact that you are arguing about my ontology supports my existential claim. Do you claim my ontology does not exist? If so, how is your claim consistent with other ontologies that you claim do exist?
Very few people can remember from before they were two years old, likely I should have refered to conscious recall (as opposed to subconscious recognition).
Get what? Please explain how you categorize things - you seem to divide the reality into concrete and abstract but offer no coherent explanation in which of these two "pots" you put something like a neutrino.
I was refering to objective and subjective viewpoints, "subject" and "object" are pretty much synonymous.
No, I maintain there is a "common external reality" through which can relate to each other. Are you suggesting we perceive all things at all times?
I never said that. If you would refer back to the "reality" page on my web site I comment that underneath that the diagram does not accomodate the concept of time, and this would require another axis.
Am I right in assuming you say it is one's mind that does the "intending"? Again, please describe this notion of mind and how it would do such intending.
Did I say I had a beef with Kant? I likely have not studied his works as rigorously as you but I believe he ends up concluding that we cannot manufacture (external) reality from reason. I will bow to your superior knowledge if some of his work states (rather than merely investigates in the course of inquiry) otherwise.

Cheers, John

Eldy

From Eldy the Elderly: The comparison to computer hardware and the calculations and functions is a good analogy.

The difference in the human being and a computer is that human beings are not machines. Human beings have at least two things that make them human and not automatons, or robots.

1. Human being have self-awareness. "I AM."
2. Human beings have free will. They have a will. When we say "I will," we are invoking the "I am" with respect to time, future time.
3. Human beings are aware of future time, and can make predictive judgments based on knowledge and experience. Animals cannot do this.

The spirit of man brings the body of man to function as a human being who knows and can know goodness, truth, and beauty. These are your godly attributes. Don't eat the fruit while denying the tree.

You are a good group of discussers. I appreciate what I find here, in the way you handle goodness, truth and, I assume, beauty.

A spirit of inquiry is a very healthy thing.

Eldy

From Eldy: You guys are going to have knock this off. I cannot possibly read all the stuff in this string. Not with all that Bible readin'.

JOhn, could you give me a one page summary of what has been said so far? Boy, you guys are really covering this subject.

Kindly, Eldy the Elderly

John Page

Eldy:

A one page summary on the quest for the holy grail? Tall order.

My perception is that 80% of this content is of the "yes it is" "no it isnt" order with much supporting dialog but no proof. So, apart from these typical features of philosophical debate the key issues seem to resolve around:

1. What is the mind?
2. What do we mean when we say something is abstract?
3. What useful tools do we have that might explain some of the important features of brain function (I recommend Excreationist's example program about halfway down page 7)?
4. Does any of this information help us refine our philosophical stance as to ontology, empiricism etc.

No conclusions, of course. However, in relation to your prior post, free will is at best unproven and at worst an illusion created by the human physiology for making decisions. Animals can make predictive judgements. Nobody seems to be going for a mystic dualist explanation at this time.

The surprise for me has been a) the wide variations of "mind" definitions in conjunction with b) significant consensus that a scientific explanation of "mind" will eventually emerge.

Naturally, I'll probably be howled down for some injustice or serious omission in this summary, for which my predictive mind humbly apologizes in advance.

Cheers, John

excreationist

This takes many *years* to learn. Humans have the potential for philosophical-type self-awareness but don't necessarily have it. e.g. newborn babies are human beings, but apparently they don't understand that their environment still exists when they can't see it, etc. And I doubt that a person who was raised their entire life in a sensory isolation tank would be self-aware to the extent we are. <a href="http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html" target="_blank">Piaget</a> identified the cognitive stages humans go through and I think this would involve us learning - rather than us automatically reaching those stages based on our age. In the field of AI there are some machines that are being made to learn things through experience... but at the moment we can't make neural networks that are as complex as a human brain...

This is also learnt. Newborn babies don't really do this. And even toddlers don't have much understanding of time.

This is also learnt... you yourself said it involved knowledge and experience. The creator of the "Creatures" games is working on <a href="http://www.cyberlife-research.com/about/brainintro.htm" target="_blank">Lucy</a>, which is a neural network controlled robot that should be able to learn things and make predictions. (like a monkey)

A purely physical brain could desire those things (goodness, truth and beauty) as well...

Mr. Sammi

John, after all is said and done, I wish to add some more of my ideas.

I am calling the mind, The Sixth Sense, and have been doing so since 1998. I am calling it the sixth sense, because it is our sense of existence, both physically and socially.

This mind-sense has its physical connection because of its role as the master sense or controlling sense of the 5 accepted senses. In this role it is the combining sense.

This mind-sense is a social sense because it allows us to plan and idealize a social existence. To further this idea, the mind socialises the instinctive responses or instinctive reflex which is posessed through the physical connection in the best adaptive way according to current social conditions. To make a living.

In saying all senses report to the mind implies the mind has the capability of acting upon "sensed data". To collapse sensed data into a useable format must be some tricky matter.

I am also backing fully the idea that a Cartesian theatre MAY BE available IFF the brain has the HARDWARE available TO SENSE supernatural-data as an enhancement to the natural senses.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

John Page

I'll pass on your supernatural suggestion until there is evidence beyond the theory alone. If you think there is, a reference would be useful.

As to the above quote, I wouldn't consider that combining data from a number of different sensory sources constitutes a new sense. It seems some brain functions synthesize this data into a "world-view" that is presented to other parts of the brain whereupon it is consciously perceived. Even if you regard this as an additional "Meta-sense" its foundation still appears neurological - hence my interest in responses to the thread topic on how to define/describe the mind/body border.

I think owleye has a point earlier where he says it doesn't make sense to ask specifically where counting takes place. On the other hand, it seems to me that progress is being made in discovering areas of the (normal?) brain that are responsible for specific processes. We even have real-time brain activity traces that seem to show all or part of the the process of conscious perception (even though we don't fully understand it).

In conclusion I would suggest that scientific investigation (in general, not just regarding the mind) is gradually eliminating the need for supernatural explanations for reality.

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi

John, I guess the question would be, what value does it give humans to regard the mind as the mind-sense.

My answer to this question is IMPROVEMENT. We can improve the performance of the mind-sense by SHARPENING IT, in the same way hand-eye coordination can be improved. In the same way hearing can be improved when it is time to listen to all instruments on a specific recording. In the same way taste can be improved by exposure and repetition.

Having formed the realisation the mind-sense can be improved, we can now seek techniques which can allow us to sharpen and grow the mind-sense of which I speak. We have done so inadvertently through history.

It must be understood that imbalances in the brain are reported, which shows the brain has treshold ranges which invariably have to be SENSED one way or another. How do I know this is not part of me?

Finally is it the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart? NO ONE can say that reasonable suggestions for solutions to an unknown problem DOES NOT LEAD to narrower search crieteria AND faster success stories.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

fwh

John Case

you said:
In conclusion I would suggest that scientific investigation (in general, not just regarding the mind) is gradually eliminating the need for supernatural explanations for reality.

me:
Natural scientists have to be "objective" about a natural world which is by definition devoid of spirit or the supernatural, and as your post indicates they are often proud of being so. This "habit" began a little over three hundred years ago and arose by meticulously observing the facts of nature and systematically interpreting them in terms of "physical" cause and effects. Without this "habit" practiced in scientific investigations, the largely beneficial results for the accumulation of practical knowledge and knowledge allowing the manipulation of nature simply wouldn't have occurred. "Most" of the time we are pleased with this useful process.

However, Auguste Comte, several hundred years after this "habit" was established, propounded that this method of interpreting the facts of nature is not merely useful but the ONLY possible method to be used. Since spirit, by definition, is not to be studied in scientific investigations and since the method of choice eliminates it from study....only matter now exists!

But a proposition that only one method of scientific investigation is possible cannot itself(except for devout believers-fundamentalists) be based on scientific investigation by that method; as clearly stated by thinkers as early as the 1930's. The proposition is, therefore, a dogmatic belief. However, it has been so thoroughly absorbed into the thought stream of Western science and humanity that it has come to be regarded, not as a dogma, but as a scientifically established fact.

As a free thinker and a skeptic of all dogmatic assertions, I believe other "habits" of investigation MAY be instituted in the future giving additional insights into this world we live in.

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are found in your philosophy."

John Page

fwh:

The concept of heavan is included within my ontological model, as is the concept of earth. Do you think heavan is within the mind or outside it?

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>