Mind Over Matter?

[bennyboy]

-Except that I don't have my own personal definition.  I'm content with the standard definitions linked.  I neither need to nor desire to redefine processing (and comp mind wouldn't be a very good explanation for mind if I -did- need to redefine it).  If you know what it means...then you know why data transmission is not necessarily processing (and if you didn't you've been given an example).   There is no "in the sense of this debate" for me - either mind is processing writ large,  or it's something else (or many somethings else)...and honestly...there is no debate between you and I that I can see on the issue of comp mind.

I ask that you take it at face value that I do NOT have a definition that I think works in this context. Your definition of processing, I think, is too narrow; it involves looking at chunks of information as a single unit, which already implies mind. In other word "mind is mind." It doesn't show how individual data (photons, electrons, neurotransmitters spanning the gap between neurons, etc.) "know" that they are part of a bigger system of thought, thereby allowing a mind to exist.

I believe processing must be defined in purely physical terms, since it is meant to be a physicalist theory of mind. So for now, I say, "Processing is any interaction of particles or their properties which affect causality." Which, of course, is every interaction.

I elaborated so that you might appreciate this next comment...I'm not so sure there's a "spark" except in the sense of a spark of energy to power the grinding of many...many gears.  I call that metabolism....so I guess that I think, in biological comp systems....metabolism would provide that spark.  I thought you might enjoy how different a question or statement can seem coming from such different starting points.  You're looking for a consciousness particle...I don;t expect to ever find such a thing...I don;t expect to find a "consciousness nueron" either.

I view human consciousness as an aggregate-- a collection of tiny little mental events which the brain brings into a kind of form or focus. So human consciousness, I would say, is not the creation of mind, but the bringing into relation a gazillion little sparks of mind: much as a physical object is the bringing into relation a gazillion little particles. But we know what brings the particles in a physical object into relationship in a single object: the atomic forces, gravity, and electromagnetic forces. But your view of mind is very mysterious to me: it doesn't EXIST anywhere except as a ghost in the machinery. It sounds a little bit like a soul.

You say you don't understand the difference..but I don't believe that this is true.  You don't experience a rock as conscious, or possessing mind any more than I do, -or- as computing.  There's the difference - I'm merely attempting to explain one possible reason for this difference presenting itself in both of our experiences.    You can stop every post and ask for another definition..if you like...the answer will always be the same.  : shrugs :

In my view, there are a billion little mental events exploding all over that rock, as electrons move through it, as photons hit it, etc. And the exact same goes for the human brain. The thing you are talking about isn't so much about an ontology explaining the existence of mind, but a description of how human experience forms.

I agree that a rock can't enjoy a Mozart symphony, because it doesn't have the systems which would allow it to do so. However, the data presented to the rock DO represent a kind of primitive processing system: the transmission of heat from the surface to the center, the transmission of energy waves in vibration, etc. Let's say I play Mozart to a rock. The surface facing the speaker will vibrate, the vibration will be carried into the rock and generate friction, and the rock will transmit some of that as infrared radiation. Different songs will produce different amounts of friction and at different times, such that a clever scientist might someday be able to read the heat patterns and know what song was being played. The rock has done a kind of calculation: "What would Mozart's Requiem Mass look like as a heat signature?" You could even go beyond this and consider it more complex calculation: "What would Mozart's Requiem Mass look like as a heat signature at sea level in the dead of summer?"

Now, this isn't a very useful kind of processing, but nobody's arguing for the musical brilliance of rocks. My point is that it can be seen as simple processing, and that by a comp mind theory, I'd expect a marginally non-zero amount of mind to be seen at work in even a rock.