RE: Mind Over Matter?
April 12, 2015 at 7:26 am
(This post was last modified: April 12, 2015 at 8:07 am by The Grand Nudger.)
A good start to describing a rock -as- a processor, even if it isn't one...... and since you're clearly not interested in any discussion in which a rock is not processing..then so be it. So, what logical functions do you think you could achieve with that behavior? What sorts of comp systems do you think I could build out of a "processor" with that/those functions?
"Mind is intrinsic" doesn't -explain- anything and theres no mechanics whatsoever mentioned in that......and I'm not sure how you would even go about demonstrating that this were true....even if it were. Meanwhile, comp is explanatory and demonstrable. I'm not so sure we need to dive down to the "bottom of the universe" to explain mind until we've exhausted what we do see, what we can demonstrate, up here at the "top" - but that's a difference in preferences, I suppose. Pretty sure that you and I aren;t even having the same diuscussion. I'm trying to explain mind...your just calling it intrinsic -in place of explanation-.
Meanwhile, "all is mind"..okay...then..answer me this...
How does mind mind the mind to minds over mind when minds mind or mind? Where mind is mind if not mind, and mind so? If mind and all are equivalent terms then "mind" means nothing, in particular, to you. To me, the proposition seems completely unworkable....even if true. Course, if mind and all are equivalent terms then processing is mind as well....by your own statements....Comp Minds are just as "mind" as any other...so whats the problem, why are you asking me why you "experience" or why you wouldn't be simple data transmission (rather than whatever else you think you are)...isn't that also mind...mind being all..and all? Somehow....I don't think that you actually think all is mind, because you don't seem to think comps are mind or could be mind (and particularly your own)...and yet they are contained within the set of "all"...wouldn't you agree? Forgive me for offering a very rough summary...but, just between the two of us and our positions mind doesn't seem all that mysterious or difficult to explain..and certainly not your "more"...because maybe mind is intrinsic..so, np...or maybe mind is comp...so np.....there are two ways it might be explained, and both work equally well?
"Why do I experience, why am I not simple data transmission"
-Because Mind is intrinsic
-Because Comp cannot be achieved by simple data transmission.
.....right? So, can I officially consider this long running question of yours answered...in full, and remind you of this (refering to this thread) if at any point you feel the need to revisit?
On the last bit we agree, I don't think that mind is a happenstance "bonus" either, by whatever means it exists. In a very loose sense, I agree that we could -conceive- of anything as a processor, but..like you need more than transmission for processing...you need more than processing for computing.
On and on it goes...you need more than jany old architecture or computing for mind, as we move from the general to the specific "a human mind" the requirements, imo, continue to increase and become more narrow. That's why I don't think that a "spark" as you conceive of it in your framework applies to my own framework....personally. If you try to figure out what that "spark" might be, in my framework..consider that you might be searching for a martian on earth - essentially. If a rock is a processor...if everything is, then I don't feel that the rock has met the minimum threshold of computing power to be called "mind" in any way consistent with our own experience of mind...and as you said..mind is mind (I don't feel that the universe has met that minimum bar either...and for the same reasons that a rock hasn't, again, imo). I simply propose that if mind is mind..and I have mind..a rock does not (or that whatever a rock has should probably get it's own term to differentiate) - even if we're both processors. We may be similar...but not the same. Would you disagree? Are you and a rock, on the subject of mind....interchangeable...as all and mind are interchangeable?
"Mind is intrinsic" doesn't -explain- anything and theres no mechanics whatsoever mentioned in that......and I'm not sure how you would even go about demonstrating that this were true....even if it were. Meanwhile, comp is explanatory and demonstrable. I'm not so sure we need to dive down to the "bottom of the universe" to explain mind until we've exhausted what we do see, what we can demonstrate, up here at the "top" - but that's a difference in preferences, I suppose. Pretty sure that you and I aren;t even having the same diuscussion. I'm trying to explain mind...your just calling it intrinsic -in place of explanation-.
Meanwhile, "all is mind"..okay...then..answer me this...
How does mind mind the mind to minds over mind when minds mind or mind? Where mind is mind if not mind, and mind so? If mind and all are equivalent terms then "mind" means nothing, in particular, to you. To me, the proposition seems completely unworkable....even if true. Course, if mind and all are equivalent terms then processing is mind as well....by your own statements....Comp Minds are just as "mind" as any other...so whats the problem, why are you asking me why you "experience" or why you wouldn't be simple data transmission (rather than whatever else you think you are)...isn't that also mind...mind being all..and all? Somehow....I don't think that you actually think all is mind, because you don't seem to think comps are mind or could be mind (and particularly your own)...and yet they are contained within the set of "all"...wouldn't you agree? Forgive me for offering a very rough summary...but, just between the two of us and our positions mind doesn't seem all that mysterious or difficult to explain..and certainly not your "more"...because maybe mind is intrinsic..so, np...or maybe mind is comp...so np.....there are two ways it might be explained, and both work equally well?
"Why do I experience, why am I not simple data transmission"
-Because Mind is intrinsic
-Because Comp cannot be achieved by simple data transmission.
.....right? So, can I officially consider this long running question of yours answered...in full, and remind you of this (refering to this thread) if at any point you feel the need to revisit?
On the last bit we agree, I don't think that mind is a happenstance "bonus" either, by whatever means it exists. In a very loose sense, I agree that we could -conceive- of anything as a processor, but..like you need more than transmission for processing...you need more than processing for computing.
On and on it goes...you need more than jany old architecture or computing for mind, as we move from the general to the specific "a human mind" the requirements, imo, continue to increase and become more narrow. That's why I don't think that a "spark" as you conceive of it in your framework applies to my own framework....personally. If you try to figure out what that "spark" might be, in my framework..consider that you might be searching for a martian on earth - essentially. If a rock is a processor...if everything is, then I don't feel that the rock has met the minimum threshold of computing power to be called "mind" in any way consistent with our own experience of mind...and as you said..mind is mind (I don't feel that the universe has met that minimum bar either...and for the same reasons that a rock hasn't, again, imo). I simply propose that if mind is mind..and I have mind..a rock does not (or that whatever a rock has should probably get it's own term to differentiate) - even if we're both processors. We may be similar...but not the same. Would you disagree? Are you and a rock, on the subject of mind....interchangeable...as all and mind are interchangeable?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
