(March 30, 2016 at 11:33 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 29, 2016 at 11:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That being said, there has been a lot of very interesting science going on around mind in the last 20 years, so I certainly don't want you guys to think I don't value that.  The problem I have is when it comes to assertions about exactly what causes mind and why-- I don't find any current views, physical or otherwise, very convincing.

I think the consensus that the mind is the brain is more of a pragmatic result than a theoretical one.  We assign the identity because for the most part it works as an explanation of the phenomenon, including its evolution, whereas most other theories are non-starters.  It doesn't mean we couldn't be wrong, but I think you hold the mind-brain paradigm to an unusually high standard of evidence.  Things like the closure of induction and the philosophical understanding of the link between cause and effect pose similarly insurmountable hurdles, yet I don't think you place those problems in the same category.  In short, I think you make an exception of the mind-brain problem in your standards.

The problem is that, unlike other science, the "results" are not generalizable, one of the principles of a good scientific theory.  So even if you "know" what systems or subsystems or whatever are associated with different kinds of experience, there's no way to generalize that knowledge to non-animal physical systems.  You can study a bowling ball and a feather, and confirm that they both fall at the same rate as gravity, and then generalize that to all objects.  You can't necessarily do that with even a well-mapped human brain-- there is no real THEORY there sufficient to apply our "knowledge" to anything other than some dude sitting in a psych lab.

The other issue, and I've already mentioned it, is in the semantics of the brain as "a thing."  You can say mind is in the brain, but that's like saying mind is in the solar system-- that is clearly true, since the brains that we know allow for mind exist in the solar system, but it's a composition fallacy-- you can't necessarily take the property of a human mind and generalize it to the whole solar system-- though perhaps aliens would be content to say "See that little orange star and its surrounding system?  There's mind in there somewhere."

For example, I have a theory that every exchange of energy (read: information), via photon or electron, could represent a nanoscopic "spark" of mind, i.e. that mind is intrinsic to matter and to everything in the universe, but not in a form that we can easily recognize.  If this is the case, then the brain represents a FORM of elements of mind into a more complex arrangement, but really isn't responsible for psychogony-- the existence of mind. In general, I'd say that the "science" of mind is really just waving-toward-the-brain, since there's no good theory of mind there: and I use the quotes not for insult, but to show that mind study doesn't really follow the same principles that other scientific study follows. In other words, when standards are abused, it's not just me: it's something instrinsic to this particular subject of inquiry.

(March 30, 2016 at 8:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: For example, I have a theory that every exchange of energy (read: information), via photon or electron, could represent a nanoscopic "spark" of mind, i.e. that mind is intrinsic to matter and to everything in the universe, but not in a form that we can easily recognize. If this is the case, then the brain represents a FORM of elements of mind into a more complex arrangement, but really isn't responsible for psychogony-- the existence of mind.

You have an exceedingly low bar for what satisfies you as a theory....and mind, I think.  I have to ask though, if you have this theory, why do you reel against the notion of a machine mind? Against a toaster that feels? You seem to think that there can be information processing -without- mind...ala a claculator or your pc, and that mind is more than "just processing" - as you've said many, many times....and both positions would be entirely inconsistent with that theory above.

In any case, you described a situation in which information exchange was intrinsic to matter, in which matter interacts. Not exactly newsworthy, and we'd have to allow some liberty to call interaction information exhange in and of itself, but hey, we can be flexible, eh? Not sure why you call that mind, or even spark of mind. I've got a notoriously low bar for what I'd accept as a candidate for mind and that doesn't even cut it for me. Sand falling through an hourglass.....just look at all that mind, right?

(March 30, 2016 at 9:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 8:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: For example, I have a theory that every exchange of energy (read: information), via photon or electron, could represent a nanoscopic "spark" of mind,  i.e. that mind is intrinsic to matter and to everything in the universe, but not in a form that we can easily recognize.  If this is the case, then the brain represents a FORM of elements of mind into a more complex arrangement, but really isn't responsible for psychogony-- the existence of mind.

You have an exceedingly low bar for what satisfies you as a theory....and mind,  I think.  I have to ask though, if you have this theory, why do you reel against the notion of a machine mind?  Against a toaster that feels?  You seem to think that there can be information processing -without- mind...ala a claculator or your pc, and that mind is more than "just processing" - as you've said many, many times....and both positions would be entirely inconsistent with that theory above.

True true.  I think I shouldn't have used the word theory, since I just accused science of having no real theory of mind, and my idea is even more speculative than the science.

I'm not against the idea of machine minds.  I just don't think that your comp mind idea is robust enough yet to merit the status of a full-fledged scientific theory.

Quote:In any case, you described a situation in which information exchange was intrinsic to matter, in which matter interacts.  Not exactly newsworthy, and we'd have to allow some liberty to call interaction information exhange in and of itself, but hey, we can be flexible, eh?  Not sure why you call that mind, or even spark of mind.  I've got a notoriously low bar for what I'd accept as a candidate for mind and that doesn't even cut it for me.  Sand falling through an hourglass.....just look at all that mind, right?

The way I see it, there are two mutually exclusive views: either mind supervenes on complex structures, or it is intrinsic to matter at an elemental level.  If we are to look beyond organic chemistry (as you and I both do) for the essence of mind, then we have to look at some kind of function.  But then you end up with a semantic problem: what do you call "processing" and what is just stuff happening?  There's no non-arbitrary way to really answer that semantic question.

My solution to this issue is to avoid drawing arbitrary lines at all, and to look at the simplest possible thing that could be thought of as processing: and that would be things like photon transmission, electrical bonds, quantum entanglement, and things like that.

Looks at the thread title.

Places down a box of Kleenex.

Discretely leaves.

(March 31, 2016 at 12:16 am)bennyboy Wrote: I'm not against the idea of machine minds.  I just don't think that your comp mind idea is robust enough yet to merit the status of a full-fledged scientific theory.

It's actually not my theory, lol, it's a name for a collection of scientific theories and mathematical theorems - applied to mind as a working hypothesis in the sciences, and as theory in philosophy.

Quote:The way I see it, there are two mutually exclusive views: either mind supervenes on complex structures, or it is intrinsic to matter at an elemental level.  If we are to look beyond organic chemistry (as you and I both do) for the essence of mind, then we have to look at some kind of function.  But then you end up with a semantic problem: what do you call "processing" and what is just stuff happening?  There's no non-arbitrary way to really answer that semantic question.

There is, and as before, you simply aren't satisfied....and as before, you're being unsatisfied does not equal non-existence.  

Quote:My solution to this issue is to avoid drawing arbitrary lines at all, and to look at the simplest possible thing that could be thought of as processing: and that would be things like photon transmission, electrical bonds, quantum entanglement, and things like that.

   I can think of a toaster as a rudimentary aircraft.......after all, they rack up alt and distance when I throw them....and are often made of the same materials as a 747. You claim to have an issue with semantics and arbitrary lines, and yet you object to this supposed problem...with semantics, and arbitrary use of the terms processing and information exchange. That's fairly pointless. -Everything- is "stuff happening", not all stuff happening is "aircraft flying". Similarly, all computing is stuff happening, but not all stuff happening is computing. Those things you mentioned are the interactions which we leverage to achieve computation in the material, rather than theoretical, sense....but if they don't meet the requirements of a computer, all the equivocation in the world on the subject of processing is irrelevant to comp mind......even if you take those equivocations to be true.

(March 31, 2016 at 5:08 am)Rhythm Wrote: Similarly, all computing is stuff happening, but not all stuff happening is computing

I don't think there's a non-arbitrary way for you to say this and still make sense. I think everything that happens IS computing, or at least part of computing-- it's just not computing that is usable by people for making bridges or designing new drugs.

If your objection hinges upon refusing to accept comp sci for what it is, and how it defines it's own terms, you're not actually objecting to comp sci. Let alone comp theory of mind. As ever, you can imagine any number of ways to use the same terms...but they mean something specific and not necessarily tied to your laymans use (and certainly not tied to your ability to equivocate upon them), when referring to the science of their study and application. A great many information processing devices and structures simply do not qualify as computers. A calculator, for example, is not a computer, though some computers are used as calculators.

This is immensely important in context, ofc, as a calculator is orders of magnitude more robust as an information processing device than, say, a photon...or even a rock - which might contain much much more interaction than a single photon - and yet it doesn't qualify, under ctm...as a candidate for mind,because it's -still- not a computer and has a -long- way to go to get there. From this POV, you're doing little more than insisting that material interaction is "spark of mind"...rather than, oh...IDK...material interaction? From this POV, that's a "not even wrong" type of proposition, and grossly insufficient. It's not that there's incompatibility with your reduction, in that sense, as I also think that mind is dependent of material interaction (as is computing)....the trouble arises when you attempt to float back "up" to mind with those inferences made from the bottom. You reduce mind, yourself, to processing, then quixotically argue against mind as "just processing". I;ve never understood why, or why you respond to me with those comments, as CTM doesn;t consider mind "just processing" either. It considers it a specific type of processing by a specific set of structures. A computational system. Not material interaction, not information exchange, not processing, not calculation. Computation. That I can go through these subsequent distinctions based upon ever increasing specificity leaves me scratching my head any time you call it arbitrary. Computation is the polar opposite of "arbitrary", so different and so sufficient fhat that it can -turn- abstraction into distinction, itself.

Help me understand?

Define computer. Define computation. You say these terms aren't arbitrary, okay. Exactly what are they, as you take them to mean? You say it considers specific types of processing-- what, exactly, are they and why do you believe so? You say it considers a specific set of structures-- what, exactly, are they and why do you believe so?

The last time I asked you to give me details about your view, you told me you weren't going to do my homework for me. But let me say-- I'm interested enough in your argument to read your posts. . . but not to buy a book or to spend any non-trivial amount of time researching it on my own. So you'll have to explain your position sufficiently well that we can know for sure what a "comp mind" is, and why you think that's what every mind must be.

Maybe the reason I'm over-generalizing your position is that you haven't provided enough specifics?

Your homework was as easy as googling the word computer.  A computer is a general purpose device that can accept, store, and manipulate data pursuant to instructions in a variable program.

(April 1, 2016 at 6:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: Your homework was as easy as googling the word computer.   A computer is a general purpose device that can accept, store, and manipulate data pursuant to instructions in a variable program.

You have a string of undefined terms.  What "purpose" are we talking about?  What is data?

It all seems very circular.