(April 1, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Mathilda Wrote: A computer does not have to be Turing complete. A calculator is a computer. It computes. It literally has logic gates and performs binary logic. This is what's taught at universities.

Go to a better university?  They don't have to be turing complete, but they still need to be computers...to be called computers.  The only kind of calculator that's a computer is a programmable calculator.  It is in fact a computer used -as- a calculator.   These are the types of calculators most people are familiar with, ofc.  

Quote:This whole argument about definitions is not relevant to the flawed idea that the mind is the brain. The mind is an emergent phenomenon of the brain. If you start talking about computation happening in natural phenomena then you need to be careful not to make the mistake that theists make in thinking that maths and logic is somehow an objective part of reality. It's not. It's a tool constructed by humans.

Why is it a flawed idea?  Is anyone making that mistake?  Emergence is wonderful, but I don;t think it speaks to context  here.  If the "emerging" is, literally, brain in action...then the "emergent mind" is brain.  How do you make the distinction, personally, between what is brain, and what is an emergent property thereof?  I can see it easily with regards to the observations which lead us to conclude that something has a mind.  That the behaviors are emergent.  That these are emergent properties of the system, in context.  As far as mind itself being an emergent property, how do we go about determining that?  How is it that it emerges, in your opinion, for starters?

Might be worthwhile to add, I think that mind is machine language.  Machine language, in an evolved system, would be emergent, as it's a description of the systems architecture.  To me, there's no difference between mind being emergent or mind being brain.  To you it is different, it seems, I'm wondering what the difference between our positions is. I could say that a specific mind (IE Paul's mind, or Beverly's mind) , is an emergent property of a specific brain (namely: Paul and Beverly's, lol)...but I couldn't say that mind itself is.

(April 1, 2016 at 3:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes you have, many times.  CTM...is a theory that mind is a comp system.  Could it be any simpler?

I never said your idea wasn't simple. I said it wasn't detailed, and that you hadn't provided any specifics. To be frank, right now it seems a little woo as you've explained it.

Quote:"Complex ways" is insufficient.  Many things are ludicrously complex, and yet they do not present themselves as candidates for mind.  A particular type of complexity is required for computational systems, for example....and a particular type of complexity is required for a 747.  You don't expect any equally complex sewing machine to begin boarding passengers and making trans-atlantic flights, I assume.   Similarly, I don't expect things to present themselves as candidates for mind due to their complexity alone, and conveniently, they don't.   Matter-mind is a fun word, but it excuses itself from offering any explanation of the phenomena, and is simply nowhere to be found in evidence.

I didn't say mind supervenes on complexity alone. I said that complex minds supervene on complex coordination of elemental "atomic" parts, rather than supervening whole-scale on systems that hit a magical (and arbitrary) level of coordination.

Quote:I don't personally state that anything causes mind, I think that brain is mind, remember...but whats the point of this comment anyway?  

Do you think that these manifestations, as you've put it, would present themselves in a mind that didn't exist?  Clearly it's existence is significant.  But hey..if all that you find significant is perception of form and color..you don't even need a theory of mind for that.  You could simply take a look at how a camera works.  I doubt that will satisfy, but you're not asking a very difficult question if it's perception, rather than mind, that sets you to wondering.

Let me ask you, what is the relationship of a table to a QM particle? At what point does a collection of QM particles become a "table." There isn't one-- it's arbitrary. And this is my view (at least if we're assuming a physical monism) of mind: that it is essential rather than supervenient. What we call mind-- thinking about Mom, choosing food in the supermarket, etc. is to that elemental principle of mind what a table is to that elemental nature of a QM particle.

Your view and mind aren't that different except for one thing: you see mind as a coordination of systems, without having any explanation of what principle unifies those systems into a single entity. I see mind as intrinsic to matter at the most elemental level, with no magicspecial arbitrary "cut line" at which we will say, "There was no mind, and now, there IS mind."

Try this for clarification: what is the simplest possible physical system which you would say is a comp mind?

The analogy you've given with the radio is flawed and proves the exact contrary. We don't only look at the electrical activity in the circuit board when we look for causes of the sound produced by the radio, we also look at other known causes, such as the presenter's speaking into the microphone. The mind's activity has only one known cause - the brain. Absent of other causes demonstrated empirically we shouldn't go ahead and muddy the waters with mysticism and other such enigmatic, incoherent interpretations of what might also be happening.

(April 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I never said your idea wasn't simple.  I said it wasn't detailed, and that you hadn't provided any specifics.  To be frank, right now it seems a little woo as you've explained it.

You said you'd never seen a simple thesis statement, which was fiction before I repeated what I've told you countless times before.  You have.  Now you say I haven't given you a detailed description, which is equally fictive...we've had -many- detailed conversations on the subject in which I've been specific enough to denote the differences between a calculator and a computer, let alone a photon and a computer, even gone so far as to explain -how- specific computational architectures do work.  Saying it "seems woo" is no different than saying it "seems circular".  Be explicit.  What about a computer, to you, seems "woo".  

Quote:I didn't say mind supervenes on complexity alone.  I said that complex minds supervene on complex coordination of elemental "atomic" parts, rather than supervening whole-scale on systems that hit a magical (and arbitrary) level of coordination.

That -is- all you referenced. Yet again, "not even wrong" and still insufficient.  Pile up a bunch of coordinated elemental atomic parts and you will still see no evidence of mind...and it still won't be comp. A pile of dirt fits that description..and it appears to posses neither mind nor comp ability. I'm not talking about magic, I'm talking about comp systems and mind, so what's the relevance?

Quote:Let me ask you, what is the relationship of a table to a QM particle?  At what point does a collection of QM particles become a "table."  There isn't one-- it's arbitrary.  And this is my view (at least if we're assuming a physical monism) of mind: that it is essential rather than supervenient.  What we call mind-- thinking about Mom, choosing food in the supermarket, etc. is to that elemental principle of mind what a table is to that elemental nature of a QM particle.

How many times have you asked..and I answered...this very line of questioning in every form you've dreamt up for it?  I stopped counting.  The collection "becomes" a table when the collection fits the definition of a table.  It's not either/or.  It's both.  The issue you stick on is simply one of scale, not identity. Go knock on your table, it doesn;t cease to exist because it also happens to be a collection of particles (qm or otherwise)...and it's not like you didn't know this before I said it, now.

Quote:Your view and mind aren't that different except for one thing: you see mind as a coordination of systems, without having any explanation of what principle unifies those systems into a single entity.  I see mind as intrinsic to matter at the most elemental level, with no magicspecial arbitrary "cut line" at which we will say, "There was no mind, and now, there IS mind."

The explanation of principle is -exactly- what CTM is - and whether they are or aren't a single entity, in actuality, and referent to different metrics, is irrelevant.  Comp systems leverage comp principles.  If our mind is not leveraging comp principle, it's not a comp mind. Why do you keep talking about magic? You say you see mind as intrinsic to matter at the most elemental level, and yet the position is not, at all, in evidence. How do you see that, exactly?

Do you think that an hourglass is a mind? Do you think that a leaf is a mind? These things have matter (lots of it), one of them is so complex that we don't understand exactly how it does what it does. Are either of them minds...which one?

(April 1, 2016 at 9:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Be explicit.  What about a computer, to you, seems "woo".  

You are saying that physical structures are mind, while completely failing to provide a physical mechanism by which they are mind. You refer to ideas about information and processing, but have absolutely no representation of how it is that multiple physical interactions (photon absorption, etc.) are unified. You keep saying you've done this, but you never actually have.

Quote:How many times have you asked..and I answered...this very line of questioning in every form you've dreamt up for it?  I stopped counting.  The collection "becomes" a table when the collection fits the definition of a table.

A table is a man-made artifact, and can be whatever we want it to be. We are free to define it. We have not created either QM particles or mind, and are not really free to define these as other than they are. Well, we can, but then we'd be creating a mythology of mind rather than attempting to actually explain it

Quote:The explanation of principle is -exactly- what CTM is - and whether they are or aren't a single entity, in actuality,  and referent to different metrics, is irrelevant.  Comp systems leverage comp principles.  If our mind is not leveraging comp principle, it's not a comp mind.  Why do you keep talking about magic?  You say you see mind as intrinsic to matter at the most elemental level, and yet the position is not, at all, in evidence.  How do you see that, exactly?

I keep talking about magic because your terms, no matter how much you insist they are specific, are very much arbitrary. You have to impose on a given system your OWN ideas about processing of information, and define mind in terms of those ideas. This is because, minus the value you apply to collections of physical systems, those things are not discrete objects, but are simply part of the myriad interactions going on all over the Universe.

(April 1, 2016 at 12:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Very well may be.  The question being asked is not about what the mind (or brain) -does-....not the thinking.  The experience thereof, what it -is-, in the first place..would be the question.  That's why the analogy to lightbulbs and lips isn't as informative as it may appear at a glance.  We'd have to modify each statement to compare apples to apples.

Oops lost track of this one.  What I meant to insinuate is that the mind, the light and the smile don't have any existence apart from those things which give rise to them.  The only reason some are tempted to exalt the mind to the point of giving it independent existence is that we identify so much with the mind.  Pretty much everything we think of as who we are arises in the mind.  We are unable to immediately apprehend the role of the brain in our mental life, though the study of patients with brain trauma should accomplish the same.

(April 2, 2016 at 12:58 am)bennyboy Wrote:  
You are saying that physical structures are mind, while completely failing to provide a physical mechanism by which they are mind.

I'm saying that mind might be a comp system, and the physical mechanism is a structure capable of leveraging comp principles.

Quote:You refer to ideas about information and processing, but have absolutely no representation of how it is that multiple physical interactions (photon absorption, etc.) are unified.  You keep saying you've done this, but you never actually have.

You typed your response up on a working -demonstration- of how multiple physical interactions are unified.  It also happens to be a comp system.

Quote:A table is a man-made artifact, and can be whatever we want it to be.  We are free to define it.  We have not created either QM particles or mind, and are not really free to define these as other than they are.  Well, we can, but then we'd be creating a mythology of mind rather than attempting to actually explain it

Indeed it is, and we made that artifact out of particles.  We were free to define what we meant by table, and we have.  There are, of course, things that we didn't create that also meet this definition.  Your point?  

Quote:I keep talking about magic because your terms, no matter how much you insist they are specific, are very much arbitrary.

Except that they aren't, and you can't describe what's arbitrary about them without describing a misunderstanding you have fully exposed -by- those very same definitions.  

Quote:You have to impose on a given system your OWN ideas about processing of information, and define mind in terms of those ideas.  This is because, minus the value you apply to collections of physical systems, those things are not discrete objects, but are simply part of the myriad interactions going on all over the Universe.

You keep returning to your computer to respond to me, as though you know it's a distinct object from a melon.  Have you tried using the melon?  If I didn't narrow down all of the stuff happening in the universe to just the stuff happening that I'm talking about, we couldn't even have the conversation. Description and identity would be unintelligible "Hey go get me my -all of the stuff happening in the universe- over there". To what am I referring? Car keys, or maybe the car...or maybe a bong...who knows. What are you objecting to, exactly, in objecting to specificity? Not two breaths ago you were bemoaning a -lack- of specificity. WTF.........?

OFC computation is part of the myriad interactions going on all over the universe...not even wrong...but still insufficient. I'm not discussing -all the myriad interactions in the universe-. Only those that fit the definition of a comp system, because those interactions are the ones I would suggest as candidates for mind.

(April 2, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: OFC computation is part of the myriad interactions going on all over the universe...not even wrong...but still insufficient.  I'm not discussing -all the myriad interactions in the universe-.  Only those that fit the definition of a comp system, because those interactions are the ones I would suggest as candidates for mind.

Okay, let's take as an example of a comp system a computer. I believe you would call a computer a computer, or am I still assuming too much?

How much of that box sitting on my desk is the computer as it fits your definition, and how much is just stuff? Surely the case and power supply, while important, are not part of the computer as you define it, right? How about a hard drive? How about a hard drive that is connected, but is empty and never accessed?

Given that in theory, parts could be arranged to contact each other directly, would you include the metal traces on the motherboard? How about the pins on a chip of RAM?

If you look at a RAM chip under a microscope, most of the electronic pathway is simply transmitting a signal, and is not storing information or processing it in any way.

In fact, if you look at all the material in a computer, maybe 1% or less actually does any of the things you claim a comp mind does. So let me ask you again: is my computer a computer, by definition? Or is it 1% computer + 99% "just stuff" ?

(April 2, 2016 at 7:44 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: OFC computation is part of the myriad interactions going on all over the universe...not even wrong...but still insufficient.  I'm not discussing -all the myriad interactions in the universe-.  Only those that fit the definition of a comp system, because those interactions are the ones I would suggest as candidates for mind.

Okay, let's take as an example of a comp system a computer.  I believe you would call a computer a computer, or am I still assuming too much?

How much of that box sitting on my desk is the computer as it fits your definition, and how much is just stuff?  Surely the case and power supply, while important, are not part of the computer as you define it, right?  How about a hard drive?  How about a hard drive that is connected, but is empty and never accessed?

Given that in theory, parts could be arranged to contact each other directly, would you include the metal traces on the motherboard?  How about the pins on a chip of RAM?

If you look at a RAM chip under a microscope, most of the electronic pathway is simply transmitting a signal, and is not storing information or processing it in any way.

In fact, if you look at all the material in a computer, maybe 1% or less actually does any of the things you claim a comp mind does.  So let me ask you again: is my computer a computer, by definition?  Or is it 1% computer + 99% "just stuff" ?

 Your computer is 100% stuff. What makes your computer a computer is the software - a set of instructions in the form of 0's and 1's. Without that, it's good for strap...

Every system has unprovable truths (Godel's incomplete theorem). In math, you have axioms (unprovable truths) and theorems (provable truths). In science, you have hypotheses (unprovable truths) and theories (provable truths). This is true in every system produced by the mind, whether it's math, science, philosophy, art, any of the social sciences, etc. Your mind cannot escape that.