The nonexistence of the self is kind of tied into the nonexistence of free will, I think.

(April 15, 2016 at 1:10 pm)Evie Wrote: The nonexistence of the self is kind of tied into the nonexistence of free will, I think.

Wrong thread, I think.

(April 15, 2016 at 12:26 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 9:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Excellent.  Computers exist.  I think that mind is a comp system, not that a comp system is a mind.  I don't think my desktop has a mind or is a mind.  Glad to clear that up for you.  I think they're both comp systems, sure.  So is an atari and my pc - quite a difference between them, though, eh?

So your view on mind is that it processes stuff?  By George, you've solved it!

If by mind, you mean brain, yes.  If by mind, you mean only qualia, then no.  It's been a productive way to conceptualize mind and brain thusfar, certainly yielded more concrete results than some other proposals.  

I want to make sure that you understood the distinction above, btw. If we were speaking about airplanes, I would consider an airplane a flying thing, but I wouldn't consider every flying thing an airplane. The same goes for minds and comp systems. If you were concerned that I was claiming that comp systems are minds, if that was your objection..... I'm not, so np there, eh?

-My view-.....is that our minds, in the general, are comp systems, leveraging sense data to create representations which are then manipulated by the comp system to achieve a host of functions. Qualia, could be conceptualized as a summary of states, not necessarily a function, or "doing" anything. The aggregate flow of data on shared lines of transmission isolated in a human machine. We know that comp systems are capable of such a summary, and that it can even be built into the architecture as a self referential loop.

Philosophically, the question is only whether or not a description of such a system matches a description of our experience. I think that it does, and there's no -need- to explain the operation of the brain, to "solve it "(as wonderful as it would be to have that full explanation for you) in order to establish the proposition's rational basis. We know what our experience is like. We know what comp systems can do, and we know that neurons are structured in such a way that they would be -capable- of computation.

I'm not sure what the bit above about processing is supposed to refer or object to? I'm proposing comp mind, not processing mind.

How is the aggregate flow of data isolated in a human machine? It seems to me that all the things you claim of comp mind also apply to say the internet, since all the roles of comp mind are included both in connected people and in the funciton of the hardware itself. Would you describe google as Skynet?

It so happens, as an aside, that I wrote a 700-page (or so) novel on Vancouver becoming conscious and taking over the world, and I actually used a lot of ideas similar to your comp mind.

(April 17, 2016 at 6:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: How is the aggregate flow of data isolated in a human machine?  

Chiefly, by connected neurons, and more generally by the membranes which hold the chemical constituents of the nueron's signalling mechanisms.  The first -could- account for representational states all by themselves.  The second allows for non-representational states (such as drunkeness, or any other chemical effect, impair the brain, impair the mind...and, as a proposition, impair the comp system).   These signal transmitters -are- isolated, even if they aren't doing comp, by virtue of their material composition and structural arrangement- chemistry and physics will tell you how far and through what impulse "a" or chemical "b" could carry a signal. In the larger picture, they are located within a single skull, attached to an individual body. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to shoot (or receive) mind -or- brain beams, or, if we can..they have too little effect to notice.

Quote:It seems to me that all the things you claim of comp mind also apply to say the internet, since all the roles of comp mind are included both in connected people and in the funciton of the hardware itself.  Would you describe google as Skynet?

The internet is not a comp system, itself, to begin with.  No, I don't think google is skynet.  Related to the above, though......I -would- consider human language/society/the internet as a network filled with human skynets interfacing with machine assistance (and, tellingly, interfacing with those machines involved).

Explains the Himmlers, they're just trying to actualize an ideal representation formed by their value algorithm ( -had to satisfy Godwin after 30 pages).

Quote:It so happens, as an aside, that I wrote a 700-page (or so) novel on Vancouver becoming conscious and taking over the world, and I actually used a lot of ideas similar to your comp mind.

Links.  Need to read, am junkie. They're not -mine-, but thy're good ideas. Ultimately, the brain may function some other way, we don't know. Comp Mind at least presents us the opportunity to explain it's operation by a known mechanism. It would be greatly amusing to find that a city had become conscious. One wonders what sort of psuedo-neurotic imperatives would play on a City-Mind.

I'm actually suprised nobody has put this one up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o7UDpn1mKI

(April 15, 2016 at 5:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 1:10 pm)Evie Wrote: The nonexistence of the self is kind of tied into the nonexistence of free will, I think.

Wrong thread, I think.

No.

"Mind" is connected to "self" is connected to "non-self" is connected to "non-free will."

(April 18, 2016 at 6:12 pm)Evie Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 5:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Wrong thread, I think.

No.

"Mind" is connected to "self" is connected to "non-self" is connected to "non-free will."

This is not a thread about non-free will.

(April 18, 2016 at 9:14 am)Rhythm Wrote: [quote='bennyboy' pid='1250545' dateline='1460888115']
How is the aggregate flow of data isolated in a human machine?  

Chiefly, by connected neurons, and more generally by the membranes which hold the chemical constituents of the nueron's signalling mechanisms.  The first -could- account for representational states all by themselves.  The second allows for non-representational states (such as drunkeness, or any other chemical effect, impair the brain, impair the mind...and, as a proposition, impair the comp system).   These signal transmitters -are- isolated, even if they aren't doing comp, by virtue of their material composition and structural arrangement- chemistry and physics will tell you how far and through what impulse "a" or chemical "b" could carry a signal.   In the larger picture, they are located within a single skull, attached to an individual body.   Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to shoot (or receive) mind -or- brain beams, or, if we can..they have too little effect to notice.

Quote:

Neurons aren't really connected. The synaptic cleft, which is explicitly a separation between neurons, is important to the way they work.

As for your "larger picture," it is still an illusion: it is the interactivity of many parts which you see as a single unit-- but it is still the a conglomeration of billions of tiny parts. The fact is that we are explicitly connected through the computer, and that the internet performs all the functions you mention in regard to computing. Billions of people are connected via the internet in a way not functionally different than what you say about the box under my desk, or the mass of neurons in my skull. The distinction is still too arbitrary-- I think it represents your existing view of seeing things, not an effort to see things on a more meaningful level.

Quote:Links.  Need to read, am junkie.  They're not -mine-, but thy're good ideas.  Ultimately, the brain may function some other way, we don't know.  Comp Mind at least presents us the opportunity to explain it's operation by a known mechanism.  It would be greatly amusing to find that a city had become conscious.  One wonders what sort of psuedo-neurotic imperatives would play on a City-Mind.

I've tried posting bits in forums before, and it never leads anywhere. A couple people pat you on the head, a couple more use it as a platform to post their personal poetry collection or something. The relevant part of the book is maybe 300 pages-- I might post the first 20 or 30 and see if anyone takes an interest.

The first part of the book is pretty fun, too. It's about Christian love zombies who suck the life out of humanity by turning "love thy neighbor" into an absolute rule. A few miracles and many tragic deaths ensue.

(April 19, 2016 at 12:58 am)bennyboy Wrote: Neurons aren't really connected. The synaptic cleft, which is explicitly a separation between neurons, is important to the way they work.

Not really what I was referring to, but okay.

Quote:As for your "larger picture," it is still an illusion: it is the interactivity of many parts which you see as a single unit-- but it is still the a conglomeration of billions of tiny parts.

Right, it's a system. The larger picture was just a nod to chemistry and physics. Is it chemistry or physics that's an illusion?

Quote:The fact is that we are explicitly connected through the computer, and that the internet performs all the functions you mention in regard to computing.

Indeed we are, and there's a bigger gap between you and I than there is between connected nuerons, eh? The internet isn't a comp system, it's a network full of them. You could say "but it does x or y or z"..except you'd be wrong, some comp system that is connected does x y or z...you don't see that, though. Why would it matter in any case? If we chose to include all networks made of comp systems as a comp system...then what? Neither you nor I contest the fact that computation is involved in the internet, and neither of us has been given reason to think that the internet is or has mind regardless of whether we call it a comp system.

Quote:Billions of people are connected via the internet in a way not functionally different than what you say about the box under my desk, or the mass of neurons in my skull. The distinction is still too arbitrary-- I think it represents your existing view of seeing things, not an effort to see things on a more meaningful level.

We -are- connected in a way that's functionally similar (even without need of reference to the internet, just talking is functionally similar...as is using a brush to paint a picture). That's not all that surprising, we (both comps and ourselves) exist in the same world, same laws, same interactions. If we're trying to achieve a similar goal or function, and if we allow for plenty of wiggle room with phrases like not functionally different............then we'll find plenty of comparisons. This would be support for the comp mind position, wouldn't it?

The arbitrary bit is -still- silly, we're either talking about something specific or we aren't talking at all. I'm done trying to argue comp systems into existence, over the internet, computer to computer. I won't be offering any further elaboration in response to that.