RE: Mind is the brain?
April 13, 2016 at 1:32 pm
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2016 at 1:58 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(April 13, 2016 at 11:12 am)bennyboyRhythm Wrote: Then rocks -do- have a mind, a gazillion maximally simplistic ones, in fact...............
That kind of abuses the word "have," but okay.
Quote:Your strawman continues. Nobody said a rock has a mind.................you've -just- confirmed that rocks have a gazillion minds, as the matter-mind proposal -demands- they must. This is not what the term straw man refers to -at all-. You're simply uncomfortable with the inescapable conclusions of your proposal.
Quote:Right. That's your position. My position is that you are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand of physics, and labeling the function on one side "mind," and that on the other "not mind." But this isn't really a theory of mind-- it's just an expression of the human tendency to define terms.I'm referring only to those physics which fit the definition of a comp system. Comp theory of mind, not the physics theory of mind. The latter would be grossly insufficient, not even wrong, for reasons elaborated on at length.
Quote:. . . and I believe there's no non-arbitrary line between those systems you accept to be mindful and those that are. In short, nothing special happens in data retention, or in certain kinds of processing that you are talking about. No field is generated, no new physical property supervenes, no unifying principle coalesces.Nothing special needs to happen. That's kind of the point, no special sauce, just the known, demonstrable, and specific principles of computation to provide a compelling explanation for our experience. What, precisely, do you object to about this?
Quote:That's like saying you're not interested in all matter, desks seem rarer in comparison.An equally true statement, and completely understandable if someone is looking for an explanation of desks, rather than -all matter-. There's alot of matter, most of it isn't a desk. If you want to know why a desk is a desk, you should probably look into the matter that we call a desk, rather than the matter that we call a pencil. Either you allow for specificity and identity or we cannot have a rational conversation.
Quote:I'm exactly saying that all physical interactions represent mental events, and that psychogony is not a supervenient property.It's easy to say something, but that doesn't make it a cogent objection or explanation. Your statement certainly isn't evident, it provides no explanation, and you can't remain consistent with it. So, what am I supposed to do with it?
: shrug :
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!
