(August 11, 2013 at 9:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: Most of the people who use the word "mind" might readily agree that it seems the mind is somewhere to be found in brain function; I'm not sure even that's true-- the confirmed monists you see everywhere aren't as ubiquitous as you think. However, when people refer to "my mind," they are distinguishing their mental experience from that brain function. All the words we use to talk about subjective experience are like that: when someone says they're in love, they may recognize the importance of hormones, but what they're talking about is their world view, and how their feelings are affecting it. The words are used, and used ONLY, to describe their subjective narrative; and for the most part, explaining the mechanism behind their feelings will add little to that narrative.
When people talk about how an app works or how a program functions, they are talking about software as an entity distinct from the underlying hardware. Even though the working of a program is reducible to a series of electronic signals moving within the machine and even if I recognize the significance of this fact that is not what I'm talking about or even thinking about when considering how a program works. The words used to describe the functioning of the app are used to describe the software narrative and explaining the hardware mechanism behind it does little to add to that narrative.
(August 11, 2013 at 9:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: I do not accept that the meanings you take as 'correct' are correct, and the quotes do nothing to mediate that fact.
Does the fact that they are taken from a dictionary do nothing either? If not, then you'd be the one guilty of redefinition.
(August 11, 2013 at 9:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: There is data processing all over the place; some computers have rudimentary "awareness" in that they can identify patterns in their environment and interact to them in useful ways. On a bigger scale, you could say that the whole universe, and every subsystem in it, is processing information, and the output (at least in a deterministic model) is the state at t+1.
But we don't talk about any other system as thinking, or feeling, or being sentient. That's because, however we juggle words around to pretend otherwise, we recognize that mind is more than just processing data.
That we can regard awareness as data processing does not mean all forms of data processing can be regarded as awareness. Its a pretty simple argument:
A. Awareness is a type of data processing (Cats are a type of mammals).
B. All data processing can be regarded as awareness (All mammals can be regarded as cats).
B here is clearly invalid.
So, while we have no reason to believe that awareness is anything more than processing data, the question remains exactly at what point would be consider a data-processing system to be aware? What is the definitive and verifiable feature of awareness that separates it from any other form of data processing?
Its not identification of patterns - since understanding is not a necessary element of awareness.
Its not the capacity for interaction - the response-stimulus model isn't a necessary element of awareness either.
Do we consider sensory input to be the defining feature? Sunflowers seem to be aware of the sun's position. Touch-me-not seems to be aware of physical contact.
Is it a matter of complexity? Do we consider micro-organisms to be aware? Or is there some specific feature of a biological system which leads to awareness?
The point is, though we've not yet figured out exactly what features of a data-processing system are required for it to be "aware", be capable of experience and have a mind, there is however no evidence to suggest that mind is something more than a data-processing system.
(August 11, 2013 at 9:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let me ask you this: if a computer simulation can take in visual and auditory input, process it, and output behavior to a cyborg body so that it passes the Turing test, would you believe that it was actually experiencing the universe?
Yes, I would. It may not be the same manner of experience as us, but it'd be experience nonetheless.
(August 11, 2013 at 9:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, let's get super-inclusive, because that makes words better, right? Let's define "will" as the possibility that a collection of wave functions ("A") might do something, and let's define "freedom" as the absence of any other collection of wave functions ("B") that prevent A from doing it.
Goo. Now that we've established the generalized form, let's get to the specifics - what specific wave-functions does A refer to, what does doing 'something' mean, what does the other collection of wave-functions B refer to, etc.?
(August 11, 2013 at 9:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: Now, we don't have to goof around with a bunch of arbitrary shorthand for properties that we can't independently verify even exist. Love: can't put it next to a ruler. Beauty: we know in our heart of hearts that it exists only in the brain, but can't even define it precisely. Free will: can't touch this.
Your mistake is to assume that they are arbitrary or that they can't be verified independently.
