Mind is the brain?

[bennyboy]

 
Nothing CAN show evidence of awareness, unless you've already taken the philosophical position that particular correlates may be said to correspond to awareness.  Take any physical system in the universe, and ask if it experiences qualia.  If you think it does, fine-- but how will you know?  No matter how many assumptions you're willing to throw onto the pile, the fact is that your evidence is only valid in the context of the assumptions you are making.

You won't be satisfied with my methods, as you are unsatisfied with sciencific methods, no matter how many assumptions are or aren't made, you've already set fire to the ground.

Really?  This is great.  Tell me what exactly it is about the brain that allows a person to really experience qualia, rather than just seeming to.  What, specifically, is it about the brain that allows for qualia?

Are you running a clinic in bad logic?  I tell you no material explanation of mind says "it;s in there, somewhere" and you ask for an exact explanation of mind....as though anyone had claimed it.  What's that called, Benny?  Is there a name for that type of response?

The plus side to the manner in which you discuss mind is that you never have to acknowledge that you're rationalizing.  You can endlessly demand that others do this, or do that, regardless of the validity of the response..and no matter what they respond with...you've already set your escape route.  After you;ve pulled that...you'll simply repeat the same questions until the retun of christ...as though they had never been addressed.  It's tedious.

Too much metacommentary about me, and too few actual ideas.

Look, dude, either you have an exact explanation, or you believe mind is "in there, somewhere."  Something about the brain allows for a subjective agent capable of experiencing qualia, no?  So whatever qualia are, you believe they are in/of the brain, despite a poor understanding of exactly how that works.  Am I right or am I right? (Don't answer that, I already know the answer)

So my question is this: what ABOUT the brain, exactly allows for qualia?  It's a reasonable and important question.  There are some things which are unique to the brain, some which are unique to specific systems which process data in certain ways, and some things which involve the simple transmission of energy along routes.  There are many many layers of function going on in the brain, and it's important for us to find out which of these allow for qualia. All I've done in this thread so far is to list some of the levels of processing that can be observed in the brain. There's nothing anti-science or anti-logic about that.

[bennyboy]

We can talk "what if"s all day but unless there are evidence to suggest otherwise it's just a waste of time

I don't accept that there's a default position in philosophical claims.

[Aoi Magi]

We can talk "what if"s all day but unless there are evidence to suggest otherwise it's just a waste of time

I don't accept that there's a default position in philosophical claims.

There's no default position in philosophical discussions but there is no claim without a position

[bennyboy]

(1) observable (smiling, breathing... etc) → mindful

(2) observable (smiling, breathing... etc) → brain activities

Therefore I have to conclude that,

(3) mindful = brain activities

(1) begs the question. It should read: "assumed to be mindful"

You haven't explained how you have ascertained that the physical structure sitting in your lab (i.e. the person) actually does experience qualia.


Now, in the case of people, this is a very easy assumption to make. But what happens when androids smile and breath? Now (1) is out the window and it turns out that all along you may not really have been studying the salient feature of mind: the existence of an agent capable of experiencing qualia. OR we may extend human rights to androids, eventually allow ourselves to be extinguished as a species, and never know whether those replacing us actually can experience or are just philosophical zombies. And all this because when we see a smile, we assume a mind.

[IATIA]

Wrong. A conscious person is aware of things, an unconscious person isn't.

Do you know that for a fact?  The way general anesthesia works is that it immobilizes the body but they are aware and just do not remember.

General anesthesia (GA) is the state produced when a patient receives medications for amnesia, analgesia, muscle paralysis, and sedation. An anesthetized patient can be thought of as being in a controlled, reversible state of unconsciousness. Anesthesia enables a patient to tolerate surgical procedures that would otherwise inflict unbearable pain, potentiate extreme physiologic exacerbations, and result in unpleasant memories.

The combination of anesthetic agents used for general anesthesia often leaves a patient with the following clinical constellation:

1. Unarousable even secondary to painful stimuli
   
2. Unable to remember what happened (amnesia)
   
3. Unable to maintain adequate airway protection and/or spontaneous ventilation as a result of muscle paralysis
   
4. Cardiovascular changes secondary to stimulant/depressant effects of anesthetic agents
   

[ignoramus]

The soul is the black box which creates self awareness and is the vital link between the mind and the underlying hardware.

I can't give you the schematics of the black box because God has not released his source code.
This black box unfortunately is not detectable by science as God has implemented a clocking mechanism around it.

You guessed it ...proprietary closed technology again.
Everybody happy now! (I know some will be!)

[IATIA]

And the box is filled with epoxy to deter reverse engineering.

[JuliaL]

---

(1) observable (smiling, breathing... etc)  → mindful

(2) observable (smiling, breathing... etc)  → brain activities

Therefore I have to conclude that,

(3) mindful = brain activities

(1) begs the question.  It should read: "assumed to be mindful"

You haven't explained how you have ascertained that the physical structure sitting in your lab (i.e. the person) actually does experience qualia.

---

Now, in the case of people, this is a very easy assumption to make.  But what happens when androids smile and breath?  Now (1) is out the window and it turns out that all along you may not really have been studying the salient feature of mind: the existence of an agent capable of experiencing qualia.  OR we may extend human rights to androids, eventually allow ourselves to be extinguished as a species, and never know whether those replacing us actually can experience or are just philosophical zombies.  And all this because when we see a smile, we assume a mind.

I expect the investigation and proof that brain correlates of consciousness actually do produce consciousness will follow similar lines to those seen in the study of the germ theory of disease.

If you are familiar with Koch's postulates?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates
Even now, it is possible to deny on a similar philosophical basis that microbes cause certain diseases, but few do.
We have instruments of sufficient resolution and sensitivity to show causal pathways from health to death with specific damage being done by specific organisms.
In the investigation of consciousness, the tools are still pretty crude and the data is coarsely granular, but getting better.
Eventually, we should be able to simulate, in Von Neumann architecture, Turing complete machines every structure, every event, chemical or quantal, of a brain.
This is not certain proof of monism, but then again, Hume showed that we can't prove Newton was right with billiard balls either.
At some point, you just have to give in and admit, the ghost is the machine.

[bennyboy]

Nobody has mentioned this yet I think, but I have an idea for using cyborgism to study mind. If we can build an interface between biological brains and say a computer, then gradually "wean" the extended electronic brain from the human components, then interface that with another bio-brain, we might be able to see if the new brain can process and "experience" things from the first, with resultant qualia: a kind of Frankenstein of consciousness. That still wouldn't exactly prove anything beyond all philosophical constraints, but portability of experience would certainly be a big step.

If that experiment ever comes up, then sign me up, cuz what a trip that could be!

[The Grand Nudger]

Too much metacommentary about me, and too few actual ideas.

There's no requirement that I present you with any ideas.  Your objections are rationalizations.  I don't have to tell you how -anything- actually works to establish that.

Look, dude, either you have an exact explanation, or you believe mind is "in there, somewhere."  Something about the brain allows for a subjective agent capable of experiencing qualia, no?  So whatever qualia are, you believe they are in/of the brain, despite a poor understanding of exactly how that works.  Am I right or am I right?  (Don't answer that, I already know the answer)

If you already knew you were wrong, why present a counterfactual proposition as though it were my own?  I think that mind -is- brain.  Not in brain or of brain.  Is brain.  I think that brain, is comp.

So my question is this: what ABOUT the brain, exactly allows for qualia?  It's a reasonable and important question. 

Sure, but a failure to answer it, or answer it to your satisfaction, won't help you to establish the validity or importance of your objections regarding any specific attempt.

There are some things which are unique to the brain, some which are unique to specific systems which process data in certain ways, and some things which involve the simple transmission of energy along routes.  There are many many layers of function going on in the brain, and it's important for us to find out which of these allow for qualia.  All I've done in this thread so far is to list some of the levels of processing that can be observed in the brain.  There's nothing anti-science or anti-logic about that.

Are there...which things are unique to the brain?  In any case, data processing or comp is -not- specific to any specific architecture..it is -itself- a system of abstraction.  That's why we called computers "universal machines".  It's entirely conceivable that the underlying architecture of qualia is a series of logical propositions very literally made out of biota which could in one instance calculate numbers, and in another, experience.  That's why comp or data processing is so useful in the first place. There are different ways of realizing the same principles, different material compositions and structures that achieve, for example, a full adder in different ways...but the reason they all work is that each system equates to any other -as- a full adder...regardless of what it is made of or the arrangement of it's parts. This tiny comment here betrays a vast misunderstanding of comp and processing..both in principle and in practice. Buttressing those objections you've made with mistakes isn't likely to produce knowledge.

Your objections are illogical, and anti-science.  But go ahead and change the subject of my comments in your response again, and again, and again.

 We already know that comp is capable of providing the contents of your qualia...everytime you and I LOL together a machine is putting you into a fantasy world where little girls drop flaming bears on peoples heads. Human qualia can interface with machine language in ways that human qualia can;t even interface with other human qualia. All you need is a little translation and your screen is capable of transmitting a message to you in ways that I simply cannot. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I mention this in response to your postulate up above. Your qualia is -already- taking up residence in that machine...it reduces at least on some level, to the state of digital levers. If you weren;t provided with those zeros and ones, and a translation for interface, you would not have that qualia. I think it;s going to be awhile before we can match the scale of architecture in the brain, but if or when we do..as a hypothetical, it would take a hefty amount of special pleading to imagine that an arrangement which is -already- ongoing would somehow stop or cease..particularly in that we imagine, in the hypothetical, a machine that's much better at doing what machines already, demonstrably, do.