Mind is the brain?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's cut to the chase: How much convergent evidence would you require in order to reexamine your views?

What views do you mean?

The acceptance of at least the possibility of duality, of course.

You keep simply waving away fact after fact in isolation, ignoring the fact that all the evidence points in the same direction.

So what would be your threshold for evidence which would give you pause? Be honest.

What do you think the facts are pointing at that I'm disagreeing with?

I didn't say you were disagreeing with them; I said you were waving them away. The difference is that disagreement is rooted in reasonable argumentation -- but you're simply ignoring what is being put in front of you, except when you can take an isolated point out of context and "rebut" it. You've consistently ignored the fact that localized brain function pairs up with reported subjective experiences, meaning that those subjective reports may well be accurate. You've completely ignored the point put to you about the correlation between brain trauma and impaired mental functions.

I mean, if your only point is that we cannot know for sure what another human being is thinking, then surely we didn't need the thread highjacked for such a banal observation. If your only point is that we cannot know that other humans even think at all, then who are you talking to, and why? If you're the only percipient here, then this rather makes your posting masturbatory, don't you, ahem, think?

[bennyboy]

You've consistently ignored the fact that localized brain function pairs up with reported subjective experiences, meaning that those subjective reports may well be accurate. You've completely ignored the point put to you about the correlation between brain trauma and impaired mental functions.

Not only have I not ignored this, I have even suggested a practical experiment which we might do to bridge the gap between the mysterious nature of subjective mind involving 2 brains and an electric mechanism.

I mean, if your only point is that we cannot know for sure what another human being is thinking, then surely we didn't need the thread highjacked for such a banal observation. If your only point is that we cannot know that other humans even think at all, then who are you talking to, and why? If you're the only percipient here, then this rather makes your posting masturbatory, don't you, ahem, think?

If it pleases you to think that you've been watching me masturbate, then that's on you.

I've pretty clearly, and pretty often, said that my interest in this thread is talking about how to establish on what scale of function in the brain mind ultimately supervenes: something at the quantum or chemical level, something at the neural level, something at the whole-brain level, etc. I'd want to know also if say Google can or could be thought of as a mind, and what the implications would be for a theory of qualia: does Google "experience" the world, given that it has billions of videos and pictures, and that it can process them to output behaviors (for example by targeting ads)?

As for who I am talking to, and why? I've in fact addressed this several times. I've said that even if I suspected an android wasn't actually able to experience qualia, I would interact with it socially anyway. I might even establish an emotional attachment to it, because of my nature as a human being. And that is I we see other people as mindful-- not because it can be established to be true, but because it makes for a more enriched experience in living life. So a gnostic position isn't necessary for me to act as though someone/something has mind.

It IS necessary, however, if I want a sufficiently robust theory of mind to start looking at non-animal systems in the universe and establish whether they are likely to experience or not.

[Brian37]

We are finite. We are not going to survive our deaths. This "debate" is not a "debate". We are merely our brains in motion. Our "experiences" are the manifestation of input, but that unique "I" is our subjective interpretation of what we observe just like the speed of a car. There is no "I" once the brain dies. There is nothing separate from the brain.

There is no "theory of mind". There is just our brains which have unique experiences of input and when we communicate with others that is what we observe. We are still not separate from our brains, we are still our brains in motion and nothing more. Once your brain dies, you die, there is no more you.

[Mudhammam]

No theory of mind, guys. Brian has it figured out. You're just a "brain in motion." Mystery solved.

[Panatheist]

We are finite. We are not going to survive our deaths. This "debate" is not a "debate". We are merely our brains in motion. Our "experiences" are the manifestation of input, but that unique "I" is our subjective interpretation of what we observe just like the speed of a car. There is no "I" once the brain dies. There is nothing separate from the brain.

There is no "theory of mind". There is just our brains which have unique experiences of input and when we communicate with others that is what we observe. We are still not separate from our brains, we are still our brains in motion and nothing more. Once your brain dies, you die, there is no more you.

I am inclined to agree with perhaps the exception that I think even a nondual explanation is a theory of mind and would further add that "I" am not only a brain, but an ever changing flux of atoms, a particular configuration of particles coming together in such a way as to produce a subjective sense of an autonomous agent, yet that sense of autonomy is an illusion -- there is no ghost in the machine.  "I" exist as an extension of the cosmos: "I" am a part of it, and it is a part of "me."  There is no "me" except in relation to all that is and no need for the hypothesis of a self apart from this organism which is but a local organization of part of our cosmos, no need for duality.

The (in my opinion) correct observation that we can only perceive reports of self-awareness in other organisms (which I with good reasons personally believe are accurate) and the question of whether mind and awareness of said mind emerge at a quantum, chemical, neural, or whole-brain level (as benny has wondered) does not involve the separate question of duality if I have properly understood him.

I would also say that mind does not always entail self-awareness of said mind.  The question of self-awareness might be a separate issue of whether there is a mind at all.  We are not always aware of our own mental processes.

[bennyboy]

We are finite. We are not going to survive our deaths. This "debate" is not a "debate". We are merely our brains in motion. Our "experiences" are the manifestation of input, but that unique "I" is our subjective interpretation of what we observe just like the speed of a car. There is no "I" once the brain dies. There is nothing separate from the brain.

There is no "theory of mind". There is just our brains which have unique experiences of input and when we communicate with others that is what we observe. We are still not separate from our brains, we are still our brains in motion and nothing more. Once your brain dies, you die, there is no more you.

Dude do you not understand the difference between just saying shit and actually making a point and supporting it?

[Mudhammam]

I would really like to know how an actual "brain in motion", let alone the experience of myself as one, is equal to this concept I have of a brain in motion.

Please continue, Sir Brian.

[Expired]

We are finite. We are not going to survive our deaths. This "debate" is not a "debate". We are merely our brains in motion. Our "experiences" are the manifestation of input, but that unique "I" is our subjective interpretation of what we observe just like the speed of a car. There is no "I" once the brain dies. There is nothing separate from the brain.

There is no "theory of mind". There is just our brains which have unique experiences of input and when we communicate with others that is what we observe. We are still not separate from our brains, we are still our brains in motion and nothing more. Once your brain dies, you die, there is no more you.

Dude do you not understand the difference between just saying shit and actually making a point and supporting it?

Dude this is the BIG question, he makes his point well IMO, but there is no supporting it. None of us know for certain, but all the evidence points towards his point of view being correct.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not only have I not ignored this, I have even suggested a practical experiment which we might do to bridge the gap between the mysterious nature of subjective mind involving 2 brains and an electric mechanism.

... ignoring all the time that you would still be relying upon the "mysterious nature of the subjective mind."

If it pleases you to think that you've been watching me masturbate, then that's on you.

I'm unsure why you think it might please me. It's actually a little embarrassing; I feel bad for you.

I've pretty clearly, and pretty often, said that my interest in this thread is talking about how to establish on what scale of function in the brain mind ultimately supervenes: something at the quantum or chemical level, something at the neural level, something at the whole-brain level, etc.

I'd be willing to bet that something as complex as mental activity takes into account many different levels of processing, and trying to assign it to one arena of activity (if you'll pardon the clunky term) is probably misguided.

I'd want to know also if say Google can or could be thought of as a mind, and what the implications would be for a theory of qualia: does Google "experience" the world, given that it has billions of videos and pictures, and that it can process them to output behaviors (for example by targeting ads)?

Why don't you ask it? Surely, if Google had an extant thought process it could comprehend your question. And if it gave an answer absent that thought process, then that would imply that it's programmers anticipated bored folks surfing the internet for philosophical "conundrums".

As for who I am talking to, and why?  I've in fact addressed this several times.  I've said that even if I suspected an android wasn't actually able to experience qualia, I would interact with it socially anyway.  I might even establish an emotional attachment to it, because of my nature as a human being.  And that is I we see other people as mindful-- not because it can be established to be true, but because it makes for a more enriched experience in living life.  So a gnostic position isn't necessary for me to act as though someone/something has mind.

Does this look like an android?





"But -- but -- it could have been a robot that someone down in Texas built in order to fool the likes of me." (Pssst -- the android was BB, the cat introducing me. He's an old, grey-haired android).

No, you're talking to a real live human being. That's who you're talking to: me. If you cannot tell that I'm not an android, well, perhaps you should study people more and philosophy less?

It IS necessary, however, if I want a sufficiently robust theory of mind to start looking at non-animal systems in the universe and establish whether they are likely to experience or not.

Where would that mind reside, do you think? How might it operate absent living processes? What energy transfer would fuel the process?

[little_monkey]

Not really, because the truth is embedded in the semantics.  If a duck is a thing which experiences, then by definition you can be guaranteed that a duck experiences.  Of course, we have no way of knowing whether a duck actually experiences, and cannot "correlate" quacking with actual experiences of the duck, at least from a gnostic position.

But you have no guarantee that ALL ducks experience exactly the same. One duck might see a piece of bread as delicious; another duck might see less than delicious, almost as disgusting. You have no way of knowing that. So you saying, "by definition you can be guaranteed that a duck experiences", you're just speculating. And without empirical evidence, according to my definition, you have a crackpot theory.