Mind is the brain?

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay, let's take as an example of a comp system a computer.  I believe you would call a computer a computer, or am I still assuming too much?

Ofc

How much of that box sitting on my desk is the computer as it fits your definition, and how much is just stuff?  Surely the case and power supply, while important, are not part of the computer as you define it, right?  How about a hard drive?  How about a hard drive that is connected, but is empty and never accessed?

They're a part of -your- computer.  One is necessary, one is recommended.   The hard drive is memory, memory is a requirement for a comp system.  If it's empty, it's still a part of the system, if there is -no- access it isn't..but if there is and it's simply disabled, still a part of the system.

Given that in theory, parts could be arranged to contact each other directly, would you include the metal traces on the motherboard?  How about the pins on a chip of RAM?

The traces are part of your system, ofc.  Gotta have a PCB.  Without transmission you can't manipulate data, and so can't be a comp system. Ditto on the pins.

If you look at a RAM chip under a microscope, most of the electronic pathway is simply transmitting a signal, and is not storing information or processing it in any way.

Excuse me....lol?  The "M" stands for memory. They're -made- to be uncomplicated traces. That's what gives them speed.

In fact, if you look at all the material in a computer, maybe 1% or less actually does any of the things you claim a comp mind does.  So let me ask you again: is my computer a computer, by definition?  Or is it 1% computer + 99% "just stuff" ?

OFC it's stuff(your pc...and, imo, your mind), still not even wrong, and still insufficient. Have you tried to use the melon yet? As ever, regardless of a pc being made of stuff, you can't pile any old stuff up and claim to have a computer - or a comp system. If you went to Best Buy, and they sold you a box that said it contained a computer, when in fact it contained a load of pen springs, I doubt you'd stand there smiling "well, it's all just stuff", on account of them both being 99% metal.

[bennyboy]

Look, you are deliberately avoiding answering the salient point: what, exactly is needed for your comp mind? What part of the computer, what part of the brain? What part of those systems is minimally sufficient in establishing the functions you claim are comp mind? I'm not saying a computer is "just stuff." I'm saying that much of the thing sitting under my desk is "just stuff" and is not intrinsic to the processes you are claiming for comp mind. This means that my computer is NOT, in its entirety, a computer in the sense that you mean it-- any more than my room would be a computer just because computing happens to be going on inside it.

Let me ask you this: the power for my computer comes from a coal-burning facility elsewhere in Korea. Is this part of the computer? How about the power lines? How about the fuel which provides the energy? Are the criteria for comp mind really just a nice-looking box that we can call a "thing?" How about the internet connection? What about satellite connections, in which there's no direct physical connection at all? How about the sun, which ultimately provides all the energy used to operate my computer? Is the sun a part of my computer?

[little_monkey]

Look, you are deliberately avoiding answering the salient point: what, exactly is needed for your comp mind?  What part of the computer, what part of the brain?  What part of those systems is minimally sufficient in establishing the functions you claim are comp mind?  I'm not saying a computer is "just stuff."  I'm saying that much of the thing sitting under my desk is "just stuff" and is not intrinsic to the processes you are claiming for comp mind.  This means that my computer is NOT, in its entirety, a computer in the sense that you mean it-- any more than my room would be a computer just because computing happens to be going on inside it.

Let me ask you this: the power for my computer comes from a coal-burning facility elsewhere in Korea.  Is this part of the computer?  How about the power lines?  How about the fuel which provides the energy?  Are the criteria for comp mind really just a nice-looking box that we can call a "thing?"  How about the internet connection?  What about satellite connections, in which there's no direct physical connection at all?  How about the sun, which ultimately provides all the energy used to operate my computer?  Is the sun a part of my computer?

All of that stuff is part of the computer, but without the software, all of that stuff isn't a computer. 

[bennyboy]

Look, you are deliberately avoiding answering the salient point: what, exactly is needed for your comp mind?  What part of the computer, what part of the brain?  What part of those systems is minimally sufficient in establishing the functions you claim are comp mind?  I'm not saying a computer is "just stuff."  I'm saying that much of the thing sitting under my desk is "just stuff" and is not intrinsic to the processes you are claiming for comp mind.  This means that my computer is NOT, in its entirety, a computer in the sense that you mean it-- any more than my room would be a computer just because computing happens to be going on inside it.

Let me ask you this: the power for my computer comes from a coal-burning facility elsewhere in Korea.  Is this part of the computer?  How about the power lines?  How about the fuel which provides the energy?  Are the criteria for comp mind really just a nice-looking box that we can call a "thing?"  How about the internet connection?  What about satellite connections, in which there's no direct physical connection at all?  How about the sun, which ultimately provides all the energy used to operate my computer?  Is the sun a part of my computer?

All of that stuff is part of the computer, but without the software, all of that stuff isn't a computer. 

My question then is the same as for Rhythm, except with software instead of systems.  What's the difference between software and a bunch of stuff?  It seems to me it is the intentionality that is injected into the context by minds OUTSIDE the system which are required to imbue any of it with any meaning.

[The Grand Nudger]

Look, you are deliberately avoiding answering the salient point: what, exactly is needed for your comp mind?  What part of the computer, what part of the brain?  What part of those systems is minimally sufficient in establishing the functions you claim are comp mind?  I'm not saying a computer is "just stuff."  I'm saying that much of the thing sitting under my desk is "just stuff" and is not intrinsic to the processes you are claiming for comp mind.  This means that my computer is NOT, in its entirety, a computer in the sense that you mean it-- any more than my room would be a computer just because computing happens to be going on inside it.

I did no such thing, I've answered your question already.  You were given the definition of a computer some pages back.  It's a fairly full definition - as another poster pointed out, I described a turing complete system.  There are simpler computers, but none I would consider a candidate for mind, and so, irrelevant.  If it fits that definition, it's a comp system., and I'd call it a candidate for mind.  Much of the stuff sitting under your desk is dust and flooring.  I assumed I wouldn't have to explain that dust and flooring aren't part of your pc, or a part of your comp system any more than the melon you -refuse- to post with is.   I fail to see the relevance in any case, unless you also think that your dust and flooring are part of your mind you're simply sending us down the rabbit hole -yet again.

Let me ask you this: the power for my computer comes from a coal-burning facility elsewhere in Korea.  Is this part of the computer?  How about the power lines?  How about the fuel which provides the energy?  Are the criteria for comp mind really just a nice-looking box that we can call a "thing?"  How about the internet connection?  What about satellite connections, in which there's no direct physical connection at all?  How about the sun, which ultimately provides all the energy used to operate my computer?  Is the sun a part of my computer?

You could choose to conceptualize them as being part of your pc, it would be silly, but it would certainly open up plenty of things to prevaricate upon...as is clearly your intention. One could ask the same question of mind, without reference to any theory of mind. Is -your- mind also what you see, or those things which cause you to feel? Is it the sun in the sky and the tomatoes in the field? Obviously we won't get anywhere with this line of questioning (you wouldn't allow it yourself - you don't think that your mind is "all of the stuff" regardless of any theory of mind), and it drops the iq of the participatants in the process.

Until you can accept that "computer" and "computation" refers to something specific, and that your pc doesn't run on magic, you aren't discussing or objecting to computers, computation, or CTM. If your only means of argumentation is to repeat "it's just a bunch of stuff" then you're out of gas...and this discussion, I think, ends with a "no shit". This statement was insufficient as a description of a comp system....or, frankly, anything at all...the very -first- time you made it and it hasn't become sufficient through repetition since.

Good luck in your deathmatch against reason, identity, and specificity of terms.

[little_monkey]

All of that stuff is part of the computer, but without the software, all of that stuff isn't a computer. 

My question then is the same as for Rhythm, except with software instead of systems.  What's the difference between software and a bunch of stuff?  It seems to me it is the intentionality that is injected into the context by minds OUTSIDE the system which are required to imbue any of it with any meaning.

True, but computers don't compare to a human mind as the latter took 5 billion years to evolve to what it is today. Evolution doesn't have intentionality. It produces organism that struggles to survive. In that struggle, species improve in mobility, in responding to different stimuli, in adapting to a multitude of environments, and so on. Memory, self-awareness, intelligence increased as species became more complex. There's no reason to believe that evolution has any intentionality whatsoever. Randomness, natural selection, flow of the gene pool, etc. can account for the development of the different species. And we see in the development of the brain throughout this evolution. Why you need to believe in some intentionality is a question you need to ask yourself. I see no problem in not believe in any intentionality in the evolution of life on this planet. It makes life more wonderful, more precious, more exciting than to believe that some deity has a plan. Why would I want to be at the mercy of such a plan?!? 

[bennyboy]

I did no such thing, I've answered your question already.  You were given the definition of a computer some pages back.  It's a fairly full definition - as another poster pointed out, I described a turing complete system.  There are simpler computers, but none I would consider a candidate for mind, and so, irrelevant.  If it fits that definition, it's a comp system., and I'd call it a candidate for mind.  Much of the stuff sitting under your desk is dust and flooring.  I assumed I wouldn't have to explain that dust and flooring aren't part of your pc, or a part of your comp system any more than the melon you -refuse- to post with is.   I fail to see the relevance in any case, unless you also think that your dust and flooring are part of your mind you're simply sending us down the rabbit hole -yet again.

The dodge never ends. Clearly, there are parts of the thing called "computer" which do not do any computing. Therefore, the computer is actually a subsystem of the thing under my desk-- but you won't attempt to identify which things, because you know it'll be a fuckfest.

You could choose to conceptualize them as being part of your pc, it would be silly, but it would certainly open up plenty of things to prevaricate upon...as is clearly your intention.

My intention is to separate those elements essential to the computer (or the comp mind) from those which are not. You cannot and will not do this: you demand that not only do parts which actually do computing be called "computer," I must include those systems which do not do computing-- apparently because they happen to be inside a box I call "computer."

Until you can accept that "computer" and "computation" refers to something specific, and that your pc doesn't run on magic. . .

I've never claimed a pc runs on magic. YOU have claimed that a computer is a definite, specific, thing. Either that thing includes its power source or it does not. You attempt to isolate as a discrete object something that is part of a broad-reaching web of systems. There is no actual cut-line in the process between your computer and mine, or my computer and a power station. So why do you make the cut in your mind?

Just because you see a box as a thing. This is the same as your brain-waving. You insist mind is brain, but when challenged to say what about brain is mind, you cannot and would not.

[bennyboy]

My question then is the same as for Rhythm, except with software instead of systems.  What's the difference between software and a bunch of stuff?  It seems to me it is the intentionality that is injected into the context by minds OUTSIDE the system which are required to imbue any of it with any meaning.

True, but computers don't compare to a human mind as the latter took 5 billion years to evolve to what it is today. Evolution doesn't have intentionality. It produces organism that struggles to survive. In that struggle, species improve in mobility, in responding to different stimuli, in adapting to a multitude of environments, and so on. Memory, self-awareness, intelligence increased as species became more complex. There's no reason to believe that evolution has any intentionality whatsoever. Randomness, natural selection, flow of the gene pool, etc. can account for the development of the different species. And we see in the development of the brain throughout this evolution. Why you need to believe in some intentionality is a question you need to ask yourself. I see no problem in not believe in any intentionality in the evolution of life on this planet. It makes life more wonderful, more precious, more exciting than to believe that some deity has a plan. Why would I want to be at the mercy of such a plan?!? 

Oops, careful there. When I talk about external intention, I'm talking about human intention: we see as coherent processes those things we've controlled, and as "just stuff" those which we haven't. But actually, this division is arbitrary.

[The Grand Nudger]

The dodge never ends.  Clearly, there are parts of the thing called "computer" which do not do any computing.  Therefore, the computer is actually a subsystem of the thing under my desk-- but you won't attempt to identify which things, because you know it'll be a fuckfest.

I gave you the definition.

My intention is to separate those elements essential to the computer (or the comp mind) from those which are not.  You cannot and will not do this: you demand that not only do parts which actually do computing be called "computer," I must include those systems which do not do computing-- apparently because they happen to be inside a box I call "computer."

Then refer to the definition.

I've never claimed a pc runs on magic.  YOU have claimed that a computer is a definite, specific, thing. 

Specifically, that which fits the definition given.

Just because you see a box as a thing.  This is the same as your brain-waving.  You insist mind is brain, but when challenged to say what about brain is mind, you cannot and would not.

We haven't gotten to that point yet, and can;t...because right now...all -either- of us can say is; "If stuff happens when stuff happens then stuff happens or stuff happens. "-unless you'd like to get your shit together and have a rational conversation. I can't believe that you think you're arguing against CTM, by arguing that computers don't exist............from your computer.

Is this how you handle every competing proposition to your own notion of matter-mind? I'm starting to see how you managed to come to that flight of fancy now. You can;t tell the difference between a cantelope, a ferrarri, a pc, or a golf club. Things must all be the same stuff. Matter-mind. Matter-melon. Matter-9 iron, and ofc none of these are dinstinct from each other, none are specific. So, its Matter-mind/melon/9 iron/computer/ -all of the stuff happening-. All properties of matter, nothing specific, nothing discrete.

Mysteries of the universe solved with this brilliant objection, we have a full description of everything now.

Oops, careful there. When I talk about external intention, I'm talking about human intention: we see as coherent processes those things we've controlled, and as "just stuff" those which we haven't. But actually, this division is arbitrary.

WE actually don't see things that way, but you should already know that. There appear to be a great many comp systems on earth that we neither designed nor manufactured. OFC, the contention of CTM is that we and other sentient life are among the most robust examples. The division line is specific, refer to the definition, when you finally allow for identity in the world.

[Whateverist]

I'm so curious to know what you all are still discussing here. If only I weren't so lazy.