Is there any mind?

[STT]

So your intellect, your subjective frame of reference. (your mind), does not exist. Then who made this thread? Do you expect us to believe that bio-chemical reactions alone wrote this thread?

It is just a process in the brain which caused this writing. This is the process: (1) There is a stimuli, (2) Brain get excited, (3) Brain creates a response(this response is based on what it experienced, memory which is located in the brain). The process of creation/decision happens in specific part of brain.

 

[STT]

I don’t know how the post disappeared; I meant to add:

A fuller form, penned by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes’s intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (“I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”). The concept is also sometimes known as the cogito.[2] (Cogito, ergo sum - Wikipedia)

I am because I seek not because I doubt, but that’s just me!

Maran atha!

Angel

Please read the previous post. I just had to repeat myself.

 

[jcrichton]

The problem is that if you dump cell phones and computers in places where animals can access them none of them would by posting on this or any other site.

There was a lady (they made a movie about it) who was a gorilla whisperer; she taught some gorilla/s sign language and such… if that gorilla were to have been introduced back into nature and had it instructed other gorillas (incidentally, this only happens in ‘planet of the apes’ themes) then accumulative experience would be proven.

The same would be with AI–all that the programmers would have to do is place enough “human experiences” in its memory banks and watch them become active members of society.

Ever wonder why they say ‘a mind is a terrible thing to waste,’ and not “experiences” are terrible things to waste?

I thought that my story of the four kittens would open up your mind; I was wrong! Sorry for the failure.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Third step:

Do particles or bodies produce more matter or energy? They don’t! A body can release or absorb energy, or it can be dissolved into a liquid or it can expel part of the matter it contains; but it will not produce nor more matter nor energy. A radioactive body emits particles, and as it does it it looses mass. When there is a chemical reaction the destruction and construction of bonds between particles releases or absorbs energy, but it is not created. The activity of matter consists in local movements, or in physical changes, or in chemical reactions; but never in the generation of more matter nor in the creation of energy.

Some bodies (A) interact with particles (B) in such a way that when a bond between them is established the new unit is now able to interact with another kind of particles (C): the bond between A and B is broken and a bond between B and C is established. Bodies like A are called “catalysts”, and it is said that they promote the reaction between B and C. They do not promote every reaction, but specifically some of them. Those particles called “enzymes“ are one type of those catalytic materials.

There are reaction systems which when surrounded by the elements with which they are made up, replicate themselves. Those systems include a set of catalytic agents which promote the replicating chemical reactions. We could say that there is a new form of activity here, as the system transforms mechanically its surroundings until certain energetic equilibrium is reached. It is not just a chaotic transfer of momentum, mass and energy taking place; but, acting in concert, the parts of the ordered system multiply the order by replicating their structure. Specific mechanical affinities drive those marvelous transformations. Nevertheless, we do not find here something which cannot be reduced to physical interactions.

Other systems not only multiply an order, but tend to preserve it. There are chemical reactions taking place within them which drive certain actions, because when they happen energy is released and certain chains of effects are triggered. The resulting compounds accumulate in the interior of the structure and would eventually disable it. But then some subsystems react expelling those poisoning compounds, and other subsystems bring in the new materials that will produce the releasing of energy through the continuation of the characteristic chemical reactions. We could probably summarize all this saying that in those systems chains of causes and effects become closed cycles or spirals. These systems are more sophisticated than the replicating ones; still, neither in this case is there something which cannot be reduced to physical interactions.

 

[STT]

We are interacting too. Our interaction is somehow deformed and turned into something which an intellectual being can understand.

 

[STT]

The problem is that if you dump cell phones and computers in places where animals can access them none of them would by posting on this or any other site.

There was a lady (they made a movie about it) who was a gorilla whisperer; she taught some gorilla/s sign language and such… if that gorilla were to have been introduced back into nature and had it instructed other gorillas (incidentally, this only happens in ‘planet of the apes’ themes) then accumulative experience would be proven.

The same would be with AI–all that the programmers would have to do is place enough “human experiences” in its memory banks and watch them become active members of society.

Ever wonder why they say ‘a mind is a terrible thing to waste,’ and not “experiences” are terrible things to waste?

I thought that my story of the four kittens would open up your mind; I was wrong! Sorry for the failure.

Maran atha!

Angel

I am afraid that I am confused. I don’t know where to start from if you wish to continue the conversation.

 

[jcrichton]

OK… let’s see if I can explain myself a little better.

Is there a any mind?

We for sure know that experience exists. We are however not sure that mind, experiencer, exists. All we can say is that there is experience of self. The experience of self however could be generated by specific part of our brain. It could be matter which has capacity to produce different sort of experiences. So, how could we prove that mind exist?

You suggest that there’s only “experience;” that we are moved by the collective experience that we have. You suggest that somehow this accumulative processes allows for individual cognition–the ability for an entity to identify itself as an individual.

Hence self is not inherent of the entity (mind) but a result of accumulated experience.

Am I correct so far?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[STT]

You suggest that there’s only “experience;” that we are moved by the collective experience that we have. You suggest that somehow this accumulative processes allows for individual cognition–the ability for an entity to identify itself as an individual.

Hence self is not inherent of the entity (mind) but a result of accumulated experience.

Am I correct so far?

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes. You are correct up to here. No need to say that I cannot prove this position as I think you cannot prove your position either.

 

[jcrichton]

The problem is that I have proven that there is a definite distinction between “experience” and mind.

I offered the story of the four kittens; this was not a rouse–I actually experienced (lived through it).

If we accept your premise, the four kittens (freshly born) would have to have been identical in all since they experience, with me, the exact same thing–variations did not occur until they started developing. The mom abandoned them and I interacted with them in before and after work… their experience was limited to the backyard (as their whole world) and my interaction with them.

Yet, each one of them had different characteristics and developmental prowess.

Reason dictates that each individual kitten’s mind formed its consciousness and allowed the various stimuli (experiences) to bring them to maturity; yet their uniqueness was not dependent upon experience.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[STT]

The problem is that I have proven that there is a definite distinction between “experience” and mind.

I agree that there is a distinction between mind and experience.

I offered the story of the four kittens; this was not a rouse–I actually experienced (lived through it).

If we accept your premise, the four kittens (freshly born) would have to have been identical in all since they experience, with me, the exact same thing–variations did not occur until they started developing. The mom abandoned them and I interacted with them in before and after work… their experience was limited to the backyard (as their whole world) and my interaction with them.

Yet, each one of them had different characteristics and developmental prowess.

Reason dictates that each individual kitten’s mind formed its consciousness and allowed the various stimuli (experiences) to bring them to maturity; yet their uniqueness was not dependent upon experience.

Maran atha!

Angel

Four kittens were not identical at the time of birth. They looked similar because their response to environment was simple. As they grow they could show their real personality which is nothing than their genetic material manifested in different brains.

 

[jcrichton]

Four kittens were not identical at the time of birth. They looked similar because their response to environment was simple. As they grow they could show their real personality which is nothing than their genetic material manifested in different brains.

I think you are almost there… you just don’t bridge it well… the four kittens were indeed not identical at the time of birth; yet, if we were to follow your model, there should have been a homogeneous transformation since all of them were exposed to the exact same experience.

Since I did not teach any of them anything at all, there should not have been a difference in character, preferences, and behavior. Yet, each one evolved according to its own mind’s preferences and settings–they were individuals with specifics likes, dislikes, and behavior.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[STT]

I think you are almost there… you just don’t bridge it well… the four kittens were indeed not identical at the time of birth; yet, if we were to follow your model, there should have been a homogeneous transformation since all of them were exposed to the exact same experience.

No. There couldn’t be a homogeneous transformation since they have different brain and have been exposed to different stimuli.

Since I did not teach any of them anything at all, there should not have been a difference in character, preferences, and behavior. Yet, each one evolved according to its own mind’s preferences and settings–they were individuals with specifics likes, dislikes, and behavior.

Maran atha!

Angel

Most of our like, dislike and behavior is related to our genes and what we are exposed to.

 

[jcrichton]

No. There couldn’t be a homogeneous transformation since they have different brain and have been exposed to different stimuli.

No. The exposure is the same (four kittens, in the backyard of a house, drop food and water in the morning, go to work, see them after work, drop food and inter act with them as they allow… there’s no different stimuli–I was not experimenting on them; they were abandoned by their mom and they developed on their own.

Most of our like, dislike and behavior is related to our genes and what we are exposed to.

If that were so the whole world would be homogeneous–each grouping according to their specific geographical location and niche. Yet, if you ever observed toddlers, each miniature human being acts and reacts differently then his/her peers, even when twins/triplets are concerned.

What you suggest is like taking a template and reproducing it without as much as 1% variation (ie.: 99% of people exposed to ketchup would love ketchup).

Reality demonstrates that that is not so!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JuanFlorencio]

We are interacting too. Our interaction is somehow deformed and turned into something which an intellectual being can understand.

Fourth step:

If we add more and more of a solute to a solvent, several properties of the resulting mixture will be altered: we will observe, for example, that its viscosity will increase, its density will increase, its refractive index will increase, its heat capacity will change, its boiling point will increase, its freezing point will decrease, and so on. We could establish a correlation between the concentration of the solute and any of the properties of the mixture. This way, given that the temperature and the pressure of the mixture remain constant, if we know its density we will be able to determine its concentration, based on the known correlation. Or, under the same conditions, if we know its refractive index, we will be able to determine the concentration. We can think that it is so because the change of the properties is caused by the change in the concentration. But it happens as well that if we know all the correlations at a given set of conditions of temperature and pressure, if we know the density of the mixture we can determine its viscosity by using some of those correlations. And, in that case, it will not imply that the change in viscosity causes the change in density or vice versa; nevertheless, the correlations we established will be informative, because something that produces both changes has always the same set of effects under similar conditions.

Every property or interaction mode of a material object is something that we can detect by means of a physical technique. Otherwise, it would simply be no property or no interaction mode at all. Electrical phenomena (which is an interaction mode of some bodies), for example, can be detected using certain apparatuses. So, if a body produces or is the media through which an electrical current circulates, one of those apparatuses can be used to detect it as it is affected by such phenomenon. This way, electrical effects can be detected in the brain of a living being: If a brain is connected to the apparatus and you monitor the behavior of the apparatus you can infer from what you see if there are electrical phenomena going on in that brain or not. You could use the same apparatus to monitor electrical phenomena in the body of a frog. If you see the typical behavior in the apparatus you can infer that there are electrical phenomena going on in the animal’s body. Actually, you can use the apparatus to detect small currents wherever they take place. If you see the same behavior in the apparatus you can say that an electrical phenomenon is happening there. So you will establish a correlation between the behavior of your monitoring apparatus and the electrical phenomena in the organic tissue. You could say that it is a cause-effect correlation.

Continues…

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Besides those electrical currents circulating through the brain of a living being there are many other processes going on in the body. If those processes are repeatable, we could establish a new correlation between them and the electrical currents, though it would be too audacious to say that it must be a cause-effect type of correlation. And if those processes are not repeatable, a more detailed observation needs to be done before we can establish even a non cause-effect correlation. If a trained dog is shown a beef steak, a complex set of body reactions will be observed in it, and electrical currents could be detected in its brain as well. If the dog doesn’t see the beef steak but he smells it, he will display another set of reactions and, again, electrical currents could be detected in its brain. So, what is the radical cause of all these reactions? The beef steak reflects the light impinging on it and it affects the eyes of the dog. It also releases some volatile substances which travel through the air and get into the dog’s nostrils. Then a sequence of physical chemical processes takes place from the eyes and the nostrils of the animal to what we call “organs of his nervous system”, and from there back to the “peripheral organs”, another sequence takes place stimulating the variety of body reactions that we observe. All of this could be observed directly or indirectly, because it is a set of material processes. I think we can say that it is the beef steak which is the cause of the entire sequence of observable animal reactions, but the dog’s body must be configured in a certain way. In other words: Not every dog will react in a similar way, and the same dog will not always display the same reactions.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Fifth step

It was Rene Descartes who first thought that animals were a kind of complex automatic machines. Nothing else besides those long chains of interactions starting outside the body of the animal and ending outside again would be necessary to explain the animal’s “behavior”. The whole of such “behavior“ seems to be a set of material processes, and at any moment of it a causal antecedent can be pointed out. Attractions, repulsions, energy absorption, release or transfer is all that can be physically observed. If the word “experience” has some meaning here it could be nothing else but the reconfiguration of the animal’s body as a result of the physical interactions which take place in it. The animal’s body would be just the scenario of a multitude of physical chemical processes. If some day an animal touches something which is very hot, the animal will react drawing away immediately, and it will not try to touch the hot thing again. It’s machinery must have been transformed owing to the physical chemical effects of the heat: a sudden exposition to a source of high levels of thermal energy would trigger certain “unusual” transforming reactions . There would be no “place” for sensations…

But we know there are sensations…

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Sixth step

But how do we know there are sensations?

I put my finger on the hot surface of an iron. My skin tissue and my terminal nerves are chemically transformed. Sequences of chemical reactions are triggered following defined paths, from the periphery of my body to my brain and back to the periphery. That is it. Some people say that the substances which are reacting are “signals” and that they are “decoded” and “interpreted” by the brain. However, that is already another level of discourse based on the assumption that there is a mind, only that those actions are surreptitiously attributed to this malleable machine we call “brain”. From the physical standpoint, however, there are no signals to be decoded nor interpreted. There are just physical chemical processes going on according to ordinary mechanisms and affinities, which could be individually observed outside a brain.

The whole set of interactions going on along the nervous paths can be monitored simply because they are material processes and, therefore, they can affect a monitoring device. But there is no device which can be affected by “pain”…

Nevertheless, I feel pain.

 

[IWantGod]

No need to say that I cannot prove this position as I think you cannot prove your position either.

So according to you the matter in your brain takes on the form of a triangle when you think of one?

Materialism isn’t even a plausible possibility. We don’t have to prove anything.

 

[AlNg]

there is no device which can be affected by “pain”…

I don’t think so. There are devices which when connected to specific body points will show various wave patterns when pain is introduced.

 

[IWantGod]

But this is merely an analogous representation of pain. Its picking up the activity of nerve endings. Its not actually being effected by pain itself.

The point is we have experiences that are not physically measurable. They are not quantitative. They have no mass. It is not made of matter. Yet it exists in our experience.

Is there an atom that is pain? Of course not, that is ridiculous. A strict materialism cannot account for these things.