What is mind and where did it come from?

[Linusthe2nd]

Edward Feser has an interesting article, " Accept no Imitations " on his most recent blog dealing with the Turning Test and othe problems of the mind. But to find out what’s in it, you have to read it. You know like Pelosi said, " You have to pass the thing before you find out what’s in it. " When I read the article I was thinking of our resident skeptics and one in particular.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Linus2nd

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Here’s a link to the actual post you’re talking about, rather than his blog in general (which will eventually have a different post at the top). Thanks for reminding me to read his blog

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here’s a link to the actual post you’re talking about, rather than his blog in general (which will eventually have a different post at the top). Thanks for reminding me to read his blog

Thank you but how did you get it?

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

I thought the article was fine until he argued that a plant has a tendency by its nature to act in a particular way and a watch doesn’t, because the plant has a substantial form and a watch doesn’t. More nonsense of “substantial form” used to describe physical objects. Both the plant and watch have a natural tendency to act in a particular way because of their physical structure. Just because a human being designed the watch, but God designed the plant, does not mean that the plant has a special “substance” different from a man-made machine. Both the plant and watch are machines.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The only question I have is to ask is how did the structure of the watch and computer come about. It had no structure or activity without man. Before we ask where did the mind come from we should ask where did the machine come from.

 

[Bradski]

Typical Fesser modus operandi. Misrepresent someone’s position, set up a straw man and then look impressive in dismantling it. It’s difficult to read anything he writes without the word ‘smug’ hovering in the background.

Turing’s objective in the test is to see if a machine can answer questions in such a way so that, to all intents and purposes, to the average person (a point which he stresses), it is indistinguishable from those given by a human. It is a means to investigate the concept of machine intelligence, not to show that somehow a machine is intelligent per se.

Fesser’s analogy of gold and pyrite is apt, but not in the way he thinks. To the average person, there is no difference between the two and for the general purposes for which either is being used (jewellry for example) they are identical. Yes, they are not the same and there are mechanical and chemical differences between the two, but if you can’t tell the difference, then (and this is Turing’s point), there is effectively no difference.

Whether we will ever reach the point to we could develop a ‘HAL’ type machine that can be considered intelligent is debatable. I think that we will, but I can’t see any given Christian agreeing with that. But try a little mental exercise…

Someone has a degenerative disease that is slowly destroying their brain. We have the technology to replace a tiny portion of the brain with with a computer so that the person can still function (certainly not beyond the means of science). If we replace 1%, I don’t think that anyone would class that person as being non-human.

As we gradually replace more and more, is the person becoming less human? At what point does he become a machine?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Thank you but how did you get it?

Linus2nd

Click on the post title.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What if they have a degenerative disease. Maybe their evolution and intellect will outlive our need to be when they realize the air we breath is corrosive and destructive to them and do away with it and us.

 

[GEddie]

Typical Fesser modus operandi. Misrepresent someone’s position, set up a straw man and then look impressive in dismantling it. It’s difficult to read anything he writes without the word ‘smug’ hovering in the background.

Turing’s objective in the test is to see if a machine can answer questions in such a way so that, to all intents and purposes, to the average person (a point which he stresses), it is indistinguishable from those given by a human. It is a means to investigate the concept of machine intelligence, not to show that somehow a machine is intelligent per se.

Fesser’s analogy of gold and pyrite is apt, but not in the way he thinks. To the average person, there is no difference between the two and for the general purposes for which either is being used (jewellry for example) they are identical. Yes, they are not the same and there are mechanical and chemical differences between the two, but if you can’t tell the difference, then (and this is Turing’s point), there is effectively no difference.

Whether we will ever reach the point to we could develop a ‘HAL’ type machine that can be considered intelligent is debatable. I think that we will, but I can’t see any given Christian agreeing with that. But try a little mental exercise…

Someone has a degenerative disease that is slowly destroying their brain. We have the technology to replace a tiny portion of the brain with with a computer so that the person can still function (certainly not beyond the means of science). If we replace 1%, I don’t think that anyone would class that person as being non-human.

As we gradually replace more and more, is the person becoming less human? At what point does he become a machine?

When not enough of the brain or body remains to hold life independently.

Of course, that line will become increasingly blurred.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Click on the post title.

Thank you, that will be very useful. I wonder how Feser stores all the info on his blog? Do you think that is all on his hard drive? Probably out on some cloud, don’t you think?

Linus2nd

 

[Bradski]

When not enough of the brain or body remains to hold life independently.

Of course, that line will become increasingly blurred.

ICXC NIKA

So if the body can’t survive with what it has, then you are not human?

One of Feesr’s bête noires is Terri Schiavo. When the brain can no longer keep you alive, how would you describe the situation?

 

[GEddie]

So if the body can’t survive with what it has, then you are not human?

One of Feesr’s bête noires is Terri Schiavo. When the brain can no longer keep you alive, how would you describe the situation?

Good trick question.

I don’t know what to think about her so I’ll go with the opinion of the Church.

In the theoretical sense, if the added bits and pieces only support a thought process the head can still maintain, that would still be human. If it gets to where they have to program your head, arguably you would no longer be human.

I’d also argue that humanness resides mostly in the head, that mechanical limbs, lungs, muscles, nerves, heart or synthetic skin would not raise an issue.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Good trick question.

I don’t know what to think about her so I’ll go with the opinion of the Church.

In the theoretical sense, if the added bits and pieces only support a thought process the head can still maintain, that would still be human. If it gets to where they have to program your head, arguably you would no longer be human.

I’d also argue that humanness resides mostly in the head, that mechanical limbs, lungs, muscles, nerves, heart or synthetic skin would not raise an issue.

ICXC NIKA.

Since the soul is a spiritual form just as that of angels and God, it resides wholely and entirely in every part of the body. When we loose a limb or add a mechanical part, the soul resides in the remaining natural parts, but suffers no loss in its being. But the intellectual property operates specifically through the brain. That does not mean that this property is absent elsewhere, it simply means that it functions through the brain.

This is the basic teaching of Thomas Aquinas.

Linus2nd

 

[PseuTonym]

Both the plant and watch have a natural tendency to act in a particular way because of their physical structure.

They are acting in two different ways. The watch displays the time of day, after it has been set, while it is maintained, and under our interpretation of the watch display and our concept of the time of day. Whether or not photosynthesis is occurring does not depend on our interpretation of some symbolic information.

Both the plant and watch are machines.

Is a plate of spaghetti a machine? You made a couple of authoritative sounding statements. However, if you don’t provide a general principle and use that principle to justify your claims, then what is authoritative about your claims?

 

[blase6]

Is a plate of spaghetti a machine? You made a couple of authoritative sounding statements. However, if you don’t provide a general principle and use that principle to justify your claims, then what is authoritative about your claims?

The plant is a machine because it is a physical object with a structure which provokes chemical and physical change. For example, one of its mechanistic functions is to combine carbon dioxide with energy from photosynthesis to produce sugar. The watch is comparable because it is either a combination of gears with a wind-up component, or a computer, which is ordered to produce an end, in this case being to report the time.

 

[GEddie]

Since the soul is a spiritual form just as that of angels and God, it resides wholely and entirely in every part of the body. When we loose a limb or add a mechanical part, the soul resides in the remaining natural parts, but suffers no loss in its being. But the intellectual property operates specifically through the brain. That does not mean that this property is absent elsewhere, it simply means that it functions through the brain.

This is the basic teaching of Thomas Aquinas.

Linus2nd

Fine by me. I am not a Thomist or philosopher and do not play either on stage.

I didn’t say that the soul resided only in our head. Soul is life, so it would fill the entire body.

Obviously, purely mechanical limbs or organs would not contain the soul.

If it were possible to stick a human head onto a neck-down mechanical body, then the soul would reside only in the head. But a headless human body kept alive by a mechanical brain would not, IMNAAHO, hold a human soul, any more than would a human limb on ice.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[PseuTonym]

The plant is a machine because it is a physical object with a structure which provokes chemical and physical change.

Suppose that a comedy movie in DVD format provokes laughs. Given that a DVD is a physical object and that there is chemical and physical change when people laugh, can we conclude that such a DVD is a machine?

The watch is comparable because it is either a combination of gears with a wind-up component, or a computer

Are you kidding? A conventional microprocessor requires a clock cycle to operate, so a conventional computer contains something very much like a clock. However, a clock does not need to contain a general purpose computer. In fact, the concept of “mechanical” (or “effective”) method in the realm of algorithms and computation can be defined in various ways, but none of those definitions refers to laws of physics, and none of them refers to physical objects.

which is ordered to produce an end, in this case being to report the time.

According to your own attempt at defining “machine”, shouldn’t you be demonstrating that a watch is a physical object with a structure which provokes chemical and physical change?

 

[blase6]

Suppose that a comedy movie in DVD format provokes laughs. Given that a DVD is a physical object and that there is chemical and physical change when people laugh, can we conclude that such a DVD is a machine?

This gets a little complicated. The DVD is a component of a machine which when functioning, may produce laughs in those watching it.

Are you kidding? A conventional microprocessor requires a clock cycle to operate, so a conventional computer contains something very much like a clock. However, a clock does not need to contain a general purpose computer. In fact, the concept of “mechanical” (or “effective”) method in the realm of algorithms and computation can be defined in various ways, but none of those definitions refers to laws of physics, and none of them refers to physical objects.

However they all relate to the intricate structure of electronic components and microprocessors. They are tiny passageways through which electricity moves, which could be considered as some kind of physical change. I don’t know exactly how a hard drive stores data, but this may be an example of how what your computer processes has a real physical component in your hard drive.

According to your own attempt at defining “machine”, shouldn’t you be demonstrating that a watch is a physical object with a structure which provokes chemical and physical change?

I will define a “machine” as a physical object that produces physical and chemical change by its physical/chemical arrangement. It is an attempt to move beyond the overly simplistic explanation of biological life necessarily involving the presence of a soul.

It should be pretty obvious that a watch is a machine. It is composed in a way which moves hands or displays light on a screen, which is translated by our mind into a recording of the current time.

A plant is a machine which is ordered towards its own growth and survival. There is no reason why such an object would require a “soul” or “substantial form” to function.

 

[Bradski]

Good trick question.

Where I come from it’s called a hypothetical. No-one is trying to trick you. I don’t mind asking, or being asked, difficult questions, but if the aim is ‘gotcha!’ then it’s purely point scoring.

I don’t know what to think about her so I’ll go with the opinion of the Church.

I’d rather know your opinion.

In the theoretical sense, if the added bits and pieces only support a thought process the head can still maintain, that would still be human. If it gets to where they have to program your head, arguably you would no longer be human.

Indeed. It is arguable. So at what point do you think the programming takes over?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its programmed language. When does a transmission change to third gear? When does the rabbit on the track cross the finish line. The question should be what model is it or who built it and where are the directions.

We are talking words and supposed paradigm concepts as if everyone knows what a soul is and where it resides and is in agreement.