Villain Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 When you say "The mind for one doesn't automatically correlate to a physical entity just because you/we can't imagine/understand otherwise." Sounds to me like your talking about a soul. I wont hold that against you I am open to positive results from psi experiments or evidence of souls or reincarnation if good proof could be found. But if you are it would make the debate much clearer if you admitted that was the direction you where coming from. An argument goes nowhere if you don't establish its precepts. No, I'm talking about a mind, as it is. I see no point in assuming that there is only a material world in order for that material world to be the cause of the mind that exists regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWLabRat Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 There is nothing in principle that prevents one from building - or more likely growing - a neural network capable of supporting the same patterns of patterns of activity that the human brain does. Then all it would need would be a long period of environmental stimulus and so forth. But we are so far away from that, technologically, that the question of whether it is even possible still has a place. A more interesting question, since we are still in the speculation stage, is whether boredom and error and sleep are essential properties of such a network. Also, does some part of the sensory or operating stuff need to be analog, in practice? Of course any such patterns could be emulated on a Turing machine - but not in this universe: we only have so many billions of years left. Computers right now think so much differently from humans that emulating human mental patterns in a computer is very inefficient, slow, bugridden policy I'm going to have to completely disagree with this statement. Thinking or computing, be it in a human brain or a computer, still boils down to responses and actions based on routines and subroutines that have been programmed into the entity. The only difference between the two is how that programming is created. When it comes to computers, it is typically put in through a Human Interface Device (i.e. mouse & keyboard) whereas with humans it is done through speech and tactile learning. No human baby comes out of the womb being able to walk and talk. Similarly, programmers when first creating a program don't typically get everything right on the first go. There are typically bugs in the system, some of which cause it to crash. After a few versions in alpha phase, A working Beta is created that can be released to the public. However sometimes even the Beta is faulty in some systems and the program is no longer able to "walk". This could be equated to someone who had a leg or back injury and has to go through physical therapy. Even your choices, and what you think aren't entirely different from computers. All your thoughts, feelings, and actions are based on what has been taught to you over your lifetime. The subroutines adapt to any paradigm shifts that may occur during adolescence, times of stress, and other events throughout adulthood. Even the most basic choices that you make come down to simple binary processes that have been fine tuned throughout your life. Take the act of making a sandwich. The first routine in the program you would come across is whether or not your body requires energy. If yes, proceed to the next step in making a sandwich, if not, go about your business. Then you need to decide how you're going to make a sandwich. You see an assortment of objects lying in front of you. Would two saucers make a suitable top and bottom of the sandwich? No. So you move to the next item which happens to be a loaf of bread. Years of eating white bread has taught you that it settles in your stomach better than wheat or rye, so you use that. Well, what kind of meat do you want? etc... The reason you don't notice this is because you have been doing it for so long that your brain has essentially "bookmarked" the processes for quicker and easier retrieval. It's for this same reason that after severe head trauma, many patients forget how to do daily tasks such as tying their shoes, or unable to recall certain words that they may have used profusely prior to the trauma. As far as the human soul and consciousness goes, there's a thought experiment called Solipsism (wiki article here) that basically says that the only mind that you can be sure to know exists is your own mind. Anything outside of your mind may not be real. So it's possible, under this epistemology, that I am the only one to exist and you are a figment of my imagination created by my brain to fill in gaps. So regardless of subjectivity or objectivity there's *currently* no truly definable way to determine if someone else, be it man or machine, is conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Study reveals brain connections for introspection "Our results suggest that metacognitive or introspective ability may not be a single thing," Baird said. "We actually find a behavioral dissociation between the two metacognitive abilities across people, which suggests that you can be good at reflecting on your memory but poor at reflecting on your perception, or vice versa." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 As far as the human soul and consciousness goes, there's a thought experiment called Solipsism (wiki article here) that basically says that the only mind that you can be sure to know exists is your own mind. Anything outside of your mind may not be real. So it's possible, under this epistemology, that I am the only one to exist and you are a figment of my imagination created by my brain to fill in gaps. So regardless of subjectivity or objectivity there's *currently* no truly definable way to determine if someone else, be it man or machine, is conscious. Except your brain is also outside of your mind and therefore is also questionable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWLabRat Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 But how can you have a mind without your brain? The mind is trapped within the brain. Destroy the brain, and by all known theories within science, your mind is destroyed as well. As has already been stated before, the mind is an emergent property of the brain and it's chemical and electrical processes. Without those processes there, the mind ceases to be. And sorry EdEarl, my comp won't bring up that article right now, so I'll have to wait to comment on that until I have a chance to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 But how can you have a mind without your brain? The mind is trapped within the brain. Destroy the brain, and by all known theories within science, your mind is destroyed as well. As has already been stated before, the mind is an emergent property of the brain and it's chemical and electrical processes. Without those processes there, the mind ceases to be. And sorry EdEarl, my comp won't bring up that article right now, so I'll have to wait to comment on that until I have a chance to read it. Pure science has no place making theories about the mind, at best you could say with a combination of science and philosophy.... destroy the brain..... If you're going to get your head around idealism (and solipsism) then you will have to forget what you think you know about the mind/body problem and try and understand what is meant by 'outside the mind' (although it is probably better serve by saying inside the mind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWLabRat Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Science is a process, not a religion. Therefore it is very much possible to approach Solipsism (or any philosophical thought) with a scientific mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Except your brain is also outside of your mind and therefore is also questionable. How do you know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Science is a process, not a religion. Therefore it is very much possible to approach Solipsism (or any philosophical thought) with a scientific mindset. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with religion. I think you're a little confused as to the order of things, philosophy lead to science and not the other way round. How do you know that? It's not meant to stand on it's own, it is a comment about solipsism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWLabRat Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Pure science has no place making theories about the mind, at best you could say with a combination of science and philosophy.... destroy the brain..... If you're going to get your head around idealism (and solipsism) then you will have to forget what you think you know about the mind/body problem and try and understand what is meant by 'outside the mind' (although it is probably better serve by saying inside the mind). I'm not sure what any of this has to do with religion. I think you're a little confused as to the order of things, philosophy lead to science and not the other way round. It's not meant to stand on it's own, it is a comment about solipsism What I meant by that was that science is not a set of beliefs but rather a process that seeks to further knowledge. Religion on the other hand is a set of beliefs without any scientific basis that seeks to spread it's individual view to others. So as I said before: Science is a process, not a religion. Anything can be approached scientifically and as such, so can solipsism. And actually, philosophy had it's roots in religious belief. So therefore, religion -> philosophy -> science. Philosophy really started getting underway when people wanted to move away from Homer, religion, and the pantheon. This lead the presocratics to start asking practical questions about the world and from there we get modern philosophy. So no, I'm not confused about the order of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 What I meant by that was that science is not a set of beliefs but rather a process that seeks to further knowledge. Religion on the other hand is a set of beliefs without any scientific basis that seeks to spread it's individual view to others. So as I said before: Science is a process, not a religion. Anything can be approached scientifically and as such, so can solipsism. And actually, philosophy had it's roots in religious belief. So therefore, religion -> philosophy -> science. Philosophy really started getting underway when people wanted to move away from Homer, religion, and the pantheon. This lead the presocratics to start asking practical questions about the world and from there we get modern philosophy. So no, I'm not confused about the order of things. By 'scientifically' do you mean - use of scientific method or something else more akin to reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pears Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Except your brain is also outside of your mind and therefore is also questionable. Science is a process, not a religion. Therefore it is very much possible to approach Solipsism (or any philosophical thought) with a scientific mindset. Villain is right. In solipsism all that can be truly known is our own mind (and by mind we mean only mental, conscious experiences). We infer objective reality through our conscious experience. We infer the brain as a part of objective reality because we can have a conscious experience of a brain (by seeing it when we dissect something). Science assumes objective reality and is thus based on the assumption that solipsism is false. Therefore I don't think one can approach solipsism scientifically but rather the other way round: we approach science based on the assumption that solipsism is fase. That's my understanding of things anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWLabRat Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 By 'scientifically' do you mean - use of scientific method or something else more akin to reason? In this context, scientifically is used to mean reason rather than the structured steps of the scientific method. The scientific method is the tool by which we validate various phenomena that occur. Villain is right. In solipsism all that can be truly known is our own mind (and by mind we mean only mental, conscious experiences). We infer objective reality through our conscious experience. We infer the brain as a part of objective reality because we can have a conscious experience of a brain (by seeing it when we dissect something). Science assumes objective reality and is thus based on the assumption that solipsism is false. Therefore I don't think one can approach solipsism scientifically but rather the other way round: we approach science based on the assumption that solipsism is fase. That's my understanding of things anyway. But even with solipsism, the mind has to come from something, it is not without form. And by the logic you state here, you are also saying that science has no claim to life either. For the same reasons that the mind cannot be measured, life is incapable of the same. However I disagree with this. Science has come to be able to define what is living and what is not. In the same manner that science has shown that life (as we currently know it) is incapable of existing outside a physical body, so to is it able to say that the mind is not present without the brain. Especially since if one were to completely remove the brain all vital signs would cease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pears Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 But even with solipsism, the mind has to come from something, it is not without form. Why? How could you know? And by the logic you state here, you are also saying that science has no claim to life either. For the same reasons that the mind cannot be measured, life is incapable of the same. However I disagree with this. Science has come to be able to define what is living and what is not. In the same manner that science has shown that life (as we currently know it) is incapable of existing outside a physical body, so to is it able to say that the mind is not present without the brain. Especially since if one were to completely remove the brain all vital signs would cease. I don't understand what you mean here about sceince has no claim to life. I agree that given our scientific understanding (which is based on an assumption of objective reality - including the objective reality of brains) that minds depend on physical brains. However in order to reach that conclusion I have had to accept that brains exist in an objective way. I have to assume that the things I experience are real. What if they're not? What if all I see (and that includes brains) is an illusion. If it's an illusion then all scientific knowledge is under question including the dependence of minds on brains. I happen to agree that minds like ours depend on brains based on scientific understanding but I cannot be certain of it without making the assumptions that brains exist. I can leave solipsism behind and step out into science but it's not science that leads me out of solipsism it's a philosophical assumption (and a bit of pragmatism perhaps) . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I'm not sure what any of this has to do with religion. I think you're a little confused as to the order of things, philosophy lead to science and not the other way round. It's not meant to stand on it's own, it is a comment about solipsism Yes, I understand, I still question how you can make that assertion, solipsism cannot be refuted or confirmed, it is not a testable way to describe the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWLabRat Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Why? How could you know? I don't understand what you mean here about sceince has no claim to life. I agree that given our scientific understanding (which is based on an assumption of objective reality - including the objective reality of brains) that minds depend on physical brains. However in order to reach that conclusion I have had to accept that brains exist in an objective way. I have to assume that the things I experience are real. What if they're not? What if all I see (and that includes brains) is an illusion. If it's an illusion then all scientific knowledge is under question including the dependence of minds on brains. I happen to agree that minds like ours depend on brains based on scientific understanding but I cannot be certain of it without making the assumptions that brains exist. I can leave solipsism behind and step out into science but it's not science that leads me out of solipsism it's a philosophical assumption (and a bit of pragmatism perhaps) . To say this is also to assume that all scientific discovery is based on assumptions that what we've learned so far is true. But the way that we can be certain that we do have our physical selves and that those physical selves are human with human brains is by a simple experiment. If I were to wake up in the morning and before looking around I think to myself "Hmm, Aaron, I think I'm a duck" and then I look down and see that I now have wings and webbed feet... Well, then you might be right that the physical world is nothing more than an illusion. If, however, I think the same thing and I still remain human and repeat this same step every morning and other people do the same thing then the result would be that the physical world is just as real and from that we can know, not assume, that what our mind perceives is based on what science has already shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 The objective reality as "seen" by our senses is all we have that can be confirmed, to suggest any other reality is dishonest at best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Yes, I understand, I still question how you can make that assertion, solipsism cannot be refuted or confirmed, it is not a testable way to describe the world. I didn't bring it up, I merely corrected what I thought was an incorrect understanding of Solipsism, I'm not asserting that it is the truth. I think it is however important for people to understand all possible worlds and by that I mean all possible metaphysical positions that could describe our 'reality'. It's not going to hinder your interaction of what 'reality' is, if you change your metaphysical perspective, it will however change your thought as to what ultimate reality is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 [Occam's] razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. For me, scientific observation and repeatability are a better explanation of things than otherwise; thus, I discard Solipsism for my view of the Universe. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I didn't bring it up, I merely corrected what I thought was an incorrect understanding of Solipsism, I'm not asserting that it is the truth. I think it is however important for people to understand all possible worlds and by that I mean all possible metaphysical positions that could describe our 'reality'. It's not going to hinder your interaction of what 'reality' is, if you change your metaphysical perspective, it will however change your thought as to what ultimate reality is. I am going to go with Ed on this one, what I think the universe is or want it to be is meaningless, if it cannot be empirically tested asserting it as reality is dishonest in my view... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 (edited) I am going to go with Ed on this one, what I think the universe is or want it to be is meaningless, if it cannot be empirically tested asserting it as reality is dishonest in my view... Your assertion that reality or what you think of as reality be testable is itself an non-empirically testable claim. There is no getting around it, so best get used to it. Edited October 18, 2013 by Villain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Your assertion that reality or what you think of as reality be testable is itself an non-empirically testable claim. There is no getting around it, so best get used to it. The reality I see is testable, I can perform experiment to confirm this and others can do the same experiments and reach the same conclusions. There is no getting around it so get used to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 The reality I see is testable, I can perform experiment to confirm this and others can do the same experiments and reach the same conclusions. There is no getting around it so get used to it... There is what you're calling reality, this world that we're engaging in, which is accessible for experimentation etc. regardless of the metaphysical truth. Through induction and falsification we can say things about it, we can say what is not the case and what might be the case, but we can't say whether this world, that we're interacting in, is all that there is (ultimate reality) or whether it is a product of something else. Since we (or at least me) are minds, the state in which we find ourselves and the medium through which we interact, we can be a product of this world arising from a physical entity, which produces this mind or the world itself could arise from our mind or it might be somewhere in between. You can certainly ignore the above but that doesn't make it any less real, it just means that you choosing to be ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pears Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 To say this is also to assume that all scientific discovery is based on assumptions that what we've learned so far is true. But the way that we can be certain that we do have our physical selves and that those physical selves are human with human brains is by a simple experiment. If I were to wake up in the morning and before looking around I think to myself "Hmm, Aaron, I think I'm a duck" and then I look down and see that I now have wings and webbed feet... Well, then you might be right that the physical world is nothing more than an illusion. If, however, I think the same thing and I still remain human and repeat this same step every morning and other people do the same thing then the result would be that the physical world is just as real and from that we can know, not assume, that what our mind perceives is based on what science has already shown. Why? You are saying that because the perception is persistent that means it's not an illusion but how do you logically come to that conclusion from that premise? For me, scientific observation and repeatability are a better explanation of things than otherwise; thus, I discard Solipsism for my view of the Universe. Yes. Me too. But "better explanation" is an opinion, it's not a logical necessity. The reality I see is testable, I can perform experiment to confirm this and others can do the same experiments and reach the same conclusions. There is no getting around it so get used to it... It's testable but the results of those experiments are perceived. If the perception is wrong then the testability is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 There is what you're calling reality, this world that we're engaging in, which is accessible for experimentation etc. regardless of the metaphysical truth. What is a metaphysical truth? Is it anything like "reveled truth" ? What standards do you apply to verify a meta physical truth, baseless assertions? Through induction and falsification we can say things about it, we can say what is not the case and what might be the case, but we can't say whether this world, that we're interacting in, is all that there is (ultimate reality) or whether it is a product of something else. To claim claim something as real with out demonstrable evidence is dishonest no matter how much mumbo jumbo you cloak it in... Since we (or at least me) are minds, the state in which we find ourselves and the medium through which we interact, we can be a product of this world arising from a physical entity, which produces this mind or the world itself could arise from our mind or it might be somewhere in between. We might arise from the Sugar Plum Fairy but to assert it with no empirical evidence is just baseless speculation... You can certainly ignore the above but that doesn't make it any less real, it just means that you choosing to be ignorant. I don't think my lack of knowledge about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is something that I need fear being ignorant of... Why? You are saying that because the perception is persistent that means it's not an illusion but how do you logically come to that conclusion from that premise? To me the main thing is that reality is testable and repeatable, metaphysical things cannot be verified in the real world if they are truly metaphysical... Yes. Me too. But "better explanation" is an opinion, it's not a logical necessity. I would challenge that, a better explanation is something that works, metaphysics contributes no workable knowledge... It's testable but the results of those experiments are perceived. If the perception is wrong then the test-ability is irrelevant. Yes but if it works.. it works... metaphysics makes no verifiable claims, only horse feathers... Sophism leads us nowhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now