What do you mean by philosophy?

[ajb]

I also defined philosophy as the study of what we can know and how we can know it, which is an entirely different point.

Of what we can know or what we do know? Or is part of philosophy an attempt to get some grasp on all that we can know?

 

If you are looking for an explanation of what we "can know", that is easy. We are limited by what we already know; and therefore, what we can ask. Example: We can not answer the question, "What is 5x5?" until we can ask the question, "What is 5x5?", and we can not ask the question until we understand numbers and one-to-one association and basic math. Gaining knowledge is incremental, so this alone limits what we can know.

While it is true that the next step is always based on something that is already known, I am not sure that this is gives a limit. At best we have incremental steps, but not a fundamental limit. (I am ignoring any physical limit on the information in the Universe)

 

 

You ask the most outrageous questions. Is this a natural talent, or did you have to take a class for this? (chuckle) (Don't tell me it was a philosophy class.) So do you want to know why systems exist? Or why they exist as they do? Or if they actually exist? Are we assuming that there is one reason for all systems to exist? Are we assuming that different types of systems exist for the same reason? That they exist to accomplish the same goal? So the circulatory system and nervous system in our bodies, an ecosystem, and the solar system have the same cause? There are too many questions within your question for it to be valid and answerable. Some people seem to work at asking questions that have no point -- I am not one of those people.

 

These the questions that people in metaphysics ask, while of course not really answering them.

 

In physics and indeed mathematics, we would be worried about the properties of systems, how to classify them and maybe use them, rather then why they have these properties. Well, if someone does ask 'why', they usually mean 'how' in the sense of deriving the properties from some starting place.

 

 

Electrical signals in the brain does not explain "mind", except in that Frankenstein movie.

You mean we do not have such an understanding. Okay, but is this a fundamental thing or just that we have not yet understood it?

 

You are emergent from what "very complex system" -- your brain? your body? the universe? There is no valid theory of consciousness that fully explains mind.

My mind is an emergent collective phenomena of the brain; or this seems to be the best explanation. Of course this is not a proper theory. Again, as there is not yet a valid theory of consciousness does not mean that in principal one cannot find one.

 

You stated that something that is "real" is something that is measurable. I consider something "real" if it can cause an effect, so by my understanding, your mind is real.

Measurable and course effect are more-or-less the same thing. I would just choose to carefully measure the effect. My mind is as real as any emergent phenomena, it is the effect of many smaller simple systems (neurons etc) working together to produce some amazing collective phenomena. I do not disagree with you entirely here, but my mind is not independent of my brain. That is the key point.

 

 

I considered these people to be teachers/professors, professors in training, or writers. Did I miss something?

Some will be teaching, well a good deal of them will have teaching duties. The point is that they will be producing philosophy papers and that is a large part of there profession. Let all academics in universities, teaching is only part of it.

[Gees]

Ajb;

 

You are proving to be an interesting person in this discussion, probably because we do not agree on very much, but it is interesting. Please consider my following responses.

 

Of what we can know or what we do know?

 

Both. Of course, we try to learn what we can, but we often have to go back and challenge what we think we know. Sometimes what we "know" is not based on knowledge; it is based in assumption, opinion, or even bias. My prior post in this thread that explains unintentional bias is a good example.

 

Or is part of philosophy an attempt to get some grasp on all that we can know?

 

I don't see how this is possible. How would we find the limit? Wouldn't it be like trying to fill an invisible jar with water? How would you know when it reached "all" that it could hold? When the water spilled over? So following this line of thinking, we would know that we have reached "all that we can know" when we go crackers and lose our minds. Not very practical.

 

Am I misunderstanding your meaning? Or we could go the reductionist route and say that all of reality is energy and that is all that we can know. But this is also not very practical, as it is no help at all with daily problems, happiness, finding food, and living life.

 

While it is true that the next step is always based on something that is already known, I am not sure that this is gives a limit. At best we have incremental steps, but not a fundamental limit. (I am ignoring any physical limit on the information in the Universe)

The fundamental limit is the ability to ask a valid question. Have you ever worked really hard to learn something, and after enjoying your success for a short time, you realize that you now have questions that had not occurred to you before? This is because every answer that we get simply prompts more questions.

 

Somewhere in the Bible, it states, "Ask and you shall receive." I don't remember the context, but I always thought that it would be truer if it stated, "Don't ask and you will get nothing." It is my opinion that it is the nature of reality and life to be assertive.

 

There is knowledge that comes to us without a conscious query; such as, instinct, prophecies, prophetic dreams, intuition, talent, and ESP, to name a few. But all of these come to us through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind and are very difficult to distinguish from imagination, opinion, dreams, bias, or even corrupted memories, to name a few. So until this information is sifted through the rational aspect of mind and queried, we can not call it knowledge because we can not know that it is true knowledge.

These the questions that people in metaphysics ask, while of course not really answering them.

 

I am sorry, but I did not believe that for even one minute. Too many of the questions were designed to be invalid and unanswerable. That list of questions looked like something that a person, who teaches metaphysics, would put together to impress upon students the difficulty of studying metaphysics. It did not look like anything that a real philosopher would actually use to guide his/her philosophical considerations.

 

Now if you want to believe that there are intelligent people, who will go out of their way to create unanswerable questions, then will spend the rest of their lives passionately trying to answer those same question, then you can believe that. You can also believe that I have a brother, who lives in Arizona, and owns acres of swampland that he is willing to sell. And I can get it for you at a good price.

 

What I found "enlightening" was the perception of what metaphysics is -- FLUFF.

In physics and indeed mathematics, we would be worried about the properties of systems, how to classify them and maybe use them, rather then why they have these properties. Well, if someone does ask 'why', they usually mean 'how' in the sense of deriving the properties from some starting place.

So in physics, the question of why systems exist would be changed to how can we use or manipulate the systems that do exist.

 

In metaphysics, the question of why systems exist would be answered. All of reality and consciousness is based upon motion. There are three possibilities with respect to motion; either it stops, in which case reality and consciousness would cease to exist; or it continues to move, but is not stable, so it would cancel itself out and cease to exist; or it is self balancing. It is my understanding that it is self balancing, so every movement creates a direction, which causes a reciprocal direction, which causes a pattern, which turns into a cycle, the cycles eventually becoming systems. So all of reality and consciousness are patterns within patterns, cycles within cycles, and systems within systems. This is why systems exist, by my understanding. So am I doing metaphysics?

You mean we do not have such an understanding. Okay, but is this a fundamental thing or just that we have not yet understood it?

No. I mean it is nonsense -- it is assumptions based on assumptions based on wishful thinking.

 

If you state that electronic signals that represent thought, which are found in the brain, equate to mind. Then you are stating that computers have minds. It is either true that electrical signals equal mind, or it is not true, but you don't get to play with it. The only thing that I can see is that the electrical signals equate to thought.

So is thought consciousness? No. (Review my earlier post to Swansont regarding how we measure consciousness.) Is thought mind? No, although I suspect that it is part of mind.

 

We know very little about mind, but there are some things we do know. Thanks to Freud and Jung, we have the divisions of mind, Ego, SuperEgo, and Id. The Ego is what we call the rational mind and is the part that is self directed, relates to our five senses, and helps us to navigate in the real world. The SuperEgo and Id are both sub/unconscious aspects of mind and are activated by emotion.

 

Emotion also seems to hold a great deal of power over mind. Emotional shock can kill a person, permanently separating them from consciousness and mind. Emotional trauma can split mind into minds as in Multiple Personality Disorder. Emotion can bond minds in familial bonds, bonds forged through trauma, and captor/victim bonds, and these can be life long bonds. Sometimes these bonds can be close enough to facilitate ESP. Emotion can also bond minds temporarily in situations where emotions run high as evidenced by the "riot mentality". So emotion may be instrumental in setting the parameters of mind.

 

This is one of the aspects that I hoped to discuss in the thread that I started on Emotion. So is the brain involved in this? Yes. The brain is swimming in chemicals and hormones, and these chemicals activate emotion and may be what sets the parameters of mind. It is well understood that many mental illnesses are actually chemical imbalances. But thought and emotion seem to be two separate things, so we can not say that it is thought that causes consciousness or mind.

 

My mind is an emergent collective phenomena of the brain; or this seems to be the best explanation. Of course this is not a proper theory. Again, as there is not yet a valid theory of consciousness does not mean that in principal one cannot find one.

If mind is chemical, then a brain may not be necessary for mind to exist. I suspect that a brain is necessary for consciousness as humans know it, or the ability to be aware that we are aware, but all life does not have a brain, and yet seems to have a sense of self.

 

Even plants seem to have a sense of self, so does that mean that they have an unconscious mind? Maybe, as they are aware of their environment. But they do not have a brain.

Measurable and course effect are more-or-less the same thing. I would just choose to carefully measure the effect. My mind is as real as any emergent phenomena, it is the effect of many smaller simple systems (neurons etc) working together to produce some amazing collective phenomena. I do not disagree with you entirely here, but my mind is not independent of my brain. That is the key point.

Maybe, but there seems to be a lot of evidence that is accumulating that suggests that your mind may indeed be independent of your brain.

 

Also consider that the sub/unconscious aspect of mind has no knowledge of time and space. That will get a person thinking. (chuckle)

Some will be teaching, well a good deal of them will have teaching duties. The point is that they will be producing philosophy papers and that is a large part of there profession. Let all academics in universities, teaching is only part of it.

 

I have been playing over at the Philosophy Now forum, and Philosophy Now is a magazine that publishes some of those philosophy papers produced by the Universities. Although there is occasionally a good one, many of them look a lot like "make work". I was not impressed and don't think there were many actual philosophers in the bunch. Mostly just people who study philosophy.

 

Gee

 

[ajb]

Am I misunderstanding your meaning?

To me, you seem to be suggesting that philosophy studies 'all we can know', while at the same time saying that it does not. Maybe there is just some minor misinterpretation here on my part.

 

 

Have you ever worked really hard to learn something, and after enjoying your success for a short time, you realize that you now have questions that had not occurred to you before? This is because every answer that we get simply prompts more questions.

This is part of my job description.

 

 

Now if you want to believe that there are intelligent people, who will go out of their way to create unanswerable questions, then will spend the rest of their lives passionately trying to answer those same question, then you can believe that.

This may be a phenomena due to popularisation; you present the big hard question to impress people. Now, can you give me a concrete question that philosophy concretely answers?

 

 

 

So in physics, the question of why systems exist would be changed to how can we use or manipulate the systems that do exist.

There is no answer to 'why', nature is just the way it is.

 

In metaphysics, the question of why systems exist would be answered.

Can you give an example and the reason it exists?

 

All of reality and consciousness is based upon motion.

Maybe entropy or something would be better here. But I understand you view, things 'change'.

 

There are three possibilities with respect to motion; either it stops, in which case reality and consciousness would cease to exist; or it continues to move, but is not stable, so it would cancel itself out and cease to exist; or it is self balancing. It is my understanding that it is self balancing, so every movement creates a direction, which causes a reciprocal direction, which causes a pattern, which turns into a cycle, the cycles eventually becoming systems. So all of reality and consciousness are patterns within patterns, cycles within cycles, and systems within systems. This is why systems exist, by my understanding.

But motion (at constant velocity) is relative. You cannot truly say anything stops. Thus I do not understand what you have said.

 

So am I doing metaphysics?

Well it is not physics.

 

No. I mean it is nonsense -- it is assumptions based on assumptions based on wishful thinking.

Your claim is that we can never have a theory of the mind and conciousness. You maybe right. Asking this question I would say is philosophy and an important question as it can guide future research. However, as stated, it is not really answerable. Maybe in the future we will find a real reason why we cannot have such a theory or maybe we will always be able to say 'one day'.

 

If you state that electronic signals that represent thought, which are found in the brain, equate to mind. Then you are stating that computers have minds. It is either true that electrical signals equal mind, or it is not true, but you don't get to play with it.

As I said, it is complex emergent phenomena. It is not as simple as saying an electrical signal is a mind.

 

Will computers ever gain 'minds'? I cannot answer that. However, in principal given what we do know today it is plausible. It may be possible to build a computer complex enough that we will have difficulty in deciding this.

 

If mind is chemical, then a brain may not be necessary for mind to exist.

Possibly, if one can create a complex machine that can mimic the brain...

 

I suspect that a brain is necessary for consciousness as humans know it, or the ability to be aware that we are aware, but all life does not have a brain, and yet seems to have a sense of self.

Maybe, but what are you basing this on?

 

I have been playing over at the Philosophy Now forum, and Philosophy Now is a magazine that publishes some of those philosophy papers produced by the Universities. Although there is occasionally a good one, many of them look a lot like "make work". I was not impressed and don't think there were many actual philosophers in the bunch. Mostly just people who study philosophy.

I was thinking more along the lines of the following

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophy_journals#Journals_in_English

[StringJunky]

...As I said, it is complex emergent phenomena. It is not as simple as saying an electrical signal is a mind.

Right, a tree is not a forest.

[Gees]

Swansont;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

It was your criterion.

Yes. But that sorta misses the point. Besides, van Gogh sold very few paintings in his lifetime. Not successful. That makes him "not an artist" by your assessment.

 

Yes. It was my criterion, but it certainly was not one of my better arguments. I was looking for a distinct difference between a hobby and a serious profession and couldn't find it. Since I studied tax law years ago, I knew that the IRS defined the difference, so I used their definition. But the IRS has a perspective and motivation that is more geared toward money than toward talent, so yes, it "sorta misses the point".

 

Success does not define an artist or a philosopher, and schooling does not make a person an artist or a philosopher, so I think we are back to talent and the desire to use that talent. I suspect that we are identified as artists or philosophers by other people.

 

Maybe the biggest difference between a hobby and a profession is that when talent is used as a hobby, it is for the pleasure of the person using it; but when it is used as a profession, it is to be shared.

Good thing I didn't say that, then.

 

No you didn't; on the other hand, "metaphysics" is the only thing that you did say in response to my question. So it is my thought that you divide science from philosophy by your interpretation of metaphysics.

 

Now I can understand the need to divide this site into forums and to break down the science forums into branches. One of the primary goals of this site seems to be to inform and teach about science, and it would be difficult for anyone to find information without the breakdown that has been established. It also makes sense that you would use many of the divisions already established by academia. What I don't remember is the branch of science called Consciousness, or maybe Consciousology.

 

One can argue that neurology studies consciousness, but I think that I have already established that they study only a portion of consciousness and only as it relates to the brain, so it is not really a study of conscious life or awareness. Philosophy has always studied consciousness, so if consciousness is under the venue of philosophy, it should never end up in a science speculations forum.

 

I want to thank you and Ajb for taking the time to explain metaphysics. Although I can not say that I have a full understanding of it, my understanding is much better. My last major attack of MS (Multiple Sclerosis) took a lot from me physically and mentally. It took years to learn to read again, and more years to get most of my vocabulary back, but I have great difficulty learning new terms. I can look up a definition 20 times, but if I did not know the word prior to 10 years ago, I can't seem to learn it. The understanding just bounces off a wall, or a scar, in my brain and won't go in, which is extremely frustrating for a person who used to learn so easily.

 

I have a better understanding of the problems that Moderators face and a better understanding of metaphysics, so this has been a good thread. If I have answered all of your questions, I think we are done.

 

Gee

[swansont]

 

No you didn't; on the other hand, "metaphysics" is the only thing that you did say in response to my question. So it is my thought that you divide science from philosophy by your interpretation of metaphysics.

 

You have to consider the context. One counterexample is all that is/was needed to rebut your claim.

[Gees]

Swansont;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

 

You have to consider the context. One counterexample is all that is/was needed to rebut your claim.

 

No. I don't think so. I queried you about what was left for philosophy to discuss, and you answered, "metaphysics". This was an answer, not a rebuttal. After spending some time thinking about it, I accepted your answer as it makes sense with what I have observed.

 

When a topic comes up, if you can answer the question, "What it is?", then it is a known and some branch of science probably studies it, so it would go in science or speculations. If you can not answer that question, then it would go in philosophy.

 

This is the reason that consciousness threads have been moved to speculations, because moderators thought that they knew what it was. I have seen this happen. In speculations the members will then hammer the thread with their ideas from neurology which are completely off topic, but no one seems to realize it. The last time I pointed this out in Speculations, you were offended by my remarks, and we ended up in a discussion about it, which was never resolved.

 

Because this forum is more science oriented than philosophy oriented, the question, "What it is?" is more easily answered when it comes to science. When it involves philosophy, it would take a philosopher to answer that question well, so this explains the other problems that I have noted at this site. Every topic that can't answer the question, "What it is?" is tossed into philosophy with no other distinctions.

 

The rules above the philosophy forum that seem to imply that philosophy and religion are both based in belief were written by a science person. This is why the philosophy forum has threads about my personal philosophy (belief) rather than about the academic view or discipline of philosophy. A philosopher would have less problems distinguishing between actual philosophy and personal philosophy (which belongs in the lounge).

 

This also explains my problems in the Supernatural thread. A member was trying to hijack my thread and turn it into a religious debate. I tried everything that I could think of to dissuade the take-over and finally even retracted my statements to try to prevent this. When nothing worked, I hit the report button, only to be told by the Moderator that I not only had to allow the take-over, I had to abet it. (I think my mind was screaming, "Bullshit!")

 

At the time, I wondered if the Moderator made that call because people do not take the supernatural seriously, or maybe it was personal. I wasn't sure. But now I wonder if the Moderator simply could not tell the difference between a philosophy thread and a religion thread, and so did not recognize it as hijacking. In view of the new information that I have garnered in this thread, I wonder if when asking the question, "What it is?", he simply did not know, so he did not see the problem.

 

So I think that metaphysics is how moderation designates the threads. I am calling your bluff.

 

Gee

[swansont]

No. I don't think so.

Well, then, you would be wrong. if you say that X never happens, all it takes is one instance of X to rebut the claim. That's basic logic, which, of course, is a subset of philosophy. So you have more than one instance to consider as a rebuttal.

 

I queried you about what was left for philosophy to discuss, and you answered, "metaphysics".

No, that's not the issue. You said "I still don't see any indication that you are able to discern a philosophy thread from a science thread". That's not a matter of 'what there is left to discuss.' If you haven't seen it it's because you haven't looked, which is hardly my fault, and makes your position anecdotal, so why should anyone care?

So I think that metaphysics is how moderation designates the threads. I am calling your bluff.

 

There is no bluff to call here. frankly, I stop reading as soon as you mention "consciousness threads" because AFAICT I have never moved one out of philosophy or participated in one at more than a cursory level, so whatever your complaint is, it does not involve me.

[Gees]

Ajb;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

To me, you seem to be suggesting that philosophy studies 'all we can know', while at the same time saying that it does not. Maybe there is just some minor misinterpretation here on my part.

 

I tried to explain this to you before; you can not ad lib my statements and then ask me what I mean by them. Since "all we can know" are your words, look to yourself for understanding and interpretation. I have no damned idea of what it means.

 

This may be a phenomena due to popularisation; you present the big hard question to impress people. Now, can you give me a concrete question that philosophy concretely answers?

 

What are we? Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings.

 

How can we be sure of the things we know? We would have to test, so let's invent science.

 

It is clear to me that you are trying to start a debate regarding the virtues of philosophy v the virtues of science. Since I am not formally trained in philosophy, I am not the best person to defend it, but you may want to consider that everything science knows started out being something that philosophy learned. Also consider that when philosophy finds something new, it is the testing of science that validates the new find, so people remember the validating and forget the philosopher. I have run across many threads in philosophy forums where credit for something is given to science, only to have someone prove that it was philosophy that uncovered it.

 

Philosophy and science are not in competition, except in very small minds.

 

There is no answer to 'why', nature is just the way it is.

Bullshit. You make it sound like nature is magic.

Can you give an example and the reason it exists?

Can you give me an idea of what you mean by "it"? Pronouns do not work well in a forum that does not have double quote insets. You have to actually state what you mean.

Maybe entropy or something would be better here. But I understand you view, things 'change'.

I think this is in reference to "motion". If it is, then you do not understand my view. Things can't 'change' unless they exist, and they can not exist unless there is motion. I am not yet sure that entropy even exists.

 

But motion (at constant velocity) is relative. You cannot truly say anything stops. Thus I do not understand what you have said.

What I have said is, "You can not truly say anything stops."

Well it is not physics.

Sarcasm helps almost as much as stating a negative. Thanks

Your claim is that we can never have a theory of the mind and conciousness. You maybe right. Asking this question I would say is philosophy and an important question as it can guide future research. However, as stated, it is not really answerable. Maybe in the future we will find a real reason why we cannot have such a theory or maybe we will always be able to say 'one day'.

No. You are misinterpreting or making things up. I never stated that we can not have a theory of mind and consciousness, because I think that we can. But we will not learn anything if we keep using assumption and wishful thinking as our guides. Looking for "mind" in the brain is as smart as looking for your friend in your cell phone after he calls. He may sound like he is there, but he is not -- wouldn't fit. (chuckle)

 

As I said, it is complex emergent phenomena. It is not as simple as saying an electrical signal is a mind.

Will computers ever gain 'minds'? I cannot answer that. However, in principal given what we do know today it is plausible. It may be possible to build a computer complex enough that we will have difficulty in deciding this.

Mind is complex emergent phenomena? Well, that is interesting. You have proof of this of course.

 

No. Computers will not "gain 'minds'". In order to have minds, they would have to have a sense of self, survival instincts, emotion, and a personality, to name but a few things. Haven't you ever watched the sci-fi thrillers where the computers try to take over the world?

Possibly, if one can create a complex machine that can mimic the brain...

We already have machines that can mimic the brain; we call them computers. Not one of them is as sentient as a daffodil.

Maybe, but what are you basing this on?

What is "this"? What are you referring to with this pronoun?

 

I was thinking more along the lines of the following

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophy_journals#Journals_in_English

Philosophy Now is on that list, and only comes out bi-monthly. So if there were only two "make work" articles in each Philosophy Now edition, that would be 12 a year. Considering how long your list is, it is possible that we have uncovered the reason for all of the hundreds of "make work" articles.

Gee

Swansont;

 

Please consider the following.

 

Well, then, you would be wrong. if you say that X never happens, all it takes is one instance of X to rebut the claim. That's basic logic, which, of course, is a subset of philosophy. So you have more than one instance to consider as a rebuttal.

No, that's not the issue. You said "I still don't see any indication that you are able to discern a philosophy thread from a science thread". That's not a matter of 'what there is left to discuss.' If you haven't seen it it's because you haven't looked, which is hardly my fault, and makes your position anecdotal, so why should anyone care?

 

There is no bluff to call here. frankly, I stop reading as soon as you mention "consciousness threads" because AFAICT I have never moved one out of philosophy or participated in one at more than a cursory level, so whatever your complaint is, it does not involve me.

 

If the above is what you think. Fine. You do not appear interested in changing your mind, and I certainly will not change my opinions without some reason to change them. So can we just agree to disagree?

 

If you have no more questions, are we done now?

 

Gee

 

[ajb]

What are we? Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings.

I have some idea what one could mean by 'physical', I am not so sure about mental and spiritual. Please define these terms.

 

 

Since I am not formally trained in philosophy, I am not the best person to defend it, but you may want to consider that everything science knows started out being something that philosophy learned. have someone prove that it was philosophy that uncovered it.

Thank you for being honest here. What you say here is true, however any questions that started out in philosophy that have found clear answers matured into scientific questions.

 

Bullshit. You make it sound like nature is magic.

Then please give me an example of some physical phenomena that you can clearly give a reason 'why' it is so?

 

Physics can give you explanations of 'how' using mathematical models.

 

Can you give me an idea of what you mean by "it"?

If you look at your statement that I quoted you should see that I am asking you for any question in metaphysics that has a clear answer. I doubt you will be able to find any.

 

I think this is in reference to "motion". If it is, then you do not understand my view. Things can't 'change' unless they exist, and they can not exist unless there is motion. I am not yet sure that entropy even exists.

Motion is relative and so I think this is far from a 'definition' of exist, but okay.

 

What I have said is, "You can not truly say anything stops."

Okay, this is true.

 

 

 

No. You are misinterpreting or making things up. I never stated that we can not have a theory of mind and consciousness, because I think that we can.

Okay, you have no made a clear statement. I misinterpreted what you said.

 

 

Mind is complex emergent phenomena? Well, that is interesting. You have proof of this of course.

I do not have a model of this. However, there is nothing else that we know of today that we can call upon to explain the mind. The best guess at the moment is that is is due to all the simple parts of ones brain coming together to be 'more than just the sum of the parts'. What else could it be? (Without invoking magic or religion)

 

No. Computers will not "gain 'minds'". In order to have minds, they would have to have a sense of self, survival instincts, emotion, and a personality, to name but a few things.

But what is there in principal stopping computers being complex and powerful enough that we conclude that they do have a mind by any definition we have?

 

The only limit I can see here is the physical one with materials, it may not be possible to build a silicon based machine that has a 'mind' (I speculate here). Yet it may be possible to use something else, maybe bio-organic or something.

 

We already have machines that can mimic the brain; we call them computers. Not one of them is as sentient as a daffodil.

I am not sure exactly how much one should say they mimic the brain, but okay. And so what is your point here? Today computers and not so advanced that we have to worry about the issues of artificial intelligence and the moral issues that may bring. But maybe one day we will have to face these issues; unless there is in principal some reason that we can never create such machines.

 

What is "this"? What are you referring to with this pronoun?

...brain is necessary for consciousness as humans know it...

 

 

 

Philosophy Now is on that list, and only comes out bi-monthly. So if there were only two "make work" articles in each Philosophy Now edition, that would be 12 a year. Considering how long your list is, it is possible that we have uncovered the reason for all of the hundreds of "make work" articles.

Philosophy Now is not a peer-review journal, but rather a popular magazine largely written by academics aimed at a more general audience. Anyway, do any of the articles in Philosophy Now clearly answers well posed questions?

[Strange]

but you may want to consider that everything science knows started out being something that philosophy learned.

 

Everything? Did philosophy learn of the quantization of energy before science knew about it? Did philosophy learn that gravity was the curvature of space-time before science determined this?

 

 

Mind is complex emergent phenomena? Well, that is interesting. You have proof of this of course.

 

No. Computers will not "gain 'minds'".

 

You have proof of this, of course?

[conway]

It is impossible to ask the questions posed, without first having philosophy. As it means "love of wisdom". Then if there is none of "this", then there is clearly none of "that." No man is a scientist with out first having a love of wisdom. We only nit pick about what is called useful "information".

[Strange]

It is impossible to ask the questions posed, without first having philosophy. As it means "love of wisdom".

 

That is an example of the etymological fallacy. (In other words, that is not what it means.)

Edited July 7, 2015 by Strange

[conway]

Mmmh, could be I wouldn't really know, or care. Philosophy to me.... does mean "love of wisdom". I find this to be true for most philosophers I have met. While scientist feel the same way, just not towards certain fields. While theologians feel the same way, just not towards certain fields. A philosopher however is attracted to all fields. In any case, the first European scientist were philosophers (by their own accounts), so science is clearly an evolution from this. While it may exist independently now.

Edited July 7, 2015 by conway

[Phi for All]

Mmmh, could be I wouldn't really know, or care. Philosophy to me.... does mean "love of wisdom". I find this to be true for most philosophers I have met. While scientist feel the same way, just not towards certain fields. While theologians feel the same way, just not towards certain fields. A philosopher however is attracted to all fields.

 

Except the ones they wouldn't really know, or care about.

 

Wait, are you a scientist, or a philosopher?

[Strange]

Mmmh, could be I wouldn't really know, or care. Philosophy to me.... does mean "love of wisdom".

 

You won't find that meaning in the dictionary though. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy

 

So using your own personal definition may lead to misunderstandings.

 

 

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

[conway]

Strange

 

I certainly concede to you, that it may be that I don't really know anything. Clearly I care. I am here posting. But admitting that in the end I do not know is the first rule of philosophy. So clearly I am a philosopher. One who doesn't really know, but cares. What I do "claim" to know is only an educated guess. Is this not also true of scientist. Albeit, their education tends to be much better, and more objective.

 

 

I like your humpy dumpty story very much. I agree with him as well. I can make words mean what I want, no more, no less. So long as information has been exchanged then I was successful. If however my word meanings do not successfully exchange information, well then...not helpful or useful.

Edited July 7, 2015 by conway

[Strange]

I certainly concede to you, that it may be that I don't really know anything.

 

Why would you say that?

 

But admitting that in the end I do not know is the first rule of philosophy.

 

Is it?

 

 

I can make words mean what I want, no more, no less.

 

Then banana are explosion to be trumpet.

(By which I mean, of course: Then you are condemned to be misunderstood.)

[swansont]

 

I like your humpy dumpty story very much. I agree with him as well.

 

You aren't supposed to agree with him. He was being absurd. (using the actual dictionary definition)

[Phi for All]

I like your humpy dumpty story very much. I agree with him as well. I can make words mean what I want, no more, no less. So long as information has been exchanged then I was successful. If however my word meanings do not successfully exchange information, well then...not helpful or useful.

 

You still don't seem to understand that the choice you've made, to place your own special meaning on words that nobody else will know until you explain it to them (while they explain their special definitions to you), isn't as good as the choice most people have made, to use standardized definitions so everybody is talking about the same thing. Order is usually better than chaos when it comes to communication and cooperation.

Then banana are explosion to be trumpet.

(By which I mean, of course: Then you are condemned to be misunderstood.)

 

That is NOT what that averages.

[swansont]

Sounds like E. Henry Thripshaw's disease.

"the thing about saying the wrong word is a] I don't notice it, and b] sometimes orange water given bucket of plaster."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pImWVCMgEYQ

[conway]

thread

 

Lol, don't get excited guys. Cleary past a certain point "making" up your own words is counter productive. Humpty Dumpty was not being absurd. To him "A nice knock down argument" was glory. There are many ways to actually define it. Further gentlemen and ladies, every word at one time was "made up". No word existed as a "fact" for definition until AFTER it already existed (maybe some exceptions few to be sure). So with in limits, "specifically" exchanging information, then making up words is fine. Sorry to have caused this to go off topic.

 

What I mean my philosophy is "love of wisdom". Regardless of how it is actually defined.

 

 

Strange

 

I "subconsciously" took your meaning just fine, when you stated "The bananas are explosion to be trumpet". That is the derogatoriness shone through just fine. Therefore information was clearly exchanged. Beside which making me laugh hysterically. +1 sir.

Edited July 7, 2015 by conway

[Strange]

So with in limits, "specifically" exchanging information, then making up words is fine.

 

If you make up your own meanings for words, then you will not be conveying information. Or at least, not the information you think you are. If you say to someone, "I am a philosopher" they will not think, "ah, yes, a lover of wisdom". They will assume you are one of those academics who worry about the meaning of "knowledge" or the nature of reality.

 

 

I "subconsciously" took your meaning just fine, when you stated "The bananas are explosion to be trumpet". That is the derogatoriness shone through just fine.

 

There is nothing derogatory about the statement "Then you are condemned to be misunderstood." Even though I used the word "explosion" to mean "condemned" and the word "trumpet" to mean "misunderstood", etc.

 

So it seems that by making up my own meanings for words I failed to clearly communicate what I meant. Which is not surprising.

[Gees]

Ajb;

 

I found some of your ideas well considered and enjoyed reading them, so please consider my following responses.

 

I have some idea what one could mean by 'physical', I am not so sure about mental and spiritual. Please define these terms.

 

The physical would be represented by the body.

The mental means that we have knowledge and thought and can process that thought.

The spiritual means that we have feelings and emotion and have knowledge of our feelings and emotions.

 

Thank you for being honest here. What you say here is true, however any questions that started out in philosophy that have found clear answers matured into scientific questions.

I certainly hope that I am being honest. If you note something that I state that does not seem honest, I hope you will call me on it. We are all very good at lying to ourselves, and I am no exception to that rule. (chuckle)

 

So what you are saying is that once a question is clearly answered, it becomes science, and is no longer relevant to philosophy. The problem that I see with this is that it assumes that philosophical questioning is no longer necessary, and it assumes that scientific questioning will be complete. A lot of assumption here.

 

This is what I was talking about in post # 8 where I explained that some people think that science is like an advanced philosophy making philosophy obsolete.

 

Remember when we talked about finding answers that just prompted more questions? Well after an answer is found, science will have more questions, but so will philosophy. Since the two disciplines think about a topic differently, it is important to have input from both disciplines.

 

Then please give me an example of some physical phenomena that you can clearly give a reason 'why' it is so?

Physics can give you explanations of 'how' using mathematical models.

Well, I am not sure what you are looking for here, but we were talking about nature not being magic, so maybe an idea that I have been working on recently will answer the "why" question to your satisfaction.

 

I read an article a few months back which stated that science had discovered that some grasses produce a chemical that makes them unpalatable to grazing species, and that the grass does this as a survival instinct to preserve itself. I have no doubt that the science is correct and the grass does produce this chemical, but I question the reason given -- the "why".

 

The fact is that this grass is attractive to grazing species and is tasty, for a while, then the chemical is produced that drives the grazing specie away. We are not talking about a survival instinct, because if we were, then the grass would taste bad from the beginning. What we are talking about is a cycle, the grass tastes good, attraction, then the grass tastes bad, repulsion. This attraction/repulsion, or ebb and flow, tells me that this is part of a cycle.

 

I study consciousness, which means that I also study conscious life. Obviously I can not slap consciousness on a lab table and measure and weigh it, so I study how it works. After decades of study, I have concluded that consciousness is a self-balancing chaos motivated by want in perpetual motion. If you examine an ecosystem, it looks like chaos with every specie seeming to try to eat or displace other species, yet none of them win, as the ecosystem is self balancing. You will also note that all of this activity is motivated by want, attraction and repulsion, and this motion is what perpetuates the ecosystem and conscious life. How does this self balancing work? It works through patterns, circles within circles, cycles within cycles, systems within systems, and all of it interconnected.

 

So if we look at the attraction and repulsion that has been noted in the grass, and keep in mind the above understanding of consciousness, we find that the grass exhibits behavior that names it as a part of a cycle. So what is the other part? That would be the cattle. So what does the cattle contribute to the grass and this cycle? There are lots of possibilities, it could be that the actual biting of the grass causes the roots to deepen, or it could be the ripping up of some plants causes open spaces for new growth, or it could be that heavy animals break up the surface root mass preventing the plants from becoming root bound. It could be that the urine deposited keeps the grass at a certain level of moisture, or it could be that the droppings fertilize the plants, or that some bacteria in the animal's droppings are necessary to the plant life. Or it could be some combination of the above, but whatever it is, something that the cattle has is necessary to the grass and must be taken in increments, as too much of it can also kill the grass. Whatever the grass needs from the cattle is delivered in the short time between attraction and repulsion.

 

While studying Ebola, another possible cycle that I have been considering, I ran across Desertification, which is a study of why good grass land becomes desert. In that article, the name, Allan Savory, came up, and he is an environmentalist, who is well respected, and who also thinks that herd cattle is necessary to a reclaiming of desert by grasslands. I did not read his ideas in detail, as I was looking at other things at the time, but apparently he believes that cattle is necessary to grasslands because cropping the grasses is necessary to flowering and new growth. His recommendation was to have enclosed pastures or fenced areas where the cattle is herded from one to the other, as nature intended.

 

This is much like what shepherds and sheepdogs do with sheep, moving them from pasture to pasture. But cattle moves because of the attraction and repulsion of the grass itself and because of prey animals that keep the herds on alert and moving. So it seems that getting rid of the herd animals may very well cause the grasslands to become desert.

 

This also explains why moving a specie from one ecosystem to another does not always work. Sometimes the moved specie will just die out, other times it will become a pest specie, which is because the other part(s) of its cycle are not there. So I think the "why" of nature is kind of important.

 

If you look at your statement that I quoted you should see that I am asking you for any question in metaphysics that has a clear answer. I doubt you will be able to find any.

Question: What is real? Answer: Anything that can cause an effect.

 

Motion is relative and so I think this is far from a 'definition' of exist, but okay.

But what if we looked at it the other way. We know that at its base, all is in motion, so what if that motion could stop? Would things still exist without that foundation of motion? My studies of consciousness imply that without motion, consciousness would stop existing. Does reality work the same way? Without motion, would reality cease to exist?

I do not have a model of this. However, there is nothing else that we know of today that we can call upon to explain the mind. The best guess at the moment is that is is due to all the simple parts of ones brain coming together to be 'more than just the sum of the parts'. What else could it be? (Without invoking magic or religion)

"More than just the sum of the parts" sounds a lot like a magic show where there is a stage, lights, a magician, and a hat, then the rabbit shows up to be more than the sum of the parts. (chuckle chuckle)

 

In order to find out "What else could it be?" you will have to go outside of the brain. It is much more likely that we are within consciousness, than it is that consciousness is within us. Or at best, it seems to be a split.

 

As far as religion goes, I can not accept their teachings because they are based in interpretations rather than evidence, but I am neither arrogant enough nor naive enough to believe that some of the greatest minds of the times over a period of tens of thousands of years, got it all wrong. Just dumb luck would have them right sometimes.

But what is there in principal stopping computers being complex and powerful enough that we conclude that they do have a mind by any definition we have?

 

The only limit I can see here is the physical one with materials, it may not be possible to build a silicon based machine that has a 'mind' (I speculate here). Yet it may be possible to use something else, maybe bio-organic or something.

I am not sure exactly how much one should say they mimic the brain, but okay. And so what is your point here? Today computers and not so advanced that we have to worry about the issues of artificial intelligence and the moral issues that may bring. But maybe one day we will have to face these issues; unless there is in principal some reason that we can never create such machines.

...brain is necessary for consciousness as humans know it...

I will try to answer these later today or tomorrow, as I am getting tired. Be patient.

Philosophy Now is not a peer-review journal, but rather a popular magazine largely written by academics aimed at a more general audience. Anyway, do any of the articles in Philosophy Now clearly answers well posed questions?

 

I am sure that they do. I think that you are selling Philosophy Now short as there is nothing wrong with trying to interest the everyday guy in philosophy. You have also moved off point. The point was that too many articles are written by people, who are not philosophers, but are students of philosophy.

 

Gee

[conway]

Strange

 

considering you can make up what you meant by your made up words, I concede. I would offer however....

 

if I say to someone......"I am a lover of wisdom." what do they then think? Probably this guys a weirdo, but some will think....this guys a philosopher.

 

while information is not efficiently exchanged, it serves its purposes....weeding out those who have no desire to engage in philosophy. Only a man who says..."this guy must be a philosopher"....will want to engage in philosophy.