Tables are aware now
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2015, 03:53 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2015 03:59 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 12:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 12:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I think this is like asking is respiration distinct from lungs. Why yes, yes it is. But there is a correspondence between respiration and lungs. Mental states correspond to particular brain states in the same way. And everyone's mapping function is individual.

I don't know if I find the analogy here to be a perfect fit. It's not entirely clear to me what distinction is being drawn here by folks, such as myself, that don't subscribe to some form of dualism when it comes to the mind.

Are there processes we'd label as mental processes, and other processes we'd label as brain processes? And if so would processes that involve consciousness and introspection clearly fall into the mental process category, and processes that involve unconscious deliberations fall into the brain process category.

Do all animals have mental states and brain states? Or just a handful of them?

"Dr. William B. Salt, MD, Gastroenterology:

Brain and mind are not the same. Your brain is part of the visible, tangible world of the body. Your mind is part of the invisible, transcendent world of thought, feeling, attitude, belief and imagination. The brain is the physical organ most associated with mind and consciousness, but the mind is not confined to the brain. The intelligence of your mind permeates every cell of your body, not just brain cells. Your mind has tremendous power over all bodily systems."

Many animals don't have brains, you know that simple thing right?

I fail to see how any argument is built here upon the experience of eating a strawberry being something that can't arise from the equations of physics... I guess just stating it is good enough for the guy. New age or whatever you want to call it, it's just decorative assumption.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
11-11-2015, 03:55 PM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 03:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "So vexing has the problem of consciousness proved that some of these thinkers have been driven to a hypothesis that sounds desperate, if not downright crazy. Perhaps, they say, mind is not limited to the brains of some animals. Perhaps it is ubiquitous, present in every bit of matter, all the way up to galaxies, all the way down to electrons and neutrinos, not excluding medium-size things like a glass of water or a potted plant. Moreover, it did not suddenly arise when some physical particles on a certain planet chanced to come into the right configuration; rather, there has been consciousness in the cosmos from the very beginning of time.

The doctrine that the stuff of the world is fundamentally mind-stuff goes by the name of panpsychism. A few decades ago, the American philosopher Thomas Nagel showed that it is an inescapable consequence of some quite reasonable premises. First, our brains consist of material particles. Second, these particles, in certain arrangements, produce subjective thoughts and feelings. Third, physical properties alone cannot account for subjectivity. (How could the ineffable experience of tasting a strawberry ever arise from the equations of physics?) Now, Nagel reasoned, the properties of a complex system like the brain don’t just pop into existence from nowhere; they must derive from the properties of that system’s ultimate constituents. Those ultimate constituents must therefore have subjective features themselves — features that, in the right combinations, add up to our inner thoughts and feelings. But the electrons, protons and neutrons making up our brains are no different from those making up the rest of the world. So the entire universe must consist of little bits of consciousness."


New Age Woo bullshit

Except of course, that some of them are prominent thinkers and philosophers, who are not really into new age anything, or spiritual inclinations, or even religious, and who primarily fit into the category of atheists, like the physicist Roger Penrose, and the philosophers Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers. It's a little harder to label them as dishonest charlatans.

Like you, they would perhaps share your mind brain distinctions, and their primary reasons for supporting their perspectives are for the sake of preserving these distinctions.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 03:57 PM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 03:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Many animals don't have brains, you know that simple thing right?

Sure.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 04:14 PM
Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 03:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 03:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "So vexing has the problem of consciousness proved that some of these thinkers have been driven to a hypothesis that sounds desperate, if not downright crazy. Perhaps, they say, mind is not limited to the brains of some animals. Perhaps it is ubiquitous, present in every bit of matter, all the way up to galaxies, all the way down to electrons and neutrinos, not excluding medium-size things like a glass of water or a potted plant. Moreover, it did not suddenly arise when some physical particles on a certain planet chanced to come into the right configuration; rather, there has been consciousness in the cosmos from the very beginning of time.

The doctrine that the stuff of the world is fundamentally mind-stuff goes by the name of panpsychism. A few decades ago, the American philosopher Thomas Nagel showed that it is an inescapable consequence of some quite reasonable premises. First, our brains consist of material particles. Second, these particles, in certain arrangements, produce subjective thoughts and feelings. Third, physical properties alone cannot account for subjectivity. (How could the ineffable experience of tasting a strawberry ever arise from the equations of physics?) Now, Nagel reasoned, the properties of a complex system like the brain don’t just pop into existence from nowhere; they must derive from the properties of that system’s ultimate constituents. Those ultimate constituents must therefore have subjective features themselves — features that, in the right combinations, add up to our inner thoughts and feelings. But the electrons, protons and neutrons making up our brains are no different from those making up the rest of the world. So the entire universe must consist of little bits of consciousness."


New Age Woo bullshit

Except of course, that some of them are prominent thinkers and philosophers, who are not really into new age anything, or spiritual inclinations, or even religious, and who primarily fit into the category of atheists, like the physicist Roger Penrose, and the philosophers Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers. It's a little harder to label them as dishonest charlatans.

Like you, they would perhaps share your mind brain distinctions, and their primary reasons for supporting their perspectives are for the sake of preserving these distinctions.

New age woo is still new age woo. The universe is not conscious. Nor does it have "pockets of consciousness." It does have some sentient and conscious beings that occupy it.

And at what point did I label them as "dishonest charlatans?" Or are you trying to stuff your assumptions into my posts...again?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
11-11-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 10:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Does a person suffering psychosis, or mania, tend to understand their thought process better than the psychiatrist diagnosing them? "

A psychotic person not understanding what is going on in their brain, does not mean professionals know their thoughts or can read their minds. Once again, mental health and brain health professionals knowing how brains function, how brain chemistry functions, and knowing about mental processing, does not mean they know a person's thoughts better than they do. (this is why therapy isn't about having your therapist tell you what you're thinking and is instead, the reverse.)

What they can know is why some particular thoughts have risen in a particular person’s head, like a person beliefs that his been chosen by God, being a result of their manic state, even when the individual is in denial of this being the case.

The same goes for the observation of bias, cognitive dissonance, scapegoating, and a variety of other forms of self-deception.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 04:54 PM
Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 04:38 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 10:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Does a person suffering psychosis, or mania, tend to understand their thought process better than the psychiatrist diagnosing them? "

A psychotic person not understanding what is going on in their brain, does not mean professionals know their thoughts or can read their minds. Once again, mental health and brain health professionals knowing how brains function, how brain chemistry functions, and knowing about mental processing, does not mean they know a person's thoughts better than they do. (this is why therapy isn't about having your therapist tell you what you're thinking and is instead, the reverse.)

What they can know is why some particular thoughts have risen in a particular person’s head, like a person beliefs that his been chosen by God, being a result of their manic state, even when the individual is in denial of this being the case.

The same goes for the observation of bias, cognitive dissonance, scapegoating, and a variety of other forms of self-deception.

Bullshit.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 10:41 PM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 12:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 12:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Brains and minds are not the same thing.
Are you over-simplifying some concept that might actually make sense?

Are they physically different?

Would you say that brains and minds have distinct functions, distinct processes, in which we could draw a line between mental states and brain states? I don't think so, but it appears you do?

Minds don't have functions - they are not physical objects. You need to look up "emergent properties".

An oversimple metaphor is that brains are hardware and minds are software.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
11-11-2015, 10:45 PM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 12:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 12:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I think this is like asking is respiration distinct from lungs. Why yes, yes it is. But there is a correspondence between respiration and lungs. Mental states correspond to particular brain states in the same way. And everyone's mapping function is individual.

I don't know if I find the analogy here to be a perfect fit. It's not entirely clear to me what distinction is being drawn here by folks, such as myself, that don't subscribe to some form of dualism when it comes to the mind.

Are there processes we'd label as mental processes, and other processes we'd label as brain processes? And if so would processes that involve consciousness and introspection clearly fall into the mental process category, and processes that involve unconscious deliberations fall into the brain process category.

Do all animals have mental states and brain states? Or just a handful of them?

"Dr. William B. Salt, MD, Gastroenterology:

Brain and mind are not the same. Your brain is part of the visible, tangible world of the body. Your mind is part of the invisible, transcendent world of thought, feeling, attitude, belief and imagination. The brain is the physical organ most associated with mind and consciousness, but the mind is not confined to the brain. The intelligence of your mind permeates every cell of your body, not just brain cells. Your mind has tremendous power over all bodily systems."

And I am to give much weight to a gastroenterologist's view of the issue?

You are too confused about this to ask very meaningful questions because you don't pay any attention to the answers already given.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-11-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: Tables are aware now
(11-11-2015 10:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 12:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't know if I find the analogy here to be a perfect fit. It's not entirely clear to me what distinction is being drawn here by folks, such as myself, that don't subscribe to some form of dualism when it comes to the mind.

Are there processes we'd label as mental processes, and other processes we'd label as brain processes? And if so would processes that involve consciousness and introspection clearly fall into the mental process category, and processes that involve unconscious deliberations fall into the brain process category.

Do all animals have mental states and brain states? Or just a handful of them?

"Dr. William B. Salt, MD, Gastroenterology:

Brain and mind are not the same. Your brain is part of the visible, tangible world of the body. Your mind is part of the invisible, transcendent world of thought, feeling, attitude, belief and imagination. The brain is the physical organ most associated with mind and consciousness, but the mind is not confined to the brain. The intelligence of your mind permeates every cell of your body, not just brain cells. Your mind has tremendous power over all bodily systems."

And I am to give much weight to a gastroenterologist's view of the issue?

You are too confused about this to ask very meaningful questions because you don't pay any attention to the answers already given.

I just threw his quote out out there, not because I agree with it, because I don’t, but rather because he's likely to agree with you. That a mind is not a physical object, etc...

In a way while his distinction are likely wrong, they at least seem coherent. Because when he draws a distinction between the brain and mind, he is implying a literal distinction, when he claims that mind is not-physical, he means it.

You also seem to mean it literally, rather than using it is a convenient metaphor. But you’re not a dualist, perhaps not even a property dualist. So the distinctions you try to draw are not entirely coherent to me.

Quote:Minds don't have functions - they are not physical objects. You need to look up "emergent properties".

An oversimple metaphor is that brains are hardware and minds are software.

Maybe we should deconstruct this metaphor. Would you say anything we can refer to as software is a part of the mind? Blinking, nervous ticks, picking my nose, a dogs bark, which we could say are all coordinated through a series of metaphorical software, a part of the mind?

Do all living animals with brains have minds? Do we have animals with minds but without brains, such as in cases of animals without brains, but for which a variety of software is still in place allowing for it’s basic functions and movements?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: Tables are aware now
(12-11-2015 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 10:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  And I am to give much weight to a gastroenterologist's view of the issue?

You are too confused about this to ask very meaningful questions because you don't pay any attention to the answers already given.

I just threw his quote out out there, not because I agree with it, because I don’t, but rather because he's likely to agree with you. That a mind is not a physical object, etc...

In a way while his distinction are likely wrong, they at least seem coherent. Because when he draws a distinction between the brain and mind, he is implying a literal distinction, when he claims that mind is not-physical, he means it.

You also seem to mean it literally, rather than using it is a convenient metaphor. But you’re not a dualist, perhaps not even a property dualist. So the distinctions you try to draw are not entirely coherent to me.

I am not a dualist of any stripe. Dualism is incoherent; there can be no mind without a brain.

Quote:
Quote:Minds don't have functions - they are not physical objects. You need to look up "emergent properties".

An oversimple metaphor is that brains are hardware and minds are software.

Maybe we should deconstruct this metaphor. Would you say anything we can refer to as software is a part of the mind? Blinking, nervous ticks, picking my nose, a dogs bark, which we could say are all coordinated through a series of metaphorical software, a part of the mind?

Most biological functions do not require a mind at all, they are wired in; thay are part of the hardware.

Quote:Do all living animals with brains have minds?

We don't know, but my opinion is that most brains do not host minds.

Quote:Do we have animals with minds but without brains, such as in cases of animals without brains,

Why do you assume they have minds? There is no evidence for that and all available evidence denies that assumption. Minds require brains.

Quote:but for which a variety of software is still in place allowing for it’s basic functions and movements?

There is no software without some hardware. No brain - no mind.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: