In another thread QED and I were discussing IGUSes (information gathering & utilizing systems: a term that physicist James Hartle articulated), and there's one issue I'd like to hear back from materialists of the mind. Where is the mind? By that I mean let's suppose that humans can only "see" atoms and sub-atomic particles (e.g., electrons). That's all that we can see. Now, using this illustration, please tell me in conceptual terms where the mind is. For example, if we look at a computer, we can see the operating system as atoms in energized states on what we normally see as a disk drive. We see how atoms are energized, how electrons flow, etc., upon the booting up of that computer, and we see why the computer works at an atomic level. However what we don't see--can never see--is anything but atoms and sub-atomic particles being shifted about inside the machine. So, I think we can quite naturally conclude that the computer has no internal state that is "non-atomic" in nature. That is, the computer has no awareness of itself, and no feelings, etc. (i.e., qualia).
So, being that we humans have this subjective inner state, I'd like to hear how materialists and identity theorists of mind (i.e., mind=brain) can conceptually account for the mind solely in terms of atomic and sub-atomic particles. Where is it among the stew of particles?
Where is the Mind?
Moderator: Moderators
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Where is the Mind?
Post #1People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
Post #11
Platy,
Your own words state the problem. If the mind is a subjective concept with no material counterpart, what exactly is the mind, and where exactly is it? It's obviously not the material parts themselves, and obviously not the empty spaces between the material parts. In a material world it must be 'something' and 'somewhere', otherwise it has no physical reality whatsoever, and therefore no survival value. That which has no physical reality itself obviously has no intrinsic power to effect physical change within the brain, and thus has no power to direct the body's physical response to its environment. You admit the mind does exist, so where is it and what is it?No, of course you can't "see" the mind. What we call the "mind" is merely our outward perspective of the brain's collective functions working in unison. The mind, therefore, is a subjective concept with no material counterpart.
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #12
Just to reiterate the comparison with a computer. We never have to acknowledge software per se. Software can be completely described as atomic phenomena. However, with this picture we can dispense with the computer having mental images. The computer doesn't have mental images. The images we see as a result of running software is only for human benefit. The computer doesn't see any images anymore than a lathe machine sees a piece of metal or wood. Since the mind "sees" images, as Charles said, the materialist ought to give an account as to where the mind is--physically speaking.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
Post #13
charles51
The mind is contained within the brain, it is a "gestalt" of all the chemical and electrical activity of the neurons. Take the neurons away one at a time and the mind will slowly disappear at the same rate.
Harvey1
Comparing a computer to the brain is on the same scale as comparing an automatic light switch(on/off) to a computer. The light switch has a function it can carry out unaided, but the computer can do much more.
When computers have 100 trillion "switches" I think we will be talking to another conciousness compareable to(though different than) our own(ala Turing). Given the exponential advances in computer power we have the possibility of seeing that within our lifetimes(though it will be a headache to program, maybe we can get it to program itself, like the "evolution" of electronic thinking).
Grumpy
The mind is contained within the brain, it is a "gestalt" of all the chemical and electrical activity of the neurons. Take the neurons away one at a time and the mind will slowly disappear at the same rate.
Harvey1
Comparing a computer to the brain is on the same scale as comparing an automatic light switch(on/off) to a computer. The light switch has a function it can carry out unaided, but the computer can do much more.
When computers have 100 trillion "switches" I think we will be talking to another conciousness compareable to(though different than) our own(ala Turing). Given the exponential advances in computer power we have the possibility of seeing that within our lifetimes(though it will be a headache to program, maybe we can get it to program itself, like the "evolution" of electronic thinking).
Grumpy
Post #14
Grumpy,
A reality doesn't exist just because we assign it a word. What exactly is this "gestalt" you're referring to? If the mind is not any of the atomic particles themselves, how can the mind be a collection of those very same particles? Physically speaking, a 'collection' is but the sum if its individual members.The mind is contained within the brain, it is a "gestalt" of all the chemical and electrical activity of the neurons. Take the neurons away one at a time and the mind will slowly disappear at the same rate.
Post #15
Grumpy,
Chemical and electrical activity is, physically speaking, the motion of atomic particles in space. If the particles themselves aren’t conscious, and the spaces between the particles aren’t conscious, how can particles and their spaces combined be conscious?
In other words, a chemical and electrical ‘activity’ is a series of changes in the configuration of particles over time. At any given slice of time, that activity consists of a particular configuration of particles in space. Because the previous configurations are-no-longer, and the future configurations are-not-yet, only the presently existing configuration can materially account for the mind’s reality. But if the mind is not the particles themselves or the spaces between them, how is the mind explicable as a chemical and electrical activity?
Chemical and electrical activity is, physically speaking, the motion of atomic particles in space. If the particles themselves aren’t conscious, and the spaces between the particles aren’t conscious, how can particles and their spaces combined be conscious?
In other words, a chemical and electrical ‘activity’ is a series of changes in the configuration of particles over time. At any given slice of time, that activity consists of a particular configuration of particles in space. Because the previous configurations are-no-longer, and the future configurations are-not-yet, only the presently existing configuration can materially account for the mind’s reality. But if the mind is not the particles themselves or the spaces between them, how is the mind explicable as a chemical and electrical activity?
Post #16
Might there not be an element of Hubris in our thinking here? We only have our own personal experience of consciousness to call on - not even our nearest and dearests! We have gotten used to assuming that other people experience what we do, and some of us extend this to animals. I see no good reason not to extend this even further and consider insects as well albeit imagining a gradient of consciousness all the way down (not hard to imagine after a heavy night out!). Why should we assume that a computer is totally devoid of this property?
We can always work our way up form the ground floor as well. Harvey and I have contemplated this before. Natural selection has oriented living organisms towards sensory interactions that seem to have resulted in the very first primitive nervous systems. The survival potential of being able to sense and react to the environment is one of the most fundamental I can image and would, for example, entail organisms feeling pain in an effective manner (i.e. one that is in some way highly arresting within the operation of the organism). This process must have been taking place in very simple (by our standards) organisms, yet I would argue that the "feelings" elicited should be no less profound. Operationally this would seem to be essential.
From this I therefore conclude that consciousness is what it feels like to be an operational algorithm handling a vast array of inputs and outputs. Furthermore I am happy to extend this to any other system dealing with I/O - right down to relays and thermostats - only by degree. On this scale such mere mechanics might be 100 trillion times less conscious than we... but conscious all the same.
We can always work our way up form the ground floor as well. Harvey and I have contemplated this before. Natural selection has oriented living organisms towards sensory interactions that seem to have resulted in the very first primitive nervous systems. The survival potential of being able to sense and react to the environment is one of the most fundamental I can image and would, for example, entail organisms feeling pain in an effective manner (i.e. one that is in some way highly arresting within the operation of the organism). This process must have been taking place in very simple (by our standards) organisms, yet I would argue that the "feelings" elicited should be no less profound. Operationally this would seem to be essential.
From this I therefore conclude that consciousness is what it feels like to be an operational algorithm handling a vast array of inputs and outputs. Furthermore I am happy to extend this to any other system dealing with I/O - right down to relays and thermostats - only by degree. On this scale such mere mechanics might be 100 trillion times less conscious than we... but conscious all the same.
Post #17
QED,
You're presuming that a biological organism needs to 'feel something' in order to survive. Why is that? I can readily imagine a certain input of sensory electrical impulses eliciting a certain physiological response in the brain that, in turn, causes the organism to respond physically in a way to avoid danger. Why must the organism consciously experience anything at all? It's the electrical impulses and the brain's physical circuitry that does all the work. Consciousness would appear to be a mere redundancy, itself serving no survival value.
You're presuming that a biological organism needs to 'feel something' in order to survive. Why is that? I can readily imagine a certain input of sensory electrical impulses eliciting a certain physiological response in the brain that, in turn, causes the organism to respond physically in a way to avoid danger. Why must the organism consciously experience anything at all? It's the electrical impulses and the brain's physical circuitry that does all the work. Consciousness would appear to be a mere redundancy, itself serving no survival value.
Post #18
Obviously it does provide survival value as it has (and is continuing to)evolve.charles51 wrote:QED,
Consciousness would appear to be a mere redundancy, itself serving no survival value.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post #19
charles51
Gestalt is a description of a whole systems attributes, working together to form a single conciousness(in the case of the brain.
Consider this:
1. If we have one "switch" we have two possible outcomes(yes/no)
2. if we have two, then there are 4 possible positions or outcomes. The increase is exponential.
3. If we have 100 trillion switches the number of possible outcomes is astronomical.
Of course neurons have many more possible positions than the two available to a switch. And the chemical reactions inside the brain just multiply the possible combinations by several thousands. So we are rapidly approaching numbers comparable to the stars in the universe. And then we add the fact that the brain is massively parallel(many things going on at once) it becomes more complicated still. Then add in the sensing abilities... Well, you should be getting an idea of why we are aware.
Considering what we have been able to get a few gigs of our computers to do, what would they be capable of with a few trillion gigs. Multiply that times a few billion times and you would be approaching the complication of a small mammals brains. Of course the brain has developed these abilities over 800 million years(since the first one celled creature began being able to sense and respond to environmental factors).
Grumpy
The mind IS the electrical and chemical ACTIVITY. It is the direct result of the extreme number of synapsis firings, chemical memories and the structure of the brain. Just as computer programs become more capable as the number of lines of code increase, the mind grows more aware as the numbers of synaptic firings and chemical "imprints" it has increases. Of course this is a simplified description of a very complex system.But if the mind is not the particles themselves or the spaces between them, how is the mind explicable as a chemical and electrical activity?
Gestalt is a description of a whole systems attributes, working together to form a single conciousness(in the case of the brain.
Consider this:
1. If we have one "switch" we have two possible outcomes(yes/no)
2. if we have two, then there are 4 possible positions or outcomes. The increase is exponential.
3. If we have 100 trillion switches the number of possible outcomes is astronomical.
Of course neurons have many more possible positions than the two available to a switch. And the chemical reactions inside the brain just multiply the possible combinations by several thousands. So we are rapidly approaching numbers comparable to the stars in the universe. And then we add the fact that the brain is massively parallel(many things going on at once) it becomes more complicated still. Then add in the sensing abilities... Well, you should be getting an idea of why we are aware.
Considering what we have been able to get a few gigs of our computers to do, what would they be capable of with a few trillion gigs. Multiply that times a few billion times and you would be approaching the complication of a small mammals brains. Of course the brain has developed these abilities over 800 million years(since the first one celled creature began being able to sense and respond to environmental factors).
Grumpy
Post #20
Grumpy,
Is this a position you wish to argue?
Your statement, if taken seriously, means that the "mind" and the brain’s "electrical and chemical activity" are logically equivalent and therefore are exactly identical realities. To describe one is to describe the other.The mind IS the electrical and chemical ACTIVITY.
Is this a position you wish to argue?
