Do minds exist?

[fromderinside]

Oh come on. Do you have experiments relating to how gravity interacts with stuff like atmosphere with the falling ball? If the ball were replaced with a feather things would look quite different. Certainly you have something other than argument to demonstrate mind. No? All you have is self testimony.

As I said, to make an argument demonstrates a mind, but this was to show that we don't need to explain something to know it exists. All we need is evidence of existence.

No explanation for why the brain changes opportunistically with conditions in the evolution mosh pit yet there is this organizing thing mind that remains through it all.

The brain changes and vision remains through it all. The fish sees and so does the human.

Unless mind fits with other theory relating to it it isn't much of a theory is it.

Mind is experienced directly. The existence is not in question and no theory is needed to say it exists.

Its like "Mine" just doesn't cut it when you aren't the biggest bully in the neighborhood.

Obviously some minds are not like mine. They doubt what is most apparent.

What is the itch that makes them scratch and claw and claim there is no mind? It seems they have some purpose.

But it is a purpose only a mind could give them.

You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence. You have self reporting which is phenomenon, a one off, not independently verifiable no matter how many persons report they have it.

It gets worse. You use purpose. The brain is causally wired. Its purpose is to report purpose. Mind in dumper.

The end.

 

[Juma]

As I said, to make an argument demonstrates a mind, but this was to show that we don't need to explain something to know it exists. All we need is evidence of existence.

No explanation for why the brain changes opportunistically with conditions in the evolution mosh pit yet there is this organizing thing mind that remains through it all.

The brain changes and vision remains through it all. The fish sees and so does the human.

Unless mind fits with other theory relating to it it isn't much of a theory is it.

Mind is experienced directly. The existence is not in question and no theory is needed to say it exists.

Its like "Mine" just doesn't cut it when you aren't the biggest bully in the neighborhood.

Obviously some minds are not like mine. They doubt what is most apparent.

What is the itch that makes them scratch and claw and claim there is no mind? It seems they have some purpose.

But it is a purpose only a mind could give them.

You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence. You have self reporting which is phenomenon, a one off, not independently verifiable no matter how many persons report they have it.

It gets worse. You use purpose. The brain is causally wired. Its purpose is to report purpose. Mind in dumper.

The end.

I have evidence that I think. The fact that I currentky cannot present this evidence to anyone else doesnt change the fact to me.

 

[untermensche]

As I said, to make an argument demonstrates a mind, but this was to show that we don't need to explain something to know it exists. All we need is evidence of existence.

No explanation for why the brain changes opportunistically with conditions in the evolution mosh pit yet there is this organizing thing mind that remains through it all.

The brain changes and vision remains through it all. The fish sees and so does the human.

Unless mind fits with other theory relating to it it isn't much of a theory is it.

Mind is experienced directly. The existence is not in question and no theory is needed to say it exists.

Its like "Mine" just doesn't cut it when you aren't the biggest bully in the neighborhood.

Obviously some minds are not like mine. They doubt what is most apparent.

What is the itch that makes them scratch and claw and claim there is no mind? It seems they have some purpose.

But it is a purpose only a mind could give them.

You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence. You have self reporting which is phenomenon, a one off, not independently verifiable no matter how many persons report they have it.

It gets worse. You use purpose. The brain is causally wired. Its purpose is to report purpose. Mind in dumper.

The end.

To you I have reporting.

To me I have evidence.

By the way the idea of "evidence" is a mental construct. Constructed by minds, existing only in minds.

 

[4321lynx]

As I said, to make an argument demonstrates a mind, but this was to show that we don't need to explain something to know it exists. All we need is evidence of existence.

No explanation for why the brain changes opportunistically with conditions in the evolution mosh pit yet there is this organizing thing mind that remains through it all.

The brain changes and vision remains through it all. The fish sees and so does the human.

Unless mind fits with other theory relating to it it isn't much of a theory is it.

Mind is experienced directly. The existence is not in question and no theory is needed to say it exists.

Its like "Mine" just doesn't cut it when you aren't the biggest bully in the neighborhood.

Obviously some minds are not like mine. They doubt what is most apparent.

What is the itch that makes them scratch and claw and claim there is no mind? It seems they have some purpose.

But it is a purpose only a mind could give them.

You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence. You have self reporting which is phenomenon, a one off, not independently verifiable no matter how many persons report they have it.

It gets worse. You use purpose. The brain is causally wired. Its purpose is to report purpose. Mind in dumper.

The end.

To you I have reporting.

To me I have evidence.

By the way the idea of "evidence" is a mental construct. Constructed by minds, existing only in minds.

And the mind is simply a construct of the brain, or a brain, and cannot exist where there is no brain. Right?

 

[Togo]

And the mind is simply a construct of the brain, or a brain, and cannot exist where there is no brain. Right?

Depends on how you define it.

 

[fromderinside]

And the mind is simply a construct of the brain, or a brain, and cannot exist where there is no brain. Right?

Depends on how you define it.

There you have it folks (Sorry Philos). Some want it all to come back to you.

Point of science is what is presented publicly can be repeated publicly by anyone giving the same result, within limits of measurement and instrumentation, every time. That's what is called evidence.

The fact that you report something that isn't observably tested just doesn't cut it. I don't care if everybody reports the apparent same thing.

Without public method, observation and test, other public manipulations can't be generated so whatever it is remains phenomenon.

Think about this one. You see Ice and snow. Others tell you they see ice and snow. They put some in your hand and you feel it as warm. Do you feel safe. You feel like taking a nap. Are you warm or are you dying?

 

[Togo]

Depends on how you define it.

There you have it folks (Sorry Philos). Some want it all to come back to you.

No, that's just ignorance.

The problem with saying the mind is in your head is that people don't keep everything in their head. They write it down, they leave cues and signs for themselves, they establish routines. So you have to work out how you classify a diary, a calendar, an appointments books, leaving your gloves out so you don't forget them in the morning, even social interactions with others. That's arguably thinking, or at least a support or adjunct to thinking, that isn't in the brain, may not even be biological. A suitably broad definition of mind might well include it.

Point of science is what is presented publicly can be repeated publicly by anyone giving the same result, within limits of measurement and instrumentation, every time. That's what is called evidence.

<shrug> You present rats with a visual reasoning test, and you'll get the same results fairly consistently. Do the same with people, you get the same results fairly consistently. Ask people to make decisions and then act on them, and you'll get a consistent result there too. fromderinside wants to label some of that evidence and some of that introspection, but it's a pretty arbitrary line. Evidence is any phenomenon that can be consistently measured. Subject responses and behaviour can be consistently measured, therefore they're evidence. Self reports aren't necessarily accurate reports of what is going on, any more than rate behaviour is an accurate predictor of where the food is located, but consistent observed and measured results of subjects under controlled conditions are evidence, even by his own definition.

When you get thousands of subjects from around the globe all reporting consistent internal experiences, that's evidence that something is prompting those reports. Any theory claiming to model human behaviour in general, needs to deal with that evidence in some fashion. Pretending it doesn't exist isn't sufficient.

 

[fromderinside]

There you have it folks (Sorry Philos). Some want it all to come back to you.

No, that's just ignorance.

The problem with saying the mind is in your head is that people don't keep everything in their head. They write it down, they leave cues and signs for themselves, they establish routines. So you have to work out how you classify a diary, a calendar, an appointments books, leaving your gloves out so you don't forget them in the morning, even social interactions with others. That's arguably thinking, or at least a support or adjunct to thinking, that isn't in the brain, may not even be biological. A suitably broad definition of mind might well include it.

Point of science is what is presented publicly can be repeated publicly by anyone giving the same result, within limits of measurement and instrumentation, every time. That's what is called evidence.

<shrug> You present rats with a visual reasoning test, and you'll get the same results fairly consistently. Do the same with people, you get the same results fairly consistently. Ask people to make decisions and then act on them, and you'll get a consistent result there too. fromderinside wants to label some of that evidence and some of that introspection, but it's a pretty arbitrary line. Evidence is any phenomenon that can be consistently measured. Subject responses and behaviour can be consistently measured, therefore they're evidence. Self reports aren't necessarily accurate reports of what is going on, any more than rate behaviour is an accurate predictor of where the food is located, but consistent observed and measured results of subjects under controlled conditions are evidence, even by his own definition.

When you get thousands of subjects from around the globe all reporting consistent internal experiences, that's evidence that something is prompting those reports. Any theory claiming to model human behaviour in general, needs to deal with that evidence in some fashion. Pretending it doesn't exist isn't sufficient.

Sorry. Its just the rules.

If one correlates one can't make inferences to something definite. Simple, simple, simple.

Your example. Assume is going to be there when you get to the end, but cause has not yet been found. Today we model human behavior until the cows come home and we're have a speculation to be replaced by other speculations tomorrow when the cows will come home again where that speculation will be replaced by other speculations the next day until the cows come home.

All we have at the end is that cow come home each day. Some day, maybe someone will couple oxygen uptake in particular areas and we're have more fodder for speculations until we understand the areas better then we'll have more speculations, maybe a little more consistent until we discover some genetic variations, where we'll have more speculations .... How about we reduce the number of inter-neurons required. That might help for a time. Point is until we treat things consistently over the range of possibilities we'll be speculating. That's why cognitive whatever will take a couple dozen generations to become 'science'.

On sure. All those chaps, all scientists, doing their, in Bridgman's words 'damnedest to get it right', but the science has not yet arrived. Take your time. Have patience. Don't go for the brass ring yet.

 

[untermensche]

And the mind is simply a construct of the brain, or a brain, and cannot exist where there is no brain. Right?

Mind is a property of matter and may exist with a different configuration of matter beyond brains.

 

[4321lynx]

No, that's just ignorance.

The problem with saying the mind is in your head is that people don't keep everything in their head. They write it down, they leave cues and signs for themselves, they establish routines. So you have to work out how you classify a diary, a calendar, an appointments books, leaving your gloves out so you don't forget them in the morning, even social interactions with others. That's arguably thinking, or at least a support or adjunct to thinking, that isn't in the brain, may not even be biological. A suitably broad definition of mind might well include it.

Point of science is what is presented publicly can be repeated publicly by anyone giving the same result, within limits of measurement and instrumentation, every time. That's what is called evidence.

<shrug> You present rats with a visual reasoning test, and you'll get the same results fairly consistently. Do the same with people, you get the same results fairly consistently. Ask people to make decisions and then act on them, and you'll get a consistent result there too. fromderinside wants to label some of that evidence and some of that introspection, but it's a pretty arbitrary line. Evidence is any phenomenon that can be consistently measured. Subject responses and behaviour can be consistently measured, therefore they're evidence. Self reports aren't necessarily accurate reports of what is going on, any more than rate behaviour is an accurate predictor of where the food is located, but consistent observed and measured results of subjects under controlled conditions are evidence, even by his own definition.

When you get thousands of subjects from around the globe all reporting consistent internal experiences, that's evidence that something is prompting those reports. Any theory claiming to model human behaviour in general, needs to deal with that evidence in some fashion. Pretending it doesn't exist isn't sufficient.

Sorry. Its just the rules.

If one correlates one can't make inferences to something definite. Simple, simple, simple.

Your example. Assume is going to be there when you get to the end, but cause has not yet been found. Today we model human behavior until the cows come home and we're have a speculation to be replaced by other speculations tomorrow when the cows will come home again where that speculation will be replaced by other speculations the next day until the cows come home.

All we have at the end is that cow come home each day. Some day, maybe someone will couple oxygen uptake in particular areas and we're have more fodder for speculations until we understand the areas better then we'll have more speculations, maybe a little more consistent until we discover some genetic variations, where we'll have more speculations .... How about we reduce the number of inter-neurons required. That might help for a time. Point is until we treat things consistently over the range of possibilities we'll be speculating. That's why cognitive whatever will take a couple dozen generations to become 'science'.

On sure. All those chaps, all scientists, doing their, in Bridgman's words 'damnedest to get it right', but the science has not yet arrived. Take your time. Have patience. Don't go for the brass ring yet.

Yes. Do not despair. Plenty of time left for philosophers & Co to play their word games and mind games before science gives the answers. This remains even if the Music of the Spheres has gone, proved to have been just a lot of balls.

 

[Togo]

No, that's just ignorance.

The problem with saying the mind is in your head is that people don't keep everything in their head. They write it down, they leave cues and signs for themselves, they establish routines. So you have to work out how you classify a diary, a calendar, an appointments books, leaving your gloves out so you don't forget them in the morning, even social interactions with others. That's arguably thinking, or at least a support or adjunct to thinking, that isn't in the brain, may not even be biological. A suitably broad definition of mind might well include it.

Point of science is what is presented publicly can be repeated publicly by anyone giving the same result, within limits of measurement and instrumentation, every time. That's what is called evidence.

<shrug> You present rats with a visual reasoning test, and you'll get the same results fairly consistently. Do the same with people, you get the same results fairly consistently. Ask people to make decisions and then act on them, and you'll get a consistent result there too. fromderinside wants to label some of that evidence and some of that introspection, but it's a pretty arbitrary line. Evidence is any phenomenon that can be consistently measured. Subject responses and behaviour can be consistently measured, therefore they're evidence. Self reports aren't necessarily accurate reports of what is going on, any more than rate behaviour is an accurate predictor of where the food is located, but consistent observed and measured results of subjects under controlled conditions are evidence, even by his own definition.

When you get thousands of subjects from around the globe all reporting consistent internal experiences, that's evidence that something is prompting those reports. Any theory claiming to model human behaviour in general, needs to deal with that evidence in some fashion. Pretending it doesn't exist isn't sufficient.

Sorry. Its just the rules.

Sorry, but it isn't. You're just repeating your own opinion as if it were the rules. It isn't. The fact is that there are a great many areas of endeavour that are recognised by scientists and educational establishments the world over as being science, that you don't think should qualify. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but don't kid yourself that it's anything more than that.

Yes. Do not despair. Plenty of time left for philosophers & Co to play their word games and mind games before science gives the answers.

fromderinside isn't talking about philosophy, he's talking about cognitive, perceptual and clinical science. He belongs to a radical ideological within the behavioural sciences which thinks that the bulk of the scientific and experimental work done, and most forms of behavioural science outside their own specialism, doesn't qualify as science and thus should be disregarded.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Evidence is any phenomenon that can be consistently measured? No.

Evidence is whatever you experience subjectively which you believe is somehow indicative of something else, say something in the physical world or even possibly something about God or whatever. Sometimes you're right, maybe, sometines you're wrong, perhaps more often than you think. To re-define the notion of evidence to taylor it to whatever sciencists do when they do science and exclude whatever people do when they don't do science is territorial behaviour only one step removed from that of dogs, gangsters and dictators. Dealing with evidence is one fundamental process of the brain that our ancestors 200,000 years ago already possessed and they've reproduced and survived so we owe our existence to this simple fact. Failing to understand that is doing the idiot-savant routine, again and again and again. So sad.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

To have consciousness you need two things.

That which is conscious.

And that which it is conscious of.

A split must exist between the objects of consciousness and the thing which is conscious of them.

Just as the brain creates both the sensation of warmth and the sensation of vision it also creates that which is conscious and the things it is conscious of.

That is mind. The splitting of that which is conscious from the things it is conscious of.

It is both a process and something experienced.

And we don't have the slightest clue how the brain does it.

I'm not sure why you say there must be a split. There is arguably a difference in terms of what we experience between (a) being conscious and (b) the things we are conscious of, e.g. colours and ideas. However, I can conceive of these things as being one and the same thing. Compare to existence: we may have a rock and cat. Both exist and they are different from each other so we can make the distinction between existence and the fact that they exist. But maybe it's just our way of representing the situation. Maybe it's just our model that introduces a false distinction.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is there anything at all then?

What is it that you wouldn't be sceptical about that you wouldn't have any idea of save for your own mind?

Or is it that you don't have one? That may happen you know...

Also, when you say "we think", what's the "we" exactly that's doing all the hard thinking? Is that a subset of our neurons? The whole brain? Our bodies? The whole universe? Whichever, why any of these things should be said to exist at all as opposed to just one thing, say, reality, running smoothly as many processes as necessary to give us all this sweet illusion that there are a universe, galaxies, stars, people, your own body, and maybe your brain and a few neurons? If you can do away with the mind, surely you can do away with all the rest, except whatever exists which our hallucinatory minds could not conceivably start to fathom!!

Some minds do have very strange ideas...
EB

Well, I favour the idea that thinking is done by brain-body interaction.

Why stop at the body? That sounds arbitrary to me. It a choice of convenience. Let's study this little bit because we couldn't possibly study everything. As a practical course of action that's good but there's no good reason to elevate it to the statute of truth. In reality, whatever the brain does now is probably the result of what the universe did at its inception (if there was one). In theory, one could deduce one's state of mind from the state of the universe at its beginning which is to say that it is in actual fact the universe which is doing the thinking, not the little brain. At least if there is any determinism in reality.

I have to admit that I am not following your reasoning. Are you saying that if I do not believe in minds, I might as well believe in nothing? What so special about minds that skepticism towards them translates into skepticism about everything?

No, I'm saying that you haven't justified the idea that the mind is what the brain or the brain+body does. The assumption should be that potentially it's the whole of reality that is doing the thinking. Limiting yourself to brain+body is like looking for your keys around the lamppost because at least there is light there. It's a practical course of action and can say nothing about where the keys really are and therefore where you should be looking.
EB

 

[untermensche]

To have consciousness you need two things.

That which is conscious.

And that which it is conscious of.

A split must exist between the objects of consciousness and the thing which is conscious of them.

Just as the brain creates both the sensation of warmth and the sensation of vision it also creates that which is conscious and the things it is conscious of.

That is mind. The splitting of that which is conscious from the things it is conscious of.

It is both a process and something experienced.

And we don't have the slightest clue how the brain does it.

I'm not sure why you say there must be a split. There is arguably a difference in terms of what we experience between (a) being conscious and (b) the things we are conscious of, e.g. colours and ideas. However, I can conceive of these things as being one and the same thing. Compare to existence: we may have a rock and cat. Both exist and they are different from each other so we can make the distinction between existence and the fact that they exist. But maybe it's just our way of representing the situation. Maybe it's just our model that introduces a false distinction.
EB

It is a logical and unavoidable need.

If there is awareness then a split exists between the things possible to be aware of and that which is aware of them.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Personally I don't need to prove I have a mind because it just happens that I know my mind and I couldn't possibly do that if I had no mind. Well, at least it's how logic has it starting from the usual meaning of "know". You don't know my mind, and apparently nobody else does, and maybe you yourself have no mind, or in philosophical terminology, you are a zombie. Freaks me out somewhat but it's a bit like at the cinema, you know, I've secured a firm grip on my seat. I can't prove to a carrot I have a mind. I couldn't even prove to it I'm cooking it for my supper!
EB

I'm perfectly fine with saying that you know what you are thinking. But I don't see why you need a mind to know what you are thinking. You just need to know what you are thinking.

But then what is this "thinking" and what is this "to know"? Well, me I know because it just happens that I do. I know "thinking" whenever I'm thinking and I know "I know" whenever I know whatever it is I know. Or I least I certainly do now.. What I know then is precisely what I call "thinking" and what I call "I know". And of course, I can tell you with absolute authority that there's no such a thing as a brain or whatever else that I would also know whenever I know something. The thinking that I know is entirely devoid of any brain-like qualities, at least as they are specified by science. I know this because I know the thinking I do whenever I do it and this is what I call "thinking". No embiguity, no ifs, no buts. Equally, I call "my mind" whatever I know I am thinking now. Again, no margin for being mistaken here. By the way, that how one should understand Descartes' Cogito, so it's not as if it was all new to anybody.

That being said, I wouldn't say that the mind so defined is a material or physical thing. I certainly don't know that it is. I also don't know that it has causal powers. I just don't know those things. However, what I can say is that thinking is a real thing and that my mind is a real thing. If it's real, then it is a real thing. Maybe not like the heart but in fact I don't actually know that there is such a thing as my heart. Ok, I do believe I have one but I don't actually know I do. Unlike my mind or my thinking (whenever I'm thinking).

Maybe you're right, a brain is necessary for my mind to exist. But right now I definitely know my mind but I don't actually know I have a brain. So I know that my mind is a real thing but I don't know that there is such a thing as my heart. All I know is the idea I have of having a heart and the belief that I have a heart.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What we call our mind is the mental projection of "self" into a point (normally 2 inches behind the eyes).

!? Who does that, appart from you? I certainly don't and I doubt many people do.

Personally, I still have a mind even when I happen to not remember anything about myself, my name, my being a human being, my being French, my being wherever I happen to be. I have a mind when I dream. I may have a mind when I happen to appear unconscious to others.

People really have strange ideas!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

He talks of subjective report as material evidence.

In fact I didn't mention the word material once. What I said is that it is evidence.

Just on vocabulary:
The "subject reports" mentioned by Togo are material evidence. Somebody records what the subject says and the record is there for anybody to check who wants to. We can still listen to stuff recorded years and years ago. This is as material as any report of observation done in any science whatever. What is indeed subjective is what is reported in each individ-ual report. Only the subject can possibly (for now at least) vouch for the accuracy of it.

That being said, both are indeed evidence. The report is evidence for all (who have access to it), and what is reported is evidence for the subject only.

It is funny because if we were to follow FDI strictures then I could claim that there is no evidence in most sciences since as a matter of fact I couldn't possibly look at all of it. And I would fail to understand the significance to most of it. So, no, there's zero evidence in science.

I vote FDI as the Ayatollah of the day.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is pathetic.

As I already have said several times, humans are free to call any kind of change "evolution".

But biological evolution is not the same thing as rocks being pushed and squeezed and slowly worn away.

One only need be completely ignorant of biological evolution and the phenomena of life to think it is.

Or a pathetic poser.

When we come to understand fitness we'll see the relation between different forms of physical evolution. Until then, take it on faith, fitness, while complex, is every bit as this-causes-that as are every other type of physical evolution, including evolution of rocks.

Please don't take it as different in kind because it is not yet well understood or complex. That sort of taking has been a fools errand since man began to aggregate information. If a chain of related events are robustly physically connected as a process that process will be ultimately described in physical terms of cause and effect.

Poser.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Unless mind fits with other theory relating to it it isn't much of a theory is it.

Mind is experienced directly. The existence is not in question and no theory is needed to say it exists.

You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence! You don't have evidence. You have self reporting which is phenomenon, a one off, not independently verifiable no matter how many persons report they have it.

What is it you don't understand in the sentence "Mind is experienced directly"?!

It says simply that the experience of one's mind is evidence of itself. There is evidence.

Let me add that untermensche's report that he has a mind is material evidence too: I can copy-paste it, duplicate it, make it viral on the Web for billions of people to consider and make up their own mind as to whether there is indeed such a thing as untermensche's mind.

People know their own mind as it is evidence of itself but they have to take other people's word that they have one too. Still, it is a fact that given they know they have their own mind it's no brainer to accept that other people do as well. There's not much difference between what people do here and what one scientist does when he accepts what other scientists say on the basis that he too can check the evidence. There's a complete parallel. It is as justified to believe other people have a mind (maybe not those who insist they don't have one) as it is for scientists to accept the work of other scientists. The point here, in case you missed it, as I should well expect, is that no scientist can be certain that other scientists have the same evidence as himself. All objective evidence has to go through someone's subjective experience. If I don't read the objective report I will have no idea what it says and it won't be evidence to me.



Now, let me congratulate you as I can see that your mind did evolve on some specifics. It took some time but you did it. Bravo! You can boast you are evolving faster than rocks do. I’m proud of you, boy!
EB