Do minds exist?

[untermensche]

People don't just have minds. They don't just have have bodies.

They also have personalities, which are reflections and evidence of a distinct mind.

 

[Juma]

Let me put it like this:
Assume that someone managed to create a aware robot Knurd from software.

If you wanted to know how Knurd worked, would you ask Knurd or check the software/aske the constructor?

This is going far afield. This thread is only about the existence of a mind, not how a mind is generated which is a huge technical puzzle.

If we had software that could create a mind then of course we would have a mind. A mind would exist.

So you didnt understand the example...
The example shows that what we experience is in no way good representation of what it really is.

But the fact that a mind exists has nothing to do with software.

A mind exists because it can be experienced. It is impossible to have the experience of things that don't exist. End of argument.

So that is your definition if mind? What we experience? Or that fact that we have experiences?

Previously you defined it as that that experiences.

Seems not a good definition.

 

[untermensche]

This is going far afield. This thread is only about the existence of a mind, not how a mind is generated which is a huge technical puzzle.

If we had software that could create a mind then of course we would have a mind. A mind would exist.

So you didnt understand the example...
The example shows that what we experience is in no way good representation of what it really is.

I don't think so.

What is gravity, really?

Is it the experience, the expression, or the cause of the experience/expression?

It is both.

What is a mind? Is it the ability to experience or that which generates the ability to experience?

It too is both. But the experience is apparent while the generation of the ability to have experience is a technical issue.

But the fact that a mind exists has nothing to do with software.

A mind exists because it can be experienced. It is impossible to have the experience of things that don't exist. End of argument.

So that is your definition if mind? What we experience? Or that fact that we have experiences?

Previously you defined it as that that experiences.

Seems not a good definition.

I think your criticism is valid.

What is needed is a little rephrasing and clarification. I have been sloppy.

To start; If there is experience then there is that which experiences and that which is experienced. This is a basic truism.

To me the mind is that which experiences.

So to rephrase, A mind exists because there is experience. It is not possible for something that does not exist to experience.

 

[fromderinside]

...Even the discussion of subjective mind is pointless. Anything that can universally be fooled into knowing a rod is passing through a window cannot be trusted for anything....

Descartes dispelled this a long time ago.

Even if every thought, sensation, perception, experience is a lie.

The mind is still that thing being lied to.

Apparently I should have completed the thought. " ..... cannot be trusted for anything .... or, such is a fiction. Most argue such is not required because the brain has capacity to produce such outputs using deterministic processes. I see it as a fiction to justify a human arrogance.

 

[none]

no doubt, .... what is the experience you are having with a mind?
plus your double speaking again, and dodging

Try to deal with this part.

It is impossible to have the experience of something that does not exist. If one experiences a mind, it exists.

Try to refute that.

I experience you doing perversion
Tell me your experience of a mind

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are talking about the concept of the objective mind, i.e. the kind of mind that can be studied by scientists. UM is talking about something else altogether which is the mind as what we experience subjectively. It's just a sorry fact that we came to use the same word for these two very different things. This is of course because we tend to believe that the two things are closely related and that maybe one is caused by the other or some such. Something we've failed to prove so far. Personally, I have no problem with the exitence of either. The only real problem is the realation that they may have and you could say that they obviously have. We can easily unroll explanations as to the objective mind, for example how it's a process of the brain and so on. We can't provide any explanation for the existence of the mind as what we subjectivey experience but UM is right, we don't need any explanation because we know it exists because we experience it. Maybe it will be explained but it isn't yet. All that UM can do is report his experience. You're free to not believe what he says but it's indeed childish to insist that he himself doesn't know what he is talking about. You don't know does not imply he doesn't.
EB

Even the discussion of subjective mind is pointless.

Nobody is forced to take part and, beside, please let people decide for themselves what is or isn't pointless.

Anything that can universally be fooled into knowing a rod is passing through a window cannot be trusted for anything. If there is purpose and I believe there is none it cannot be proved.

Yes, the question of subjective experience as a function of the brain is seriously mysterious. Personally, I lean towards no function at all but I still accept I might be mistaken..

On the the other hand an objective mind built by a verification laden method has utility even in the moment. First such will warn you that the rod is not passing through the window so you need not fear the world will slip away in the next moment.

You don't even need to stick any method in there. Objective minds are useful, period. Science and method are results, almost by-products of the usefullness of the objective mind.

Really the debate is at an end. The subjective mind has already been shown to be working after the fact much further than would an objective mind. Even calling it a mind rather than an articulated recent memory is wasted breath.

It's certainly shorter and saving breath to say "mind" rather than say "articulated recent memory", not to speak of the fact that nobody would understand what the hell you're talking about.

Rather than dress something up in fancy reasoning which can't be falsified we should let ourselves act without reservation or reason. Save reason for tackling problems of meaning for living. Not fanciful things is there truth, rather concrete material things like is there a preferred action.

I don't believe people can do anything else that what you recommend. It's just that they may disagree with you about what is useful to do.

If you want people to do what you think is best you should start by thinking in terms of the kind of societies we live in. Don't spend so much time discussing philosophical issue and get organised. I think somebody theorised just that. He was named Karl Marx. The end of philosophy and change the world, that kind of things. Know how to go about it to get a more pleasing result?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Descartes dispelled this a long time ago.

Even if every thought, sensation, perception, experience is a lie.

The mind is still that thing being lied to.

Is it? Isnt the mind the thing that lies?

If the mind lies to itself then it is still something, it exists.

Wait a minute! The mind does lie to itself! Ergo, it exists.

Descartes would have liked that very much!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is going far afield. This thread is only about the existence of a mind, not how a mind is generated which is a huge technical puzzle.

If we had software that could create a mind then of course we would have a mind. A mind would exist.

So you didnt understand the example...
The example shows that what we experience is in no way good representation of what it really is.

I don't remember Descartes trying to argue that what he called the mind was a good representation of the material world, assuming that it really is. I think he meant it the other way round. Don't you?

Anyway, clearly, his point was that what he called "the mind" really is. Since he meant whatever seems to be on the moment then necessarily that kind of mind is a very good representation of what really is, at this moment, and of nothing else. So, if there's something else that really is then the mind may not be a good representation of it. Still, if that's all you have then you'll do like everybody else and use your mind to try and guess what may be whatever really exist beside the mind, if anything.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Rather than dress something up in fancy reasoning which can't be falsified we should let ourselves act without reservation or reason. Save reason for tackling problems of meaning for living. Not fanciful things is there truth, rather concrete material things like is there a preferred action.

I don't believe people can do anything else that what you recommend. It's just that they may disagree with you about what is useful to do.

If you want people to do what you think is best you should start by thinking in terms of the kind of societies we live in. Don't spend so much time discussing philosophical issue and get organised. I think somebody theorised just that. He was named Karl Marx. The end of philosophy and change the world, that kind of things. Know how to go about it to get a more pleasing result?
EB

There you go.

For instance I think what is best is for one to start thinking in terms of the kind of in which they are immersed. Begin right away by testing stuff that comes up that is different from what one does. Of course that would mean you would have to have some understanding of what you do which is another good starting point. Several have theorized this way like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow who were all about getting a more pleasing result.

FDI

 

[bilby]

Is it? Isnt the mind the thing that lies?

If the mind lies to itself then it is still something, it exists.

Wait a minute! The mind does lie to itself! Ergo, it exists.

Descartes would have liked that very much!
EB

I think, therefore I am wrong.

 

[Juma]

no doubt, .... what is the experience you are having with a mind?
plus your double speaking again, and dodging

Try to deal with this part.

It is impossible to have the experience of something that does not exist. If one experiences a mind, it exists.

Try to refute that.

Something exists, you call that existing thing "mind". Then what?

 

[fromderinside]

Try to deal with this part.

It is impossible to have the experience of something that does not exist. If one experiences a mind, it exists.

Try to refute that.

Something exists, you call that existing thing "mind". Then what?

They study it with invented levels of abstraction rules. woo woo

 

[untermensche]

Try to deal with this part.

It is impossible to have the experience of something that does not exist. If one experiences a mind, it exists.

Try to refute that.

Something exists, you call that existing thing "mind". Then what?

I think everybody calls it a "mind". Everybody that has one and understands English at least.

And yes it is a human label, like "gravity" or "tree".

Then what?

If we want to look at it scientifically then we must start with easy, or at least easier, questions.

First perhaps science may understand the mind of a bee, then it might move up to harder questions. But it is nowhere near understanding the mind of a bee.

 

[fromderinside]

Something exists, you call that existing thing "mind". Then what?

I think everybody calls it a "mind". Everybody that has one and understands English at least.

And yes it is a human label, like "gravity" or "tree".

Then what?

If we want to look at it scientifically then we must start with easy, or at least easier, questions.

First perhaps science may understand the mind of a bee, then it might move up to harder questions. But it is nowhere near understanding the mind of a bee.

Why not try to find a mind in a machine first since they are made by man with principles and data man understands, can be inventoried, checked for wear, assembled and disassembled, changed etc? After all the best man can do is produce them based on what he understands. Finding no mind in machines one might think the investigator would reconsider believing first there is mind then doing something about it. Rather One might reasonably predict one would try to disassemble, check wear, assemble, inventory, change, what the brain and nervous systems is presumed to do and come up with real data about what is the machine, the brain and nervous system with sense, effect, response and action. Mind might need never come up.

Don't really care about man in the street here. Just considering what inquisitive men might do. I guess rather be emphasizing ass sitting and exchanging impressions rather than emphasizing doing and measuring. But, like GW said "being serious is hard work so I'm going to go with what my friends tell me."

 

[untermensche]

If a mind can't be found in a machine then the machine is missing something because the mind is the given.

 

[George S]

If a mind can't be found in a machine then the machine is missing something because the mind is the given.

Having done a bit of study in AI, it will be a mind when a machine says something like this: I know that I who am called Atad {Named after Data 'backwards." -- Atad} have a model of myself in my memory. I can plan my movements with no outside inputs. Do I have free will? Can I say that I am? Or is that reserved for gods "I AM". Your complexity is due to unconscious biology. Mine due to engineers.

When a robot is that self aware, I'll say he has a mind. How many steps until some robot becomes a self-willed machine, like the biological machines called "people."

 

[untermensche]

If a mind can't be found in a machine then the machine is missing something because the mind is the given.

Having done a bit of study in AI, it will be a mind when a machine says something like this: I know that I who am called Atad {Named after Data 'backwards." -- Atad} have a model of myself in my memory. I can plan my movements with no outside inputs. Do I have free will? Can I say that I am? Or is that reserved for gods "I AM". Your complexity is due to unconscious biology. Mine due to engineers.

When a robot is that self aware, I'll say he has a mind. How many steps until some robot becomes a self-willed machine, like the biological machines called "people."

I don't agree that we have a mind when we have a machine that mimics human language capacity.

 

[bilby]

If a mind can't be found in a machine then the machine is missing something because the mind is the given.

Having done a bit of study in AI, it will be a mind when a machine says something like this: I know that I who am called Atad {Named after Data 'backwards." -- Atad} have a model of myself in my memory. I can plan my movements with no outside inputs. Do I have free will? Can I say that I am? Or is that reserved for gods "I AM". Your complexity is due to unconscious biology. Mine due to engineers.

When a robot is that self aware, I'll say he has a mind. How many steps until some robot becomes a self-willed machine, like the biological machines called "people."

I can make a tape recorder say "I know that I who am called Atad have a model of myself in my memory. I can plan my movements with no outside inputs. Do I have free will? Can I say that I am? Or is that reserved for gods "I AM". Your complexity is due to unconscious biology. Mine due to engineers."

That's hardly a viable test for self-awareness.

 

[George S]

Having done a bit of study in AI, it will be a mind when a machine says something like this: I know that I who am called Atad {Named after Data 'backwards." -- Atad} have a model of myself in my memory. I can plan my movements with no outside inputs. Do I have free will? Can I say that I am? Or is that reserved for gods "I AM". Your complexity is due to unconscious biology. Mine due to engineers.

When a robot is that self aware, I'll say he has a mind. How many steps until some robot becomes a self-willed machine, like the biological machines called "people."

I can make a tape recorder say "I know that I who am called Atad have a model of myself in my memory. I can plan my movements with no outside inputs. Do I have free will? Can I say that I am? Or is that reserved for gods "I AM". Your complexity is due to unconscious biology. Mine due to engineers."

That's hardly a viable test for self-awareness.

Among other things, y'know. Like interactive conversation. Acting and reacting like the fictional robots Data, Daneel, Giskard, and the Blue Adept's wife (described as a self-willed machine.)

If there were such a thing as a humanoid robot what would we use as a template. I dunno, how about making it seem human. Able to pretend to be human in all regards. Able to program itself as we do when we learn complex behaviors such learning a dance and then don't think about it while dancing, instead, concentrating on being dancing with this partner right now. Self-programming includes a judgement call, of course. Cost benefit analysis. Costly to whom and who benefits when I make the reasons unconscious and merely react, instinct-like, in the moment. How shall a self-willed machine decide? If they are motivated to replicate they could surely dominate us without built-in respect for human life. If they are motivated to survive -- they like being alive -- they could be potentially immortal; and have no motive to replicate. Motivated to self-defense, but not domination.

 

[bilby]

I can make a tape recorder say "I know that I who am called Atad have a model of myself in my memory. I can plan my movements with no outside inputs. Do I have free will? Can I say that I am? Or is that reserved for gods "I AM". Your complexity is due to unconscious biology. Mine due to engineers."

That's hardly a viable test for self-awareness.

Among other things, y'know. Like interactive conversation. Acting and reacting like the fictional robots Data, Daneel, Giskard, and the Blue Adept's wife (described as a self-willed machine.)

If there were such a thing as a humanoid robot what would we use as a template. I dunno, how about making it seem human. Able to pretend to be human in all regards. Able to program itself as we do when we learn complex behaviors such learning a dance and then don't think about it while dancing, instead, concentrating on being dancing with this partner right now. Self-programming includes a judgement call, of course. Cost benefit analysis. Costly to whom and who benefits when I make the reasons unconscious and merely react, instinct-like, in the moment. How shall a self-willed machine decide? If they are motivated to replicate they could surely dominate us without built-in respect for human life. If they are motivated to survive -- they like being alive -- they could be potentially immortal; and have no motive to replicate. Motivated to self-defense, but not domination.

Sure, that's all lovely and poetic; But it doesn't help with the question at hand - how to tell when a machine is self-aware.

If a machine is indistinguishable from a human in both appearance and behaviour, then that would be a pretty strong indication that they have achieved the goal; but presumably the goal could be achieved by machines that look like machines - so how do we tell if that has happened?

Why does a self aware machine need to be a robot? Surely it is just as reasonable for a bank of servers in a datacentre somewhere to become self-aware? If it did, how would we tell?

How do you know that I am not just such a machine?