Do minds exist?

[none]

the brain exists, we have empirical evidence
the mind, minds, and a mind seem to be your fantasy
they could exist under the right circumstances

We have experiential evidence of our minds and we can see the products of minds.

And so-called "empirical evidence" is evidence that subjective minds agree on.

All evidence is subjective. When a mind experiences a certain thing it calls that thing "evidence".

really? how do you know that? and:
what is your experience pf a mind, minds, and the mind?

 

[untermensche]

We have experiential evidence of our minds and we can see the products of minds.

And so-called "empirical evidence" is evidence that subjective minds agree on.

All evidence is subjective. When a mind experiences a certain thing it calls that thing "evidence".

really? how do you know that? and:
what is your experience pf a mind, minds, and the mind?

How do you not know this?

It is only observation. If you read a book or watch a play or look at a painting or sculpture you are directly experiencing the product of a human mind.

And my experience of a mind is limited to the experience of my mind.

I only assume that the minds of others are similar. The problem we have of course is that while minds may be similar due to their genetic construction they also differ due to the effects experience has on the mind.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Yes, you are.

You did get the start right, though. Sample all alternatives endings, you should find a better solution: I think, therefore x.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Better still: Let's build machines and then we let them do all the figuring out.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

How do you know you're not? Just ask Rachel who she is.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This conversation is reminding me of the concept of ghosts in Ghost in the Shell.

"Humans are self-aware and machines aren't."
"How do you know?"
"Because humans have ghosts, and machines don't."
"What is a ghost?"
"It's something that humans have and machines don't."

I'm a fan of Ghost in the Shell, but I always thought that ghosts were a mere tautology humans made up to convince ourselves that we are special. I like to think the author did that on purpose to point out how silly humans can be on this topic.

You're making a basic mistake here. The issue is not whether only human beings have a mind or whether machines don't or even can't have one. Instead, the issue is how do you go about knowing that humans and machines have or haven't a mind. I'm not convinced you have one and I certainly don't know you do. But I sure know I have one. Machines? I don't know but some Brutuses around here pretend to have solved the problem by flatly denying we have a mind. I don't know about you but I sure know myself that I have one. End of the discussion.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm skeptical about minds. As I see it...

We think, feel, and remember, but we do not have thoughts, feelings, or memories. We experience things, but do not have qualia. We perceive, but not have perceptions. There are no minds. There is no mental content.​

Can you change my "mind" about minds?

If we think, feel and remember then surely we must be thinking, feeling and remembering things. Just call those things "thoughts" and call the whole thing "mind". Nothing original of course, just your basic Descartes.

This doesn't entail that the mind is some sort of complex mechanism, or some spooky free-willed Being, or even anything that spreads itself over space and time at will.

The only interesting feature about it is that first I know it's true and second science seems to have nothing whatsoever to say about it, so far at least.

Which exercises some of you guys no end.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Better still: Let's build machines and then we let them do all the figuring out.
EB

Being done as we post.

 

[none]

really? how do you know that? and:
what is your experience pf a mind, minds, and the mind?

How do you not know this?

It is only observation. If you read a book or watch a play or look at a painting or sculpture you are directly experiencing the product of a human mind.

And my experience of a mind is limited to the experience of my mind.

I only assume that the minds of others are similar. The problem we have of course is that while minds may be similar due to their genetic construction they also differ due to the effects experience has on the mind.

so what is the experience (if it is an experience) that you experience?

 

[Kharakov]

It is only observation. If you read a book or watch a play or look at a painting or sculpture you are directly experiencing the product of a human mind.

And my experience of a mind is limited to the experience of my mind.

So.... would you say that you too experience the product of a human mind?

 

[fromderinside]

Does experiencing prove mind? Does observation? Why? What are the problems with either, each, one or the other? That we are back to the problem of inductive and deductive method is apparent. With one we cannot prove what we know. With the other we cannot prove that the method is correct. Of course neither of these proving need be singular.

Bringing me back to the happy land of "if it is not observable by all in the same way with the same consequences it is not evidence".

One can no more claim beyond oneself one knows than one can prove ghosts.

 

[rousseau]

People can't be 'self-aware', but they do have the capacity to be aware of things, such as properties of their self.

Just wanted to get that out of the way.

 

[rousseau]

I'd think the main differentiator between humans and other animals, is that refined language gives us the ability to 'know' infinitely more properties, properties that give us a greater ability to manipulate the world.

 

[Kharakov]

There are only 3 cow minds in the world, that use chaotically encrypted distributed networking (which is why we can't detect their subconscious communications, because it is hidden).

When you look at one cow, you really look at one cow.

 

[untermensche]

...Does experiencing prove mind?...

Directly experiencing something IS directly experiencing something.

It is impossible to experience things that don't exist.

 

[untermensche]

It is only observation. If you read a book or watch a play or look at a painting or sculpture you are directly experiencing the product of a human mind.

And my experience of a mind is limited to the experience of my mind.

So.... would you say that you too experience the product of a human mind?

It is so much of what we do experience.

Look at that car, at that building, at the television.

All obviously products of minds.

They did not appear randomly, they were planned and executed.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you not know this?

It is only observation. If you read a book or watch a play or look at a painting or sculpture you are directly experiencing the product of a human mind.

And my experience of a mind is limited to the experience of my mind.

I only assume that the minds of others are similar. The problem we have of course is that while minds may be similar due to their genetic construction they also differ due to the effects experience has on the mind.

so what is the experience (if it is an experience) that you experience?

If you're going to pretend you don't know what it is to experience something this will go nowhere.

 

[untermensche]

I'd think the main differentiator between humans and other animals, is that refined language gives us the ability to 'know' infinitely more properties, properties that give us a greater ability to manipulate the world.

It takes a certain level of "intelligence" to be able to work with a language. You can't have a complicated language, like human language, without having that level of "intelligence" first.

One of the key elements of language is the ability to conceptualize.

Words don't relate directly to things in the world, they relate to "mental concepts".

So we can use the word "tree" to refer to all kinds of things that look very differently from one another because they are all included in our "mental concept" of "tree".

 

[none]

So.... would you say that you too experience the product of a human mind?

It is so much of what we do experience.

Look at that car, at that building, at the television.

All obviously products of minds.

They did not appear randomly, they were planned and executed.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you not know this?

It is only observation. If you read a book or watch a play or look at a painting or sculpture you are directly experiencing the product of a human mind.

And my experience of a mind is limited to the experience of my mind.

I only assume that the minds of others are similar. The problem we have of course is that while minds may be similar due to their genetic construction they also differ due to the effects experience has on the mind.

so what is the experience (if it is an experience) that you experience?

If you're going to pretend you don't know what it is to experience something this will go nowhere.

no I am asking you what your experience is.
a dumbass makes me unhappy, my experience of a dumbass is they leave behind a trail of stupidity and condescend those about them

 

[Speakpigeon]

One of the key elements of language is the ability to conceptualize.

Words don't relate directly to things in the world, they relate to "mental concepts".

So we can use the word "tree" to refer to all kinds of things that look very differently from one another because they are all included in our "mental concept" of "tree".

And that's a good point because it is questionnable that this aspect of human thinking could be implemented on a machine any time soon, if at all.

But, if not, maybe just for practical problems rather than in principle. But, still, ho knows?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

...Does experiencing prove mind?...

Directly experiencing something IS directly experiencing something.

It is impossible to experience things that don't exist.

You do know that most of us aren't very well wired and many of us aren't really experiencing something. It is a problem something metaphysical becoming embodied.