Do minds exist?

[untermensche]

Only a person who never once had a thought could think they didn't have a mind.

 

[none]

Only a person who never once had a thought could think they didn't have a mind.

^More empty promises

 

[untermensche]

Only a person who never once had a thought could think they didn't have a mind.

^More empty promises

How can one have a thought yet the thought does not exist?

 

[none]

^More empty promises

How can one have a thought yet the thought does not exist?

^another stupid pointless distracting question

 

[George S]

How can one have a thought yet the thought does not exist?

That depends. I had a nice idea. Does that idea exist? Where? In the process of ever changing patterns in a living brain.
And yet I can share an idea. It may cause change in another mind; in turn altering behavior. To be part of a chain of causes? Is that what you mean by exist? Thoughts exist. And they belong to a particular unique body-mind in total privacy (well, before fMRI). This unique set of thoughts is given the name mind to distinguish it from brain. Ideas . . . thoughts . . . reason . . .concept . . . are useful words for immaterial things. Mind, too.
The mind has immaterial existence yet can be part of a causal chain. Existing as patterns in neurology. "I'll give you a piece of my mind!" I did so as a professor.

 

[untermensche]

How can one have a thought yet the thought does not exist?

That depends. I had a nice idea. Does that idea exist? Where? In the process of ever changing patterns in a living brain.

The question "Where?" is for objects that occupy space.

But thoughts are experienced. They are not objects that occupy space.

But something that is experienced must have existence.

And how the brain does it is unknown.

 

[Juma]

Why couldnt a computer register emitions? That is easy!

It could be programmed to mimic human outward reactions to emotion but not to feel emotion.

Nobody knows the program that allows machines to "feel" the way a human feels.

You mean: nobody knows how the feeling becoomes qualia.
All your objections is about qualia: the "inner experience". I agree that we have no idea how a computer could do that or if it even is possible. But if we ignore that for now: what are there that we do that computers wouldnt be able to do?

 

[untermensche]

It could be programmed to mimic human outward reactions to emotion but not to feel emotion.

Nobody knows the program that allows machines to "feel" the way a human feels.

You mean: nobody knows how the feeling becoomes qualia.
All your objections is about qualia: the "inner experience". I agree that we have no idea how a computer could do that or if it even is possible. But if we ignore that for now: what are there that we do that computers wouldnt be able to do?

If I make a machine that walks what does it say about how human brains do it?

 

[Juma]

You mean: nobody knows how the feeling becoomes qualia.
All your objections is about qualia: the "inner experience". I agree that we have no idea how a computer could do that or if it even is possible. But if we ignore that for now: what are there that we do that computers wouldnt be able to do?

If I make a machine that walks what does it say about how human brains do it?

It says a lot.
1) it brings understanding and concretization of the problem (what is it to walk? What is not walk? Is running walk? Is crawling walk? Is wheeling walk?))

2) it defines the problem area (what functions are required to walk? What different sorts of controlsystem/mechanical solutions are possible/useful?)

3) it deliniates the problem: (what is not needed to walk?)

4) it creates understanding and concretization of what is to design systems that walk and thus gains insigt of what roles parts of the human body has in walking.

Etc, etc.

The science of artifical intelligence, neural nets, vision systems, audio analyzers, robots etc has shown that this type of research has immense impact on how we look at the body.

 

[none]

How can one have a thought yet the thought does not exist?

That depends. I had a nice idea. Does that idea exist? Where? In the process of ever changing patterns in a living brain.
And yet I can share an idea. It may cause change in another mind; in turn altering behavior. To be part of a chain of causes? Is that what you mean by exist? Thoughts exist. And they belong to a particular unique body-mind in total privacy (well, before fMRI). This unique set of thoughts is given the name mind to distinguish it from brain. Ideas . . . thoughts . . . reason . . .concept . . . are useful words for immaterial things. Mind, too.
The mind has immaterial existence yet can be part of a causal chain. Existing as patterns in neurology. "I'll give you a piece of my mind!" I did so as a professor.

that is an interesting assessment, you've done much better than entershmuck but why must a mind be what you claim and not be a horse's ass?

 

[Speakpigeon]

At the moment, no computer can, certainly given any forseeable technology, do what the human mind does (certainly not mine), rather than just producing concepts.
EB

Computers can:
Calculate
Make analogies
Guess
Remember
Prioritize
Etc

What is that your mind can do that a computer cannot?

Sure, and that's very useful but would you make such a fuss about a block of concrete having some characteristics not only very similar but identical to that of a human body such as mass etc.? The OP is about the human mind and whether there is such a thing at all. It's not about whether computers can emulate to a certain extent what humans can do. Of course they can, although to a very limited extent. But it's a derail. The question is whether what Descartes said is true: I exist. Where I is the thinking thing, not the brain but the thoughts, ideas, feelings etc. that one is experiencing when conscious. This is the point. Of course, the thinking thing can also somehow contains or feature memories, guesses, prioritisations, analogies, calculations and many other things beside but the point is that the mind is experience of thoughts, or something is experiencing the mind, depending on how you want o put it. You want to limit the notion of mind to what a computer does, arguing that these are also things that the human mind does. But the point is that we call "mind" the thing we are conscious of, not what computers do and that this thing which this thread is about, not what computers do.
EB

 

[Juma]

Computers can:
Calculate
Make analogies
Guess
Remember
Prioritize
Etc

What is that your mind can do that a computer cannot?

Sure, and that's very useful but would you make such a fuss about a block of concrete having some characteristics not only very similar but identical to that of a human body such as mass etc.? The OP is about the human mind and whether there is such a thing at all. It's not about whether computers can emulate to a certain extent what humans can do. Of course they can, although to a very limited extent. But it's a derail. The question is whether what Descartes said is true: I exist. Where I is the thinking thing, not the brain but the thoughts, ideas, feelings etc. that one is experiencing when conscious. This is the point. Of course, the thinking thing can also somehow contains or feature memories, guesses, prioritisations, analogies, calculations and many other things beside but the point is that the mind is experience of thoughts, or something is experiencing the mind, depending on how you want o put it. You want to limit the notion of mind to what a computer does, arguing that these are also things that the human mind does. But the point is that we call "mind" the thing we are conscious of, not what computers do and that this thing which this thread is about, not what computers do.
EB

Yes it is a derail but then this entire thread is filled with derails...

This derail started by me point out to underseer that an agent can use language even if not being "aware". That language , and meaning/intention does not require qualia capable agents.

 

[untermensche]

If I make a machine that walks what does it say about how human brains do it?

It says a lot.
1) it brings understanding and concretization of the problem (what is it to walk? What is not walk? Is running walk? Is crawling walk? Is wheeling walk?))

2) it defines the problem area (what functions are required to walk? What different sorts of controlsystem/mechanical solutions are possible/useful?)

3) it deliniates the problem: (what is not needed to walk?)

4) it creates understanding and concretization of what is to design systems that walk and thus gains insigt of what roles parts of the human body has in walking.

Etc, etc.

The science of artifical intelligence, neural nets, vision systems, audio analyzers, robots etc has shown that this type of research has immense impact on how we look at the body.

Yes, there are technical problems to get a robot to walk.

But when you are done you have learned nothing about what a brain does to get a human to walk.

"Artificially" we will solve the problems directly and seek the best solutions.

That is not how biological systems progress. They do not progress with foresight.

 

[none]

entershmuck, as long as your delusion doesn't persist there is progress.

 

[Juma]

It says a lot.
1) it brings understanding and concretization of the problem (what is it to walk? What is not walk? Is running walk? Is crawling walk? Is wheeling walk?))

2) it defines the problem area (what functions are required to walk? What different sorts of controlsystem/mechanical solutions are possible/useful?)

3) it deliniates the problem: (what is not needed to walk?)

4) it creates understanding and concretization of what is to design systems that walk and thus gains insigt of what roles parts of the human body has in walking.

Etc, etc.

The science of artifical intelligence, neural nets, vision systems, audio analyzers, robots etc has shown that this type of research has immense impact on how we look at the body.

Yes, there are technical problems to get a robot to walk.

But when you are done you have learned nothing about what a brain does to get a human to walk.

"Artificially" we will solve the problems directly and seek the best solutions.

That is not how biological systems progress.

How stupid can you get? You fail to get the message of my post and then arguments against something I never stated.

I have got enough of your nonsens.

 

[none]

whelp, I guess are minds (humor) are made up about entershmuck's delusional state of being...
move along folks, entersmhuck is hopeless, helpless

 

[untermensche]

Yes, there are technical problems to get a robot to walk.

But when you are done you have learned nothing about what a brain does to get a human to walk.

"Artificially" we will solve the problems directly and seek the best solutions.

That is not how biological systems progress.

How stupid can you get? You fail to get the message of my post and then arguments against something I never stated.

I have got enough of your nonsens.

Give me a break.

You know I am right and don't like it. That is all.

We won't learn anything about how a brain creates a mind by making machines that perform tricks that mimic human external behaviors.

 

[none]

How stupid can you get? You fail to get the message of my post and then arguments against something I never stated.

I have got enough of your nonsens.

Give me a break.

You know I am right and don't like it. That is all.

We won't learn anything about how a brain creates a mind by making machines that perform tricks that mimic human external behaviors.

you'll never learn to use tools responsibly.

 

[Kharakov]

We won't learn anything about how a brain creates a mind by making machines that perform tricks that mimic human external behaviors.

There is a chance that we stumble across the actual physical laws that consciousness evolves by if we create a successful mimicry of consciousness created by those laws.

 

[fromderinside]

I keep saying the brain produces memories and articulations that are joggled into attending which the unwashed call mind.