Do minds exist?

[fromderinside]

You missed a few items. So I'm giving you a second bite.

Find gravity in the dropped rock that lands 50 feet out to sea, the dropped rock that drifts around, the dropped rock that just stays where it was left. Test the powers of that all powerful fiction, the mind.

You've got one scenario to consider.

A man standing on the earth drops a rock.

Has he seen the effects of gravity or not?

In other scenarios you may see the effects of other things. But you will see the effects.

Except for the man standing in space, a man dropped the rock standing on earth. Eliminating one has no effect on your challenge for explaining the others. How does one get gravity from a rock dropping into the ocean 50 feet from the man and how does one get gravity from man dropping a rock into the ocean when if flutters around? There must be a rational way for you forward. If not, rational thinking, the mind, isn't going to get the job done.

 

[none]

You missed a few items. So I'm giving you a second bite.

Find gravity in the dropped rock that lands 50 feet out to sea, the dropped rock that drifts around, the dropped rock that just stays where it was left. Test the powers of that all powerful fiction, the mind.

You've got one scenario to consider.

A man standing on the earth drops a rock.

Has he seen the effects of gravity or not?

In other scenarios you may see the effects of other things. But you will see the effects.

it would be nice if your experience included observation.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Untermensche has a point, though you seem all unable to realise he does.

Suppose the following: a guy called John Biggot one day meets face to face, in the flesh, in person, another man with whom he has a short conversation. They then part company, never to meet each other again. Surely we would say that John Biggot now knows this man. His name is Stuart Appleby, but, since he didn't give his name to John Biggot, we have to say that John Biggot knows a man called Stuart Appleby even though he doesn't, in fact, know his name. So, we have to say that John Biggot knows Stuart Appleby even though he himself couldn't say what his name is. But there is more. First, John Biggot doesn't know who his father is and, second, Stuart Appleby happens to be John Biggot's father! So, now, we have to say that John Biggot now knows in fact his father even though he still couldn't say himself that he does. He knows him just because he met him, face to face, in the flesh, in person.

Same thing.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Untermensche has a point, though you seem all unable to realise he does.

Suppose the following: a guy called John Biggot one day meets face to face, in the flesh, in person, another man with whom he has a short conversation. They then part company, never to meet each other again. Surely we would say that John Biggot now knows this man. His name is Stuart Appleby, but, since he didn't give his name to John Biggot, we have to say that John Biggot knows a man called Stuart Appleby even though he doesn't, in fact, know his name. So, we have to say that John Biggot knows Stuart Appleby even though he himself couldn't say what his name is. But there is more. First, John Biggot doesn't know who his father is and, second, Stuart Appleby happens to be John Biggot's father! So, now, we have to say that John Biggot now knows in fact his father even though he still couldn't say himself that he does. He knows him just because he met him, face to face, in the flesh, in person.

Same thing.
EB

Not really. Obviously he doesn't know him just because he met him in flesh and blood. He knows he met a man. In our examples his knowing is limited to what he experiences which are primarily the effects of wind and tides. It is known that he knows his father but it needs to be revealed to him that he does know him. ...and this can get pretty trivial.....it already has.......another reason why rational thought and logic are best saved for times and places of prayer.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche has a point, though you seem all unable to realise he does.

Suppose the following: a guy called John Biggot one day meets face to face, in the flesh, in person, another man with whom he has a short conversation. They then part company, never to meet each other again. Surely we would say that John Biggot now knows this man. His name is Stuart Appleby, but, since he didn't give his name to John Biggot, we have to say that John Biggot knows a man called Stuart Appleby even though he doesn't, in fact, know his name. So, we have to say that John Biggot knows Stuart Appleby even though he himself couldn't say what his name is. But there is more. First, John Biggot doesn't know who his father is and, second, Stuart Appleby happens to be John Biggot's father! So, now, we have to say that John Biggot now knows in fact his father even though he still couldn't say himself that he does. He knows him just because he met him, face to face, in the flesh, in person.

Same thing.
EB

Stuart Appleby is a professional golfer.

But it is far simpler than this.

A person knows they are experiencing an animal when one meets another human.

Even if one knows nothing about the physiology or genetics of the animal.

One also knows a mind when one encounters one.

 

[none]

You've got one scenario to consider.

A man standing on the earth drops a rock.

Has he seen the effects of gravity or not?

In other scenarios you may see the effects of other things. But you will see the effects.

it would be nice if your experience included observation.

Oops, detection.
It would be nice if your experiences included detection.

 

[none]

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?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PFoJif2ctM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Speakpigeon]

Untermensche has a point, though you seem all unable to realise he does.

Suppose the following: a guy called John Biggot one day meets face to face, in the flesh, in person, another man with whom he has a short conversation. They then part company, never to meet each other again. Surely we would say that John Biggot now knows this man. His name is Stuart Appleby, but, since he didn't give his name to John Biggot, we have to say that John Biggot knows a man called Stuart Appleby even though he doesn't, in fact, know his name. So, we have to say that John Biggot knows Stuart Appleby even though he himself couldn't say what his name is. But there is more. First, John Biggot doesn't know who his father is and, second, Stuart Appleby happens to be John Biggot's father! So, now, we have to say that John Biggot now knows in fact his father even though he still couldn't say himself that he does. He knows him just because he met him, face to face, in the flesh, in person.

Same thing.
EB

Not really. Obviously he doesn't know him just because he met him in flesh and blood. He knows he met a man. In our examples his knowing is limited to what he experiences which are primarily the effects of wind and tides. It is known that he knows his father but it needs to be revealed to him that he does know him. ...and this can get pretty trivial.....it already has.......another reason why rational thought and logic are best saved for times and places of prayer.

You missed the point again.

So, you didn't understand. I wasn't trying to show that there's some paradox there.

I was making the distinction between what we know through experience and what we say we know when we try to describe the world. John Biggot knows Stuart Appleby through the experience he had meeting him but he still couldn't describe the man he met as "his father". He knows his father but couldn't say "I know my father".

It is also beside the point that we don't really know somebody just because we met him. Rather, we know something of him, for example what he looks like so that we would recognise him while ignoring some other aspect, for example that he is an electrician or that he is your father. Apparently, that's too much intellectual work for you.

So, you didn't understand.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Stuart Appleby is a professional golfer.

No kidding!

But it is far simpler than this.

A person knows they are experiencing an animal when one meets another human.

Even if one knows nothing about the physiology or genetics of the animal.

Oh, Ok. I misunderstood you.

One also knows a mind when one encounters one.

That's different.
EB

 

[untermensche]

One also knows a mind when one encounters one.

That's different.
EB

It's only different because all minds are not human minds.

But the mind of a cat can clearly be seen in it's actions. There is planning and learning and creativity.

 

[Juma]

That's different.
EB

It's only different because all minds are not human minds.

But the mind of a cat can clearly be seen in it's actions. There is planning and learning and creativity.

So an agent that has planning, learning and creativity has a mind?

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's different.
EB

It's only different because all minds are not human minds.

No it's different because I don't call "mind" something that I don't entirely know (following Descartes' convention in the Cogito). But I don't entirely know a cat. That's because I call "cat" something I don't entirely know. I may know what a cat looks like, if that, but I don't know what a cat is. I thought that this was precisely the object of science to look into the nature of thing like cats. So, no, I wouldn't say we know cats although I do know something like the impression of seeing a cat. That's something but that's different from knowing a cat. That's what I meant by "it's different".
I guess our positions are too far appart to understand each other.

But the mind of a cat can clearly be seen in it's actions. There is planning and learning and creativity.

It is a fact that we may believe that cats have minds but that's different from the fact that you know your own mind because you have subjective experience of it and that you call "mind" precisely that of which you have this subbjective experience. That's very different.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

You missed the point again.

So, you didn't understand. I wasn't trying to show that there's some paradox there.

I was making the distinction between what we know through experience and what we say we know when we try to describe the world. John Biggot knows Stuart Appleby through the experience he had meeting him but he still couldn't describe the man he met as "his father". He knows his father but couldn't say "I know my father".

It is also beside the point that we don't really know somebody just because we met him. Rather, we know something of him, for example what he looks like so that we would recognise him while ignoring some other aspect, for example that he is an electrician or that he is your father. Apparently, that's too much intellectual work for you.

So, you didn't understand.
EB

Obviously you don't with all that knowing BS.

The only paradox I know are my partner and myself.

 

[untermensche]

It's only different because all minds are not human minds.

But the mind of a cat can clearly be seen in it's actions. There is planning and learning and creativity.

So an agent that has planning, learning and creativity has a mind?

Evolved animals that do such things show evidence of a mind.

The only definitive evidence that minds exist is my experience of my own mind.

 

[untermensche]

It's only different because all minds are not human minds.

No it's different because I don't call "mind" something that I don't entirely know (following Descartes' convention in the Cogito).

You know my mind as well as you know the mind of a cat. In other words you do not know my mind simply because you know your own.

So if you can conclude from my behaviors that I have a mind you can do the same for a cat.

It is a fact that we may believe that cats have minds but that's different from the fact that you know your own mind because you have subjective experience of it and that you call "mind" precisely that of which you have this subbjective experience. That's very different.
EB

I know a cat has a mind as well as I know you do. I have evidence of a mind from both.

 

[Juma]

So an agent that has planning, learning and creativity has a mind?

Evolved animals that do such things show evidence of a mind.

The only definitive evidence that minds exist is my experience of my own mind.

So the real reason that you believe that cats have mind is just that they are related to you?

 

[untermensche]

Evolved animals that do such things show evidence of a mind.

The only definitive evidence that minds exist is my experience of my own mind.

So the real reason that you believe that cats have mind is just that they are related to you?

All living things are related to me.

I don't think they all have minds.

But the mind is not the behavior or the mechanisms like muscles and nerves that allow the behavior. It is the experiences and "programming" that leads to the behavior.

There is the brain. Fairly dense tissue. Many types of cells, many specialized regions.

Then one step removed from the physical brain is the activity of the brain; the chemical transmitters, the electrical activity, the flow of blood and exchange of oxygen, and more.

Then one step removed from the activity of the brain is a creation of this activity. The mind. The subjective self that can experience sight and hearing and movement and touch, and drives and emotions and thoughts and memories.

The self doesn't experience neurotransmitters moving across clefts or tiny electrical impulses or the flow of blood.

It experiences a coherent whole. The world.

 

[Juma]

So the real reason that you believe that cats have mind is just that they are related to you?

All living things are related to me.

I don't think they all have minds.

But the mind is not the behavior or the mechanisms like muscles and nerves that allow the behavior. It is the experiences and "programming" that leads to the behavior.

There is the brain. Fairly dense tissue. Many types of cells, many specialized regions.

Then one step removed from the physical brain is the activity of the brain; the chemical transmitters, the electrical activity, the flow of blood and exchange of oxygen, and more.

Then one step removed from the activity of the brain is a creation of this activity. The mind. The subjective self that can experience sight and hearing and movement and touch, and drives and emotions and thoughts and memories.

"One step removed" is misleading. The activity of the brain IS the brain. And the "created activity" IS the activity of the brain. So the "created activity" IS the brain. Nothing is a "step removed".

It is only your mental model that separates these things into different categories.

The self doesn't experience neurotransmitters moving across clefts or tiny electrical impulses or the flow of blood.

Of course not. Why would it? It experience what we ha sensors for.

It experiences a coherent whole..

No, it definitely dont.

 

[none]

So the real reason that you believe that cats have mind is just that they are related to you?

All living things are related to me.

I don't think they all have minds.

But the mind is not the behavior or the mechanisms like muscles and nerves that allow the behavior. It is the experiences and "programming" that leads to the behavior.

There is the brain. Fairly dense tissue. Many types of cells, many specialized regions.

Then one step removed from the physical brain is the activity of the brain; the chemical transmitters, the electrical activity, the flow of blood and exchange of oxygen, and more.

Then one step removed from the activity of the brain is a creation of this activity. The mind. The subjective self that can experience sight and hearing and movement and touch, and drives and emotions and thoughts and memories.

The self doesn't experience neurotransmitters moving across clefts or tiny electrical impulses or the flow of blood.

It experiences a coherent whole. The world.

dogma
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the Christian dogma of the Trinity"
untershmesh's dogma of the mind, a mind, and minds...
no evidence just promises.

 

[untermensche]

All living things are related to me.

I don't think they all have minds.

But the mind is not the behavior or the mechanisms like muscles and nerves that allow the behavior. It is the experiences and "programming" that leads to the behavior.

There is the brain. Fairly dense tissue. Many types of cells, many specialized regions.

Then one step removed from the physical brain is the activity of the brain; the chemical transmitters, the electrical activity, the flow of blood and exchange of oxygen, and more.

Then one step removed from the activity of the brain is a creation of this activity. The mind. The subjective self that can experience sight and hearing and movement and touch, and drives and emotions and thoughts and memories.

"One step removed" is misleading. The activity of the brain IS the brain.

No it isn't. The brain is cells and cell products and a lot of blood moving through.

There is a distinction between a tennis ball and the flight of a tennis ball. They are not the same thing.

The self doesn't experience neurotransmitters moving across clefts or tiny electrical impulses or the flow of blood.

Of course not. Why would it? It experience what we ha sensors for.

You completely miss the point.

Again a distinction exists between the activity of the brain and the product of that activity.

There is a distinction between the movie projector in motion, it's activity, and the movie on the screen.

It experiences a coherent whole..

No, it definitely dont.

I of course can only speak for myself but the world is coherent to me. I am able to walk around and not bump into things. I don't drive into traffic. I can understand that Donald Trump is nothing but a cheap salesman with money.