• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The human mind

untermensche said:
DBT said:
A brain creates thoughts. Without a brain and its activity, there are no thoughts.
Click to expand...

A brains creates something capable of autonomously choosing which thoughts it will type out and which it will not.

If written out thoughts have not been chosen autonomously they are worthless babble of no importance and cannot be believed.
Click to expand...


Again - where is your evidence for autonomy? Stop making the claim of autonomy of mind until you justify your claim by producing a rational argument that's supported by research and evidence.

Can you do that?
 
Once you get past the existebce question and quagmire the question becomes if humans are capapble of compete freedom of choice or if we are just a complex system that is responding to inputs.

I believe in the Hindu tradition Atman is the 'you' that creates. The question of mind and self has been covered for over a thousand years in Buddhism and Hinduism, more as a psychology than a religion.

When you say 'I' what do you mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/) is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul.[1][2][3] In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle,[4] the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation (moksha), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.[2][5]

The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman (soul, self) in every being. This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta which holds that there is no unchanging soul or self
 
DrZoidberg said:
I'm pretty sure we're fundamentally talking about different things. You're talking about some sort of central oversight office weighing and evaluating actions and outcomes. I'd argue that that doesn't exist in the human brain.

Here's metaphor to make it more clear what I'm talking about. Imagine a train system where each train is input from one of our senses travelling along neurons. Along the track there's a number of switches. Each switch is just looking for one specific set of input signals in the neurons. When it sees what it's imprinted for it'll pull the switch and the train is diverted. Those switches are the control system. They're not coordinated. Each switch just does one thing on it's own.

This BTW is the theory for how the brain worked that was developed in the 1950'ies and used as a model for how to programme AI. It didn't work. But we're still pretty sure that we're on the right track. Through evolutionary programming we developed AI "brains" that were somewhat more efficient.

The theory now is that there's a hierarchy of these switches, so that the brain can shift schemas all over the brain all at once. This can evolve by itself and does not require any coordination. Which increases the complexity exponentially. But complexity is not a problem for evolution. But there's still no single-most top level hierarchy in control. At the very top of the hierarchy we're still looking at thousands of switches.

The reason why AI researchers abandoned the idea of the consciousness being in control is that it would require magic to make it work. Since science doesn't believe in magic it was not a contender.

I'm not saying the brain is a computer or that any AI that works will work exactly as the brain. But these guys put a lot of work and effort into figuring out what could, hypothetically work.
Click to expand...

If anything inside our brain can have control over what we do, and if consciousness is somehow part of our brain, then there's no rational justification for the idea that consciousness would be somehow impotent.

DrZoidberg said:
Speakpigeon said:
I don't believe we've proven any such a thing. I can decide now on some deliberate action to be taken in the near future.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you weren't able to take decisions. I'm challenging whether it's your consciousness that is taking that decision.

Benjamin Libet proved as much and the more data we get in the more is his original finding validated. Our consciousness doesn't seem to decide anything.
Click to expand...

I never claimed consciousness can control our actions. I claim we don't know. I certainly don't but I'm pretty confident you don't either.

DrZoidberg said:
Speakpigeon said:
DrZoidberg said:
I suspect consciousness is part of our story telling machinery. It's used to create compelling and interesting stories. Things that risk revealing our true motives is hidden in our subconscious. The stuff we're conscious about is mostly self agrandising facts that make us seem more impressive to our peers. Anyway... that's Stephen Pinker's theory, and I think it's compelling.
Click to expand...

And that's a pretty dumb theory too. What would be the advantage for the human species? Or is it just a quirk of evolution, a dead end?
EB
Click to expand...

It's an advantage if you want to get laid. If being intelligent is sexually attractive we have an incentive to fool potential mates into thinking that we're much smarter than we really are. But evolution is itself clever, and will evolve counter measures to catch the lies. So counter measures to counter measures evolve. This is the way evolution works for everything that is sexually selected for.

Since apes don't tell stories to each other their evolutionary route didn't go down this road.
Click to expand...

Consciousness is obviously not "part of our story telling machinery", as you suggested. It's a dumb idea. The fact that we can tell stories doesn't make consciousness primarily a story telling capability, as clearly implied by your suggestion. The reverse is closer to the truth. Our story telling capability is probably most of the time part of our consciousness, although we can't exclude that some people tell stories without being conscious that they do, one way or another.

Consciousness is clearly a functional capability, it has clearly been selected as an advantage and as such, it must have been selected because advantageous to the community rather than just the individual. I think the story telling side doesn't make sense except as a piggyback. You don't ride a horse unless there's a horse. Feathers are useful before they can turn into a show.

Still, I take it you're essentially here to tell stories. You're not the only one.
EB
 
steve_bank said:
Once you get past the existebce question and quagmire the question becomes if humans are capapble of compete freedom of choice or if we are just a complex system that is responding to inputs.

I believe in the Hindu tradition Atman is the 'you' that creates. The question of mind and self has been covered for over a thousand years in Buddhism and Hinduism, more as a psychology than a religion.

When you say 'I' what do you mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/) is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul.[1][2][3] In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle,[4] the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation (moksha), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.[2][5]

The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman (soul, self) in every being. This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta which holds that there is no unchanging soul or self
Click to expand...

You can be funny, too.

Wait. You are essentially funny. :rolleyes:
EB
 
DBT said:
untermensche said:
DBT said:
A brain creates thoughts. Without a brain and its activity, there are no thoughts.
Click to expand...

A brains creates something capable of autonomously choosing which thoughts it will type out and which it will not.

If written out thoughts have not been chosen autonomously they are worthless babble of no importance and cannot be believed.
Click to expand...


Again - where is your evidence for autonomy? Stop making the claim of autonomy of mind until you justify your claim by producing a rational argument that's supported by research and evidence.

Can you do that?
Click to expand...

How do you make the posts you make unless you have autonomy?

I use my autonomy to decide which ideas I accept and which I reject.

And the most insane position is to use your autonomy to claim you don't have any, as you are doing.
 
untermensche said:
DBT said:
Again - where is your evidence for autonomy? Stop making the claim of autonomy of mind until you justify your claim by producing a rational argument that's supported by research and evidence.

Can you do that?
Click to expand...

How do you make the posts you make unless you have autonomy?

I use my autonomy to decide which ideas I accept and which I reject.

And the most insane position is to use your autonomy to claim you don't have any, as you are doing.
Click to expand...

I still don't see your rational argument that's supported by research and evidence.

Did you miss that part?

Please try again.
 
You are using your autonomy to desire research to support your ideas.

You are my proof of an autonomous mind.
 
DBT said:
Still no rational argument for autonomy of mind supported by research and evidence. Try again.
Click to expand...

Your autonomous desire for research is absolute evidence of an autonomous mind.

I need no research to show a rock falls when I drop it.
 
So, a man of faith. One who does not question his own assumptions. A type of guy, who in another age, perhaps as a Priest in the Church, would assert his belief that the sun obviously orbits the earth, regardless of evidence, type of guy.

Still no research backed argument for your assertion of autonomy of mind.

Still waiting.

Please try again.
 
It's inescapable.

Which is why you never address it.

For you to spell out some desire in words requires you to have the autonomy to do it.

For you to express a desire for research requires you have the autonomy to think research is important and the autonomy to express what you think.

You can babble about research that explains none of it all you want.
 
untermensche said:
It's inescapable.

Which is why you never address it.

For you to spell out some desire in words requires you to have the autonomy to do it.

For you to express a desire for research requires you have the autonomy to think research is important and the autonomy to express what you think.

You can babble about research that explains none of it all you want.
Click to expand...

It is you who is making the claim of autonomy of mind. It is your place to justify your own claims. That is standard practice.

So post a formal argument.

Post an argument that's supported by research and evidence.

Any time you are ready.
 
Again there is no research needed or formal argument needed to explain the obvious.

If a rock falls I need no research to prove it falls. No argument needed.

If you are expressing the idea that research has value you must have the autonomy to not only decide what has value but also the autonomy to cause your hands to type out the words you chose.
 
Rock falling is an observation, an empirical fact. One can use public demonstration of such as argument for gravity. You have not made similar points for autonomy, you need to link autonomy to observable empirical fact before you banty about hidden principle.

Oh, darts. Did I just catch you with your hand in the cookie jar - again.
 
fromderinside said:
Rock falling is an observation, an empirical fact. One can use public demonstration of such as argument for gravity. You have not made similar points for autonomy, you need to link autonomy to observable empirical fact before you banty about hidden principle.

Oh, darts. Did I just catch you with your hand in the cookie jar - again.
Click to expand...

You dodged the question again.

How does anything you say have value unless you had both the autonomy to decide it had value and the autonomy to force your hands to type out the words you choose?
 
You can't explain simple discourse with your nonsense.

You used your autonomous mind to <snip> away at what it doesn't like.

Everything you say is evidence of an autonomous mind making many decisions and forcing hands to type out the words to express those autonomous decisions.

Inescapable.

You offer no rational alternative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom