Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[SteveKlinko]

Science teaches us how we are Machines.

Then science teaches us incorrectly, or maybe incompletely? That we can be seen as machines is a useful metaphor/perspective, but it is not an accurate factual observation, it's a speculation-aid.

It's not a metaphor. We are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human. Consciousness is Connected to the Human and is not any part of the Physical Human Machine.

Our bodies are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human because it isn't there. The mind is not physical, as we all know. But a human being is an embodied mind - or an en-minded body - so "Physical Human" is an incomplete description of a human being.

We are at an Impasse because you think the Mind is embodied and I think the Mind is not in the Body at all but rather it just Connects to the Body.

[Pattern-chaser]

Our bodies are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human because it isn't there. The mind is not physical, as we all know. But a human being is an embodied mind - or an en-minded body - so "Physical Human" is an incomplete description of a human being.

We are at an Impasse because you think the Mind is embodied and I think the Mind is not in the Body at all but rather it just Connects to the Body.

Yes, it connects to the Body. But those connections are (extremely) numerous, intimate and widespread. To view the mind as having only one 'connection' to the Body would mislead, I think. But I don't think you're doing that ... are you?

[Sy Borg]

An addendum, yes, but not necessarily abstract because the senses are there for the sake of the organism, whereas the senses of machines are for the benefit of humans. So sensing machines are just extensions of human senses and are not complete entities in themselves.

Odd semantical argument, but ok I give up.

I do not accept your surrender :lol: At the risk of flogging a dead horse ...

My argument only seems odd because almost all entities are simultaneously themselves, the product of many smaller entities and part of a much larger entity. It seems paradoxical but it's just a matter of differing perspectives.

My point was just that the term "biological machines" is invalid, misleading and it has been at the root of many cruelties. When aspects of life look to us like machines, that only reveals the observer's lack of familiarity and understanding of the observed. After all, it's not easy to empathise with much simpler organisms. However, humans look like mindless ants when observed from on high, ants that automatically form long lines in the morning and late afternoon, that scurry in all directions when it rains, that flee from fire and occasionally congregate.

Bottom line: Either being alive means not being a machine, or everything is a machine (in which case, that definition loses meaning).

Science teaches us how we are Machines. We are Conscious Machines, but Machines nevertheless. Our Machine Self is Connected to our Conscious Self.

Not at all.

Machines did not exist before humans created them. So what model was life based on? It sure was not machines, which are themselves nothing more than extremely weak analogues of life.

[Consul]

Machines did not exist before humans created them.

One meaning of "machine" is "an intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body" (American Heritage), "a living organism or one of its functional systems" (Merriam-Webster). In the broadest sense, a machine is "a structure of any kind, material or immaterial; a fabric, an erection" (OED).

[Consul]

Our bodies are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human because it isn't there. The mind is not physical, as we all know.

I for one don't know that!
If we disbelieve in the mind's physicality, then we end up with "the identification of the mental with the ghostly", "the familiar picture of the mind as a ghost in a machine", and the concept of "a person as a ghost mysteriously ensconced in a machine". (Gilbert Ryle, in The Concept of Mind, 1949)

[Sy Borg]

Machines did not exist before humans created them.

One meaning of "machine" is "an intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body" (American Heritage), "a living organism or one of its functional systems" (Merriam-Webster). In the broadest sense, a machine is "a structure of any kind, material or immaterial; a fabric, an erection" (OED).

Sure. The geology that from which biology emerged was vastly more akin to biology than the machines we so often mistakenly compare with life.

Life and machines are opposites, not analogues. Life is driven from within, machines from without. Life is the event while machines are an addendum to that event. When life is referred to as "biological machines", morphology is elevated above being. Life-as-machine is a superficial observation.

The more distant we are from phenomena, the further up our ivory towers we are, looking down upon creation, the more it will resemble a machine. With enough distance, everything seems to be a machine, including human societies. With enough nearness, though, nothing does.

[Sy Borg]

Below is an actual biological machine. Note the differences between it and organisms and their systems that are referred to as "machines".

While I greatly value metaphor, I think that when metaphors are repeated enough, they are interpreted more literally. So "like a biological machine" becomes "is a biological machine".

[SteveKlinko]

Our bodies are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human because it isn't there. The mind is not physical, as we all know. But a human being is an embodied mind - or an en-minded body - so "Physical Human" is an incomplete description of a human being.

We are at an Impasse because you think the Mind is embodied and I think the Mind is not in the Body at all but rather it just Connects to the Body.

Yes, it connects to the Body. But those connections are (extremely) numerous, intimate and widespread. To view the mind as having only one 'connection' to the Body would mislead, I think. But I don't think you're doing that ... are you?

I think the Conscious Mind is only Connected to the Cortex. I don't think there are Connections to any other part of the Body.

[SteveKlinko]

Odd semantical argument, but ok I give up.

I do not accept your surrender At the risk of flogging a dead horse ...

My argument only seems odd because almost all entities are simultaneously themselves, the product of many smaller entities and part of a much larger entity. It seems paradoxical but it's just a matter of differing perspectives.

My point was just that the term "biological machines" is invalid, misleading and it has been at the root of many cruelties. When aspects of life look to us like machines, that only reveals the observer's lack of familiarity and understanding of the observed. After all, it's not easy to empathise with much simpler organisms. However, humans look like mindless ants when observed from on high, ants that automatically form long lines in the morning and late afternoon, that scurry in all directions when it rains, that flee from fire and occasionally congregate.

Bottom line: Either being alive means not being a machine, or everything is a machine (in which case, that definition loses meaning).

Science teaches us how we are Machines. We are Conscious Machines, but Machines nevertheless. Our Machine Self is Connected to our Conscious Self.

Not at all.

Machines did not exist before humans created them. So what model was life based on? It sure was not machines, which are themselves nothing more than extremely weak analogues of life.

Ok, so you want to play games with a Semantical argument about the word Machine. I pass on Semantical games.

[Pattern-chaser]

Machines did not exist before humans created them. So what model was life based on? It sure was not machines, which are themselves nothing more than extremely weak analogues of life.

Quite so. Humans have a strong history of using their latest expression of technology as a metaphor for the way the brain works. In the past, we have compared the brain with looms, for example.

[Pattern-chaser]

Our bodies are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human because it isn't there. The mind is not physical, as we all know.

I for one don't know that!
If we disbelieve in the mind's physicality, then we end up with "the identification of the mental with the ghostly", "the familiar picture of the mind as a ghost in a machine", and the concept of "a person as a ghost mysteriously ensconced in a machine". (Gilbert Ryle, in The Concept of Mind, 1949)

To the extent that "ghostly" implies 'not physical', the mind is "ghostly". It is a non-physical thing to which science has no direct access, nor can such access ever be obtained. The mind can be examined, scientifically, only by a 'black box' approach, which sort of works, but is far from ideal, from the scientist's point of view.

It is possible to examine the brain, these days, even while it is working more or less normally. But until we can relate firing neurons to the mind, this is of no assistance to investigators of the human mind.

[Pattern-chaser]

While I greatly value metaphor, I think that when metaphors are repeated enough, they are interpreted more literally. So "like a biological machine" becomes "is a biological machine".

Hmm. Yes. This bears repeating, over and over. It's pretty similar to mistaking the map for the territory. Or maybe it is mistaking the map for the territory?

[Pattern-chaser]

Our bodies are made out of Physical substances from the Physical Universe. Science cannot find Consciousness in the Physical Human because it isn't there. The mind is not physical, as we all know. But a human being is an embodied mind - or an en-minded body - so "Physical Human" is an incomplete description of a human being.

We are at an Impasse because you think the Mind is embodied and I think the Mind is not in the Body at all but rather it just Connects to the Body.

Yes, it connects to the Body. But those connections are (extremely) numerous, intimate and widespread. To view the mind as having only one 'connection' to the Body would mislead, I think. But I don't think you're doing that ... are you?

I think the Conscious Mind is only Connected to the Cortex. I don't think there are Connections to any other part of the Body.

What do we think nerves are, then? Our sensorimotor system connects the brain, and thereby the mind, to pretty much every remote corner of the body. There are other biological interconnections to account for too, I think. These real and actual connections are myriad and intimate. Let's remember that the mind covers a huge range, from abstract thought all the way down to hind-brain stuff that monitors, regulates and controls the biological 'machinery' of the body. It is the latter that most concerns us here and now.

[Sy Borg]

I do not accept your surrender :lol: At the risk of flogging a dead horse ...

My argument only seems odd because almost all entities are simultaneously themselves, the product of many smaller entities and part of a much larger entity. It seems paradoxical but it's just a matter of differing perspectives.

My point was just that the term "biological machines" is invalid, misleading and it has been at the root of many cruelties. When aspects of life look to us like machines, that only reveals the observer's lack of familiarity and understanding of the observed. After all, it's not easy to empathise with much simpler organisms. However, humans look like mindless ants when observed from on high, ants that automatically form long lines in the morning and late afternoon, that scurry in all directions when it rains, that flee from fire and occasionally congregate.

Bottom line: Either being alive means not being a machine, or everything is a machine (in which case, that definition loses meaning).

Science teaches us how we are Machines. We are Conscious Machines, but Machines nevertheless. Our Machine Self is Connected to our Conscious Self.

Not at all.

Machines did not exist before humans created them. So what model was life based on? It sure was not machines, which are themselves nothing more than extremely weak analogues of life.

Ok, so you want to play games with a Semantical argument about the word Machine. I pass on Semantical games.

I am just pointing out that the misguided analogy leads to false impressions and great certainty in a subject where no certainty is justified. Such misguided certainty (rebadged insecurity) is evidenced by combative responses made where contemplative responses would be more appropriate.

[SteveKlinko]

Science teaches us how we are Machines. We are Conscious Machines, but Machines nevertheless. Our Machine Self is Connected to our Conscious Self.

Not at all.

Machines did not exist before humans created them. So what model was life based on? It sure was not machines, which are themselves nothing more than extremely weak analogues of life.

Ok, so you want to play games with a Semantical argument about the word Machine. I pass on Semantical games.

I am just pointing out that the misguided analogy leads to false impressions and great certainty in a subject where no certainty is justified. Such misguided certainty (rebadged insecurity) is evidenced by combative responses made where contemplative responses would be more appropriate.

I'm not saying that the Human Machine is an analogy. I'm saying that the Physical Body is in fact a Machine. Of course it is an Electro Chemical Machine, but a Machine nevertheless. The Brain itself is not Conscious, but a Conscious Mind is Connected to the Brain. I'm trying to show that a Machine that Humans make could be Conscious, if it could be Connected to a Conscious Mind.