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

[Sy Borg]

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.

Life forms are things in themselves, while machines are addenda to life forms. Thus, I agree with your thoughts that machines can be connected to brains.

At this stage human brains are already augmented by machines. So far the physicality of the connection is mostly via eyes and fingertips, the physical connection can be expected to deepen, ie. become implanted. This might be done for convenience (access and pay for services by simply passing a scanner), or as a government requirement of wannabe totalitarians. Or, over time, it may be a matter of simply keeping up.

In the future it seems likely that the advantage AI-augmented people will have other others will be akin to the advantage children who grow up with the internet enjoy over those without access. In time this will be complete dominance, like humans currently have over other species.

[Belindi]

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.

Brains and minds do in fact correlate according to common sense and according to scientific statistical measurements.

The mind does cause the brain if your theory of existence is idealism. The brain causes the mind if your theory of existence is materialism(physicalism).

Clinically, the individual is a cadaver when the brain is dead. There is a point in time when the brain is reckoned by a clinician to be finally dead. The funeral service says "earth to earth dust to dust" which is a fair assessment. A healthy alive person is never the same from moment to moment because he is no more or less than experiences that, in a temporal world ,change from moment to moment. Unlike the cadaver which experiences nothing the living individual moves from present to future and exists only in the present, which is a point that has no dimensions. All this is leading to my contention that a mind is not a thing that that can be put here or there in this or that body no matter whether the body is a computer made of silicon and plastic, or alternatively mainly of carbon.

[SteveKlinko]

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.

Life forms are things in themselves, while machines are addenda to life forms. Thus, I agree with your thoughts that machines can be connected to brains.

At this stage human brains are already augmented by machines. So far the physicality of the connection is mostly via eyes and fingertips, the physical connection can be expected to deepen, ie. become implanted. This might be done for convenience (access and pay for services by simply passing a scanner), or as a government requirement of wannabe totalitarians. Or, over time, it may be a matter of simply keeping up.

In the future it seems likely that the advantage AI-augmented people will have other others will be akin to the advantage children who grow up with the internet enjoy over those without access. In time this will be complete dominance, like humans currently have over other species.

You are correct, Science is able to augment the Physical Brain with Machine components, and maybe someday AI augmented Brains will be desired by everybody. But I am talking about the Conscious Mind, which I maintain is a separate Phenomenon from the Brain. It is the Conscious Mind that Connects to the Brain and someday could conceivably be Connected to pure Machines.

[SteveKlinko]

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.

Brains and minds do in fact correlate according to common sense and according to scientific statistical measurements.

The mind does cause the brain if your theory of existence is idealism. The brain causes the mind if your theory of existence is materialism(physicalism).

Clinically, the individual is a cadaver when the brain is dead. There is a point in time when the brain is reckoned by a clinician to be finally dead. The funeral service says "earth to earth dust to dust" which is a fair assessment. A healthy alive person is never the same from moment to moment because he is no more or less than experiences that, in a temporal world ,change from moment to moment. Unlike the cadaver which experiences nothing the living individual moves from present to future and exists only in the present, which is a point that has no dimensions. All this is leading to my contention that a mind is not a thing that that can be put here or there in this or that body no matter whether the body is a computer made of silicon and plastic, or alternatively mainly of carbon.

From my point of view the Conscious Mind can affect the Brain, because it is connected to the Brain. But the Conscious Mind does not Cause the Brain. Your Idealistic view on this is completely incomprehensible to me and to Science.

From my point of view a Conscious Mind is a separate Phenomenon of Nature from the Physical Brain of Nature. It just seems like that to me. It seems Sensible. I have to continue my explorations of Conscious Experience from a starting point that seems Sensible. But you could be right. Anything is possible. I don't know anything for sure.

Basically your Idealism is similar to the Living In A Simulation conjecture. But the biggest problem with what you say is that If my Mind creates my External World and your Mind creates your External World, then how can both creations of External Worlds be the same? And they are in fact the same. It can only be that I must be the only Real Mind in the Universe. You and the External World are creations of my Mind. What is the Explanation from Idealism for the effect, where literally 7.5 Billion different Minds are all creating External Worlds that match?

[Belindi]

SteveKlinko wrote:

Basically your Idealism is similar to the Living In A Simulation conjecture. But the biggest problem with what you say is that If my Mind creates my External World and your Mind creates your External World, then how can both creations of External Worlds be the same? And they are in fact the same. It can only be that I must be the only Real Mind in the Universe. You and the External World are creations of my Mind. What is the Explanation from Idealism for the effect, where literally 7.5 Billion different Minds are all creating External Worlds that match?

I understand how solipsism might be a stumbling block for an idealist. However what connects all minds with all other minds is necessary relationship between me and not-me.
Minds are not things but are relationships between what we think of me and not-me; or to put it another way, relationship between what we think of as self and what we think of as environment. Obviously we can't experience the whole of each other(despite what lovers wish for) but we can know other minds as aspects of our individual environments without which our environments would be not what they are. There is no reason to be unaware of other people's 'minds'. We may as well be unaware of others' arms or legs.

I know the objection may remain that arms and legs are always or have always been somebody's arms or legs whereas minds , for an idealist may be Mind i.e. absolute Mind. It's harder to think of absolute Arm or absolute Leg. But arms and legs are bound to times and places whereas minds are free of time and place.

[SteveKlinko]

The very distinction you make between Me and Not Me shows that the Not Me is a different thing than the Me thing. If there is no reason to be unaware of other people's Minds, then why are we unaware of other people's Minds? If Arms and Legs are just imaginations of the Mind, which is not bound to Times and Places, then why are Arms and Legs bound to Times and Places? Something that comes from the Mind should be Mind-Like in it's properties.

[Belindi]

The very distinction you make between Me and Not Me shows that the Not Me is a different thing than the Me thing. If there is no reason to be unaware of other people's Minds, then why are we unaware of other people's Minds? If Arms and Legs are just imaginations of the Mind, which is not bound to Times and Places, then why are Arms and Legs bound to Times and Places? Something that comes from the Mind should be Mind-Like in it's properties.

We know others have minds too but we can't measure and evaluate others' mental experiences except by hearsay or analogy. We know others have arms and legs too and we can directly measure and evaluate others' arms and legs.

Arms and legs are bound to times and places whereas I can imagine riding on a dragon under the bridges of Paris, or in a more banal mood I can imagine I might not bake scones this week.

The ontic properties of arms and legs are physical properties whereas the ontic properties of mind are mental properties. I am an idealist and so I believe my last sentence too is mind stuff.

[Sy Borg]

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.

Life forms are things in themselves, while machines are addenda to life forms. Thus, I agree with your thoughts that machines can be connected to brains.

At this stage human brains are already augmented by machines. So far the physicality of the connection is mostly via eyes and fingertips, the physical connection can be expected to deepen, ie. become implanted. This might be done for convenience (access and pay for services by simply passing a scanner), or as a government requirement of wannabe totalitarians. Or, over time, it may be a matter of simply keeping up.

In the future it seems likely that the advantage AI-augmented people will have other others will be akin to the advantage children who grow up with the internet enjoy over those without access. In time this will be complete dominance, like humans currently have over other species.

You are correct, Science is able to augment the Physical Brain with Machine components, and maybe someday AI augmented Brains will be desired by everybody. But I am talking about the Conscious Mind, which I maintain is a separate Phenomenon from the Brain. It is the Conscious Mind that Connects to the Brain and someday could conceivably be Connected to pure Machines.

I see. You are thinking of the brain as a receiver and filter rather than a generator. It's an idea I have liked for some time but I have not firmly committed to anything. My own guess is that there is a general proto-consciousness that is shaped and amplified by the brain. The brain then would be the source of all the aspects of consciousness that we value, but not of the fundamental hum of being, so to speak.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

You are correct, Science is able to augment the Physical Brain with Machine components, and maybe someday AI augmented Brains will be desired by everybody. But I am talking about the Conscious Mind, which I maintain is a separate Phenomenon from the Brain. It is the Conscious Mind that Connects to the Brain and someday could conceivably be Connected to pure Machines.

It's at times like this I have to hold on to my idealist hat or a wonder of science will blow it away. I believe I have heard of artificial efferent impulse machinery that lets people move a limb, as a matter of sort of willing it to move.

[SteveKlinko]

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.

Life forms are things in themselves, while machines are addenda to life forms. Thus, I agree with your thoughts that machines can be connected to brains.

At this stage human brains are already augmented by machines. So far the physicality of the connection is mostly via eyes and fingertips, the physical connection can be expected to deepen, ie. become implanted. This might be done for convenience (access and pay for services by simply passing a scanner), or as a government requirement of wannabe totalitarians. Or, over time, it may be a matter of simply keeping up.

In the future it seems likely that the advantage AI-augmented people will have other others will be akin to the advantage children who grow up with the internet enjoy over those without access. In time this will be complete dominance, like humans currently have over other species.

You are correct, Science is able to augment the Physical Brain with Machine components, and maybe someday AI augmented Brains will be desired by everybody. But I am talking about the Conscious Mind, which I maintain is a separate Phenomenon from the Brain. It is the Conscious Mind that Connects to the Brain and someday could conceivably be Connected to pure Machines.

I see. You are thinking of the brain as a receiver and filter rather than a generator. It's an idea I have liked for some time but I have not firmly committed to anything. My own guess is that there is a general proto-consciousness that is shaped and amplified by the brain. The brain then would be the source of all the aspects of consciousness that we value, but not of the fundamental hum of being, so to speak.

I more or less agree except that the Brain may have less importance than you think. I think most of the things we value are not even in the Brain, but are in the Conscious Mind that connects to the Brain and uses the Brain as a Tool.

[SteveKlinko]

The very distinction you make between Me and Not Me shows that the Not Me is a different thing than the Me thing. If there is no reason to be unaware of other people's Minds, then why are we unaware of other people's Minds? If Arms and Legs are just imaginations of the Mind, which is not bound to Times and Places, then why are Arms and Legs bound to Times and Places? Something that comes from the Mind should be Mind-Like in it's properties.

We know others have minds too but we can't measure and evaluate others' mental experiences except by hearsay or analogy. We know others have arms and legs too and we can directly measure and evaluate others' arms and legs.

Arms and legs are bound to times and places whereas I can imagine riding on a dragon under the bridges of Paris, or in a more banal mood I can imagine I might not bake scones this week.

The ontic properties of arms and legs are physical properties whereas the ontic properties of mind are mental properties. I am an idealist and so I believe my last sentence too is mind stuff.

Do you believe your mind creates actual Physical objects, including the whole Universe?

[Belindi]

The very distinction you make between Me and Not Me shows that the Not Me is a different thing than the Me thing. If there is no reason to be unaware of other people's Minds, then why are we unaware of other people's Minds? If Arms and Legs are just imaginations of the Mind, which is not bound to Times and Places, then why are Arms and Legs bound to Times and Places? Something that comes from the Mind should be Mind-Like in it's properties.

We know others have minds too but we can't measure and evaluate others' mental experiences except by hearsay or analogy. We know others have arms and legs too and we can directly measure and evaluate others' arms and legs.

Arms and legs are bound to times and places whereas I can imagine riding on a dragon under the bridges of Paris, or in a more banal mood I can imagine I might not bake scones this week.

The ontic properties of arms and legs are physical properties whereas the ontic properties of mind are mental properties. I am an idealist and so I believe my last sentence too is mind stuff.

Do you believe your mind creates actual Physical objects, including the whole Universe?

I quite fervently aim to believe so.

[SteveKlinko]

The very distinction you make between Me and Not Me shows that the Not Me is a different thing than the Me thing. If there is no reason to be unaware of other people's Minds, then why are we unaware of other people's Minds? If Arms and Legs are just imaginations of the Mind, which is not bound to Times and Places, then why are Arms and Legs bound to Times and Places? Something that comes from the Mind should be Mind-Like in it's properties.

We know others have minds too but we can't measure and evaluate others' mental experiences except by hearsay or analogy. We know others have arms and legs too and we can directly measure and evaluate others' arms and legs.

Arms and legs are bound to times and places whereas I can imagine riding on a dragon under the bridges of Paris, or in a more banal mood I can imagine I might not bake scones this week.

The ontic properties of arms and legs are physical properties whereas the ontic properties of mind are mental properties. I am an idealist and so I believe my last sentence too is mind stuff.

Do you believe your mind creates actual Physical objects, including the whole Universe?

I quite fervently aim to believe so.

Do you believe your Mind is the only real Mind, or are there 7.5 billion Minds on this planet, not counting Animals? If there are 7.5 billion, how can all 7.5 billion Minds create the same Universe? Or is your Mind Special, and is the only Mind that can create the Universe?

[Belindi]

We know others have minds too but we can't measure and evaluate others' mental experiences except by hearsay or analogy. We know others have arms and legs too and we can directly measure and evaluate others' arms and legs.

Arms and legs are bound to times and places whereas I can imagine riding on a dragon under the bridges of Paris, or in a more banal mood I can imagine I might not bake scones this week.

The ontic properties of arms and legs are physical properties whereas the ontic properties of mind are mental properties. I am an idealist and so I believe my last sentence too is mind stuff.

Do you believe your mind creates actual Physical objects, including the whole Universe?

I quite fervently aim to believe so.

Do you believe your Mind is the only real Mind, or are there 7.5 billion Minds on this planet, not counting Animals? If there are 7.5 billion, how can all 7.5 billion Minds create the same Universe? Or is your Mind Special, and is the only Mind that can create the Universe?

You first and last sentences regard solipsism. I dismiss solipsism because no individual exists unless that individual is also its environment.

The reason all "7.5 million " individual minds create the same universe is that the universe is essentially an orderly place where events follow laws such as causality. Humans for instance have evolved to be vertebrates that adapt quickly and this in itself limits the ways in which the universe can possibly be conceived by humans. I don't doubt that any man and any woman are more alike in their worldviews than are any man and any spider. True, we now admit that some invertebrates are fast learners, so adaptation by learning plus physical environment is the criterion for sameness of worldview.

[SteveKlinko]

Do you believe your mind creates actual Physical objects, including the whole Universe?

I quite fervently aim to believe so.

Do you believe your Mind is the only real Mind, or are there 7.5 billion Minds on this planet, not counting Animals? If there are 7.5 billion, how can all 7.5 billion Minds create the same Universe? Or is your Mind Special, and is the only Mind that can create the Universe?

You first and last sentences regard solipsism. I dismiss solipsism because no individual exists unless that individual is also its environment.

The reason all "7.5 million " individual minds create the same universe is that the universe is essentially an orderly place where events follow laws such as causality. Humans for instance have evolved to be vertebrates that adapt quickly and this in itself limits the ways in which the universe can possibly be conceived by humans. I don't doubt that any man and any woman are more alike in their worldviews than are any man and any spider. True, we now admit that some invertebrates are fast learners, so adaptation by learning plus physical environment is the criterion for sameness of worldview.

In the first line are you saying that no individual exists unless that individual is the Universe?
I don't see why Universes being Causal means Universes being the same.
Why does the law of Causality mean that 7.5 billion different Minds create the same Causal Universe?