Exploring the Absurdity of Energy

[babsyco]

The topic of consciousness is still a controversial and ultimately unresolved one; an excellent overview of different philosophical outlooks on the problem can be found in David Chalmers' paper http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/nature.html . (By the way, you might be interested to know that Pinker himself acknowledges the existence and 'hardness' of the hard problem of consciousness; I'm not sure he would be entirely comfortable with the dictum, 'the mind is what the brain does.')

That was actually a Pinker quote ('the mind is what the brain does'- How The Mind Works, pg 21), but I wasn't suggesting that the problem of 'consciousness' is resolved by the theory of computation, only that how the formless MIND interacts with physical matter, and that was also what the quote I was responding to addressed. "the mind can exist independent of the body". An example of the difference is, not all animals have full consciousness, but they do have tasteless, formless, odorless thoughts that somehow are the cause of physical action which is no less amazing because they lack consciousness. I think the Computation theory does resolve that paradox, but I wasn't suggesting it explained consciousness. Thanks for the site, I'll check it out.

 

[Philocrat]

I don't see how his experience implies that the mind can exist totally independent of the body. The mind is what the brain does, and the dualism debate I think has been resolved by the Computational Theory of Mind. Les Sleeth HAS had physical contact with the world, and that played a part in developing his mind, but even without that, the mind is the relationship of physical entities, namely, neurons and their charges. that is how it relates to the physical world.

Still to ambiguous for you? Information processing. That is what the mind does, it arranges physical entities that both represent something AND have physical properties that can be manipulated to create actions/reactions that correspond to the reationships to the concepts they represent. A neuron representing 'greeness' fires a charge down a synapse, activating another neuron representing 'sweetness' when we see a grape. The electrical charge between the neurons corresponds to the fact that when we see green grapes in the real world, their greeness predicts sweetness. That is how the mind is grounded in physical reality. It doesn't exist separate to its physical body, it's what it's physical body does. A great book on this (and you'll notice I mention in nearly every posting- I just can't get over it) is 'How The Mind Works' by Stephen Pinker.

I assume you posted your point in here because you see some link between the formless, tasteless, odorless and invisible entity of the mind and that of energy, and how they both interact with the physical world, but the mind depends on energy to operate. The mind is not a mystical entity with no physical substance, it is the clever arrangement of physical entities so that the energy exchanged between them (based on their physical properties) corresponds to the relationships of what they represent. It relies on energy to work. It is NOT 'outside the realm of the physical'. This theory (computaional theory of Mind) resolves the dualism paradox for the mind, but NOT for energy, so I don't believe that energy can in any way be equated with the mind.

I can see a reply coming on that a mind is much more than relationships between entities, eg, consciousness, etc, but all I'm going to say is read Pinker's book. I'm not saying you're ignorant and I'm trying to 'enlighten you' or anything, I'm merely trying to save myself typing time by directing you to a text that argues these points very convincingly, and it's just what I would be saying anyway.

Thanks, Babsyco.

Well, that's a Physicalist account and from my own examination of the Computational or informational theory of mind, there is nothing which logically rules this out either. I am a strong believer in this too and if you look at all the serious questions that I have asked people above and elsewhere on the PF about other proposed or alternative explanations, you should notice how people systematically avoid them. Everyone is sly about these hard-headed questions. Over the years, I have programatically examined your thesis and I have come to the conclusion that a mind can be engineered into other systems other than the biological systems such as the human's...and if there is any outstanding problem, it's purely an engineering one which we may very soon overcome through continuous review of our engineering options.

However, I have consistently issued a warning of caution on PF and elsewhere about our overall approach to handling such possibility, should it ever come to pass. The research in this area must be human-focused and aimed only at resolving the natural limitations in the human system. That is, as an aid to understanding the human system and using the resulting information to re-engineer the human system to eliminate its natural limitations. If this is our real intention, then by all means this is fine. However, the idea that we must replicate the human-like intelligence or consciousness in other non-human systems just for the fun of it must be avoided.