What is "Mind?"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 21841 - 21860 of total 22307 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

WBraun

climber

Apr 15, 2019 - 05:31pm PT

You are clueless to whom you are labeling rationalists hence your ultimate cluelessness.

You are very narrow minded and very badly brainwashed.

The subject matter is far out of your reach as far as your own developed consciousness goes.

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Apr 15, 2019 - 06:00pm PT

z,

What a cutie! That little guy almost broke my heart.

eeyonkee,

I think you've chosen the wrong word. Rationalists believe in rationality, which usually means reason coupled with knowledge. Of course, one question might be: what kind of knowledge? Secondly, I find reason has its limits stipulated by conceptualizations. There appear to be many things that are difficult conceptualize. Largo needs to speak for himself.

I'll resist any attempt to paint me into a box with categories, doctrines, labels, and definitions entered into dictionaries. I can understand how that might frustrate you (and others) here.

I asked a similar question of healyje upthread when I posted an image of one of my paintings.

Let's say that you see a painting by Picasso, Jasper Johns, David Hockney, or Dali. Say what it is, and try to be complete, final, and somewhat accurate. Better yet, say what you are completely, finally, and accurately.

I have the same problem with anything that you'd point out.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

Jan: I'm surprised a Buddhist meditator wouldn't have substituted a mantra instead??

I'd say you have particular expectations for modern monks. Perhaps your long stay in the Far East has institutionalized you a bit to old styles. It's my understanding that Buddhism has survived as long as it has because it was exported and adapted. The same could be said for the Catholic Church.

zBrown

Ice climber

Apr 15, 2019 - 08:15pm PT

Gonna serve up a home run ball to Herr Braun

In the coming years, however, these common units will begin to seem more quaint – that’s because the entire digital universe is expected to reach 44 zettabytes by 2020.

BTW

ZB zettabyte 1,000⁷ bytes 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes

And yes turtles all the way down

YB yottabyte 1,000⁸ bytes 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes

I do not think they would deliberately deceive us, but I wonder how they come up with these daily statistics

500 million tweets are sent
294 billion emails are sent
4 petabytes of data are created on Facebook
4 terabytes of data are created from each connected car
65 billion messages are sent on WhatsApp
5 billion searches are made

:) :(
MikeL

Her

She did break mine

Ruby {RIP}

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Apr 15, 2019 - 09:26pm PT

It's my understanding that Buddhism has survived as long as it has because it was exported and adapted. The same could be said for the Catholic Church.

also by appropriating local culture and religion

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Apr 15, 2019 - 11:02pm PT

Wow, a special double dip this week for anyone so inclined...

(1) Is Superintelligence Impossible? On Possible Minds: Philosophy and AI

Anyone serious about mind-brain, so-called third culture (incl science vis a vis humanities), AI, scientific naturalism ought to already know who John Brockman (edge.org) is. Here he is interviewing D Dennett and D Chalmers together in video presentation.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_chalmers-daniel_c_dennett-is-superintelligence-impossible

(2) Possible Minds: Conversations with George Dyson, Alison Gopnik, and Stuart Russell

https://samharris.org/podcasts/153-possible-minds/

There's a real, honest-to-goodness smorgasbord out there now, eh? Pretty incredible. Hard to believe internet video is really only about 10 years old and general internet 20 thereabouts.

"Artificial intelligence is today's story - the story behind all other stories. It is the Second Coming and the Apocalypse at the same time: Good AI versus evil AI." - John Brockman

https://www.amazon.com/Possible-Minds-Twenty-Five-Ways-Looking/dp/0525557997/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2WFGJJZ6TD8JQ&keywords=possible+minds&qid=1555395041&s=books&sprefix=Possible+Minds%2Caps%2C215&sr=1-1

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Apr 16, 2019 - 10:27am PT

Ed: also by appropriating local culture and religion

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Assimilation and accommodation.

Both Romes appeared to do both with territories, people, and minds it conquered. By a measure of time for the two's empire and influence, the strategy seems to have worked pretty well.

One can go along to get along.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Apr 16, 2019 - 02:07pm PT

Dennett and Chalmers are the right guys for the job as there isn't going to be consciousness in artificial systems outside of philosophical exercises.

Chalmers (referring to Dennett): As Dan said tonight, that’s the right perspective to start from in thinking about consciousness in artificial systems, even though Dan and I end up diverging on the path we take from there.

eeyonkee

Trad climber

Golden, CO

Apr 16, 2019 - 04:06pm PT

I'm actually very grateful for this thread because it has made me aware of new ideas in subject areas that I have been reading about for my entire adult life, as well as flaws in my arguments. I'm not afraid to offer up something that is wrong (clearly). Over the past year or so, I've been especially interested in three different questions.

* What is the relationship between intelligence and consciousness?
* What are the building blocks of consciousness?
* What is the difference between consciousness and mind?

My starting point, of course, is that they are all a consequence of biological evolution on planet Earth. Here are my tentative answers.

Intelligence only requires consciousness inasmuch as it requires temporarily holding content in memory registers so that the algorithm can play out with ALL of the necessary inputs. It's the algorithm that is intelligent. So, as far as I'm concerned, machines can be intelligent.

The main building blocks of consciousness are memory traces. Memory includes immediate memory, working memory, non-declarative memory, and declarative memory, for sure. I would postulate that it also includes "mind" memory. I also believe that the "feelings" that are associated with the memory trace are important to consciousness. Feelings require chemicals. Like healyje, I don't think that machines will ever truly have consciousness. On the other hand, I believe that, in the future, we will be able to start with something organic that does not have consciousness, and create a conscious being (Frakenstein).

Mind is consciousness plus "mind memory". Mind memory is something that evolved in primates and, continued evolving in humans. Mind memory adds after-the-fact meaning to the memory trace.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - Apr 16, 2019 - 06:25pm PT

If a daily drama of direct experience has no apparent effect on me or mine or my environment it might as well be processed as an artistic effort, to be enjoyed or contemplated as a variety of abstraction.

That's hard for me to fathom. Is there some "John" separate from your direct experience that evaluates the efficacy and causal effects of direct experience, that's conscious OUTSIDE of your direct experience? It is true that we encounter "reality" indirectly when experience is extruded through our egos and rations minds. Try the exercise of imagining yourself with no head, and see what happens.

"Direct experience" as used in wisdom traditions refers to non-dualistic experience. In one sense or another that's the entire plot - overcoming dualism.

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Apr 16, 2019 - 07:55pm PT

Jogill: If a daily drama of direct experience has no apparent effect on me or mine or my environment it might as well be processed as an artistic effort, to be enjoyed or contemplated as a variety of abstraction.

Good thinking.

Largo: That's hard for me to fathom. Is there some "John" separate from your direct experience that evaluates the efficacy and causal effects of direct experience, that's conscious OUTSIDE of your direct experience? It is true that we encounter "reality" indirectly when experience is extruded through our egos and rations minds. . . . . "Direct experience" as used in wisdom traditions refers to non-dualistic experience. In one sense or another that's the entire plot - overcoming dualism.

We're getting well into the weeds here.

Whatever shows you *What This Is* will do. I can't see anything unhelpful in seeing reality as an artistic expression. (But it's also where I'm at, so I'm highly biased in its favor.)

Jumping to nondual seeing seems to be almost light years in another direction than that.

I'd add that direct experience *as experienced* is a kind of experience that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi might recognize as a peak experience. A peak experience is only significant for its feeling of effortlessness and the lack of active mind. (But it also includes some sense of self and aggrandizement.)

To some extent, direct experience IS an artistic event. From what I see, each of us might have our own style to express.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Apr 16, 2019 - 08:06pm PT

A couple points...

(1) It is nice that this thread has been exempted from the latest axe that focused on political discussion.

(2) Past pages relative to today are likely to contain gaps, disconnects and such due to member deletions (e.g., Dingus). Gives new meaning, I suppose, if we want, to the term... non sequitur. Perhaps worth remembering, at least for some.

...

Wow, Moose deleted now too. Just learned. Another loss. One of the few here who knew the difference between amino acid and nucleotide. Sadly, this thread in losing its content is also losing its coherence, its readability. This matters to some.

zBrown

Ice climber

Apr 16, 2019 - 08:25pm PT

Lovegasoline: The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā . . . .

Side note

It appears "the gas man"
has left the building too

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Apr 16, 2019 - 08:30pm PT

Largo wrote: Is there some "John" separate from your direct experience that evaluates the efficacy and causal effects of direct experience, that's conscious OUTSIDE of your direct experience? It is true that we encounter "reality" indirectly when experience is extruded through our egos and rations minds. Try the exercise of imagining yourself with no head, and see what happens.

Is there some magic repository outside of the brain for all the memories which allows your subconscious to contextualize your direct experience such that you know you're experiencing anything or for you to even exist to directly experience anything at all as you?

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Apr 16, 2019 - 08:30pm PT

Jogill: . . . an artistic effort, to be enjoyed or contemplated as a variety of abstraction.

I meant to say something about this. Sorry.

Art is normally not anything about concepts or abstractions, but more about seeing. Seeing tends to be a real-time affair. There's little room (bandwidth, cycles) for abstracting an infinite field of perception. To abstract anything requires a on-running engagement in abstraction to begin with. That means one is at least two steps away from direct experience.

Even "now" is long past. Somehow, realization gets before that.

jogill

climber

Colorado

Apr 16, 2019 - 08:58pm PT

JL: "Is there some "John" separate from your direct experience that evaluates the efficacy and causal effects of direct experience, that's conscious OUTSIDE of your direct experience?"

I am standing on a corner when a minor auto accident occurs a block away. I watch as the two drivers discuss what happened, then as one of them calls the cops. It's no affair of mine, so I continue to watch as the drama unfolds. It might as well be a stage play - an artistic endeavor - and I enjoy it as such. What's so hard about that? Should I feel guilty that I haven't questioned how I came to that conclusion?

Your comment seems a little strange, but I guess I might not understand it. Therefore I will treat it as an artistic display having little to no effect on me. Thanks for the abstraction.

"That means one is at least two steps away from direct experience. "

In order to abstract? Explain "step" please. I am in an art gallery, a step away from a curator and my wife having a sophisticated conversation about a painting. How droll I think, and my mind wanders into abstraction land as I listen to them as if they were reading from a novel. Have I committed a philosophical error? I hope not.

;>)

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Apr 16, 2019 - 09:00pm PT

if there is a scientific theory of consciousness, then there would be the ability to create consciousness excised from it's biological constraints.

WBraun

climber

Apr 16, 2019 - 09:19pm PT

scientific theory of consciousness

It's not theory and not rooted in matter.

It's a scientific method of revealing consciousness itself.

jogill

climber

Colorado

Apr 16, 2019 - 09:32pm PT

Had nothing to do with the two sign-ons, and I appreciate the first being deleted by rj. It was a polithread and happened to coincide with the general purge of such material. Too bad, but that's life on the internet.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Apr 16, 2019 - 09:54pm PT

Ed Hartouni wrote: if there is a scientific theory of consciousness, then there would be the ability to create consciousness excised from its biological constraints.

Not necessarily.