Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
I guess it's just fun to pretend that there's something intractably mysterious about it all.
What's Infinitely more entertaining is to pretend that mind is only the material stuff of the brain and that there's nothing mysterious about it at all.
You are welcome to use epicycles to compute the trajectory for getting New Horizons to Pluto, Mike.
Really? How is that any kind of an argument?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
i wanna hear where Ed's "intent" rose from?
Was it there at the "beginning" of the universe?
was it there at the "beginning's" of earth's first life form's?
Maybe intent didn't show up till the brain gave rise? Maybe intent caused the brain to rise?
Inquiring mind's are inquiring.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
there is a significant period of your life which you may have no coherent "memory" of, and certainly a point when you can definitely say you had an awareness of "mind." That is my experience. How did that happen?
Really? I can't possibly come up with a particular point in time when self-awareness materialized. I don't recall an "a ha!" moment when that happened. As for a lack of memories prior to that epiphany, I can't recall when I had no memories.
Cintune is correct:
Neural development leads to cognitive development. I guess it's just fun to pretend that there's something intractably mysterious about it all
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
DMT: But I don't mind.
Exactly.
You made a funny. :-) Good job. (Check out the term, “amphiboly.”)
Cintune: I guess it's just fun to pretend that there's something intractably mysterious about it all
Quit guessing.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
My basic challenge is about the emergence of mind in your own experience... there is a significant period of your life which you may have no coherent "memory" of, and certainly a point when you can definitely say you had an awareness of "mind." That is my experience. How did that happen?
This looks like a good way to go with the, "What is Mind?" debate.
Any one individual might have trouble identifying when they first developed an awareness of "mind" even if they have a clear idea of what they think "mind" is. The difficulty seems similar to what happens when you go under or emerge from general anesthesia. You are prevented from being sure when your mind stopped or began again because of interference with that which you are using to observe your mind. Here you could defer to external observers.
It seems that it would take an unusually far-reaching and reliable memory to see far enough back into childhood to discern early stages in your own mental development.
Nabokov may be a good guide.
It occurs to me that the closest reproduction of the mind's birth obtainable is the stab of wonder that accompanies the precise moment when, gazing at a tangle of twigs and leaves, one suddenly realizes that what had seemed a natural component of that tangle is a marvelously disguised insect or bird.
Chapter 15 part 1
Speak, Memory
There is an imaginative treatment of dawning awareness in the Italo Calvino short story The Spiral, going back 500 million years.
500 million years and even early childhood may be out of reach for most of us, but there are other places to look for major changes in one's awareness of mind.
I recently had the good fortune to meet Doug Nidiver. He had recovered well from a stroke and heart attack and told me that he could not describe what it felt like in the early stages of his recovery. He said that he did not know who he was, he could not speak, and he did not recognize things around him. He could not direct effort toward fixing those problems because he was not aware that they were problems. I imagine that he had to re-learn certain things the way a baby does, as new experiences gradually modify synaptic strengths. In his case there were probably also residual memories that could eventually be accessed again.
There is sleep. You can look into when your mind goes to sleep and when it wakes up.
Once upon a time in a philosophy class at M.I.T.
from Feynman
written by Jim Ottaviani
art by Leland Myrick
coloring by Hilary Sycamore
:01 First Second
New York and London
Studies of child development may offer clues to the appearance of mind. As parents we regularly see new productions from our children, the origins of which are baffling because we did not get any warning that they were coming. As a parent I claim no great insight into how the mind develops but will tentatively suggest that awareness of mind comes later than awareness of stomach.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
it would be an obvious statement, MikeL, to say I do not understand you at all...
but let me agree with your earlier statements that "reality" is a socially agreed upon interpretation of our perceptions about what is "real."
to a large extent, we accept the consensus provisionally, subject to further observations and tests. formally, we might use this consensus to predict the outcome of new observations, many of these observations being planned (as in experiments) though many are unplanned (as happens when we are looking at something new, either unique to our other experiences or with a capability that enables a different way of "looking").
when these "new" observations disagree with the expectations derived from our consensus, we first look to see if the expectations were correctly derived, if they were, then we check to see if the observations were correct, if they were then we have a serious demonstration that our consensus was incorrect. At that point we look for other explanations, usually multiple explanations, and eventually we find a new consensus.
during this period of investigating new explanations there may be multiple paths explored. generally we require that all these paths include what we knew before, and include the disagreeing observation, and have the ability to correctly predict new observations.
we build up reality in this manner.
unlike atoms, the elements of our description, our language, changes at the fundamental level of the word definitions. it is readily apparent in this discussion, where Largo uses the concept of "energy" and "particle" as two distinct things. in particular, he uses "energy" to represent something that is not material and "particle" as something that is. this duality arrives to us from Classical Mechanics where the distinction holds, and has some utility. beginning in the miraculous year of 1905, Einstein explains light, a wave phenomena in the electromagnetic field, in terms of quanta, or packets of energy, from which we derive the concept of the particle known as a "photon" which is a quantum of electromagnetic energy. the photon has a set of attributes that identify it, though one of the more difficult attribute to grasp is that this particle has no mass.
the development of Quantum Mechanics provides a way of understanding this, but in the process our classical concepts are replaced by quantum concepts, and so to the meaning of the words.
if one insists on the immutability of the definition of words then it is difficult to see how knowledge can be made, as you allude to in a previous post above. this was an interesting point made by Feyerabend in how language changes as old paradigms are overtaken by new ones, appropriating the same words but assigning quite different meanings.
in the end, we make a utilitarian argument for "what is real," to wit, can we use our consensus to do something. this is an admittedly human view point, it leads to concepts like "waste heat" in thermodynamic systems, the energy which escapes without doing any work, but in nature the energy is just the energy, "waste" being a human judgement.
our theory-of-mind has to "do something" too, and generally this is in the realm of machine-human interactions. machines have a long history of enhancing human sensory capability and human strength; here "machine" means some manufactured item, a technology. the earliest surviving machines are pebble tools, used to cut flesh. imagine the building of consensus on the production of such a tool, the selection of the blank, the manner of chipping the blade, the use and maintenance of the tool and the determination of the end-of-life of the tool.
many of the same concepts are generalized when cutting tools are manufactured out of metals, and as the metals change, as combinations of metals are used, as the nature of cutting edges are explored and as the materials used to produce particular cutting edges are designed for that purpose. we now have an abstract notion of a cutting edge, the "specifications"" with which to formulate "requirements" for the materials to produce that edge, and we fabricate the materials, we build our own "rock blanks" for the specific purpose.
while the cutting edge retains its meaning over 2.6 million years the idea of a cutting edge has greatly expanded. the "reality" of the edge is very different, in our consensus, then it was in the consensus of those hominins manufacturing the tools long ago. but whatever that consensus was, and whatever it is, we use this utilitarian product as an indication that our consensus is "real."
eventually, our consensus of what constitutes "mind" will produce similarly utilitarian technologies. it is not uncommon to talk to a machine on the phone, machines have "natural language" ability. this will be enhanced by more flexible understanding by the machines.
machines are becoming more autonomous, some are sent to the distant parts of the solar system to engage in exploration, they too are becoming more and more sophisticated in executing an adaptive set of behaviors to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities, in other words, becoming more "human."
most of us have to decide what to allow the "Siri" like assistance to be aware of in our lives... it's creepy/marvelous to get an unsolicited message that the travel-time-to-home is such and such around the usual departure time from work... do I really want "Siri" to know this? do I want to know that "Siri" knows?
while there are a set of critics and thinkers to this thread that would scoff at the notion that a "mere machine" could exhibit behavior we attribute to "mind," and dismiss it as "common sense," the exploration of what "common sense" is in this matter seems to indicate that a majority of people accept the notion, "common sense" is that machines could have minds. (this is from the experimental philosophy thread weaved in here).
so while we might invoke "common sense" so that we don't have to provide an argument for a particular point, that same argument fails when we find "common sense" isn't what we thought it was. how refreshing... now you have to make an argument based on some logical points.
this gets back to my latest questions about how we come to recognize "mind" and what our experience is along the path of that recognition, and by extension how our ideas of "mind" change.
I didn't mean to say that I had a "eureka" moment when I realized that I had a mind, rather, looking back on my life, there is a significant portion of my early life that I have no recollection of, it was not even "dream like" as I retain no coherent memories in any sense of that time.
but I do have coherent memories starting at some point.
nearly all of this involves the process of learning.
and so I ask the question: do we recognize "mind" because we are taught what to recognize as mind?
one can argue that the bits of mind are there to be recognized, but the known plasticity of the brain might be an indication that what we learn becomes an important part of how we perceive "reality." this is the bootstrap.
it works as long as what we are taught about mind is consistent with what we are experiencing, certainly when we do new things, meditation for example, the things we are taught (assuming we weren't taught about meditation as a part of are lessons regarding the mind) our notion of what mind is changes. and our minds change too.
one would expect that "mind" is different in different cultural settings (as Jan reminds us often). one would also expect that "mind" is absent until sufficient training exists to recognize it, as is our common experience. one could also conjecture that "mind" is tied up with the behavior of teaching/learning, certainly a behavior with genetic attributes, and that as such should be exhibited by a larger range of organisms in which these attributes exist across a spectrum of capabilities.
one would also expect that teaching/learning is a key behavior, and other non-biological entities capable of that behavior might also be taught what "mind" is... from among all the other things the entity "experiences."
just an idle thought...
by the way MikeL, what does the work on the cognition of infants have to say about any of this?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
//but I do have coherent memories starting at some point.
nearly all of this involves the process of learning.//
That's interesting for sure since my earliest memories all involve emotions. Left brain orientation vs right brain? Or perhaps Ed is just different that way since psychologists say that our most basic emotions and personalities are formed by age 5 and that we are largely unaware of them or the process that produced them. Or perhaps certain parents and child raising techniques produce learning at different ages. My earliest memories of learning for its own sake (as opposed to not getting punished for something) involve learning to read at the age of 6. Books are what gave me perspective on the world and the ability to think and get beyond an environment of pure emotion.
//one would also expect that teaching/learning is a key behavior, and other non-biological entities capable of that behavior might also be taught what "mind" is...//
Yes, if only cetaceans and ourselves could speak the same language. Those animals with brains similar to ours, show a very similar range of emotions and the beginnings of language (Gorila, Chimps, Oranutans and Bonobos). For me, animal studies are potentially much more interesting than machine intelligence, but that's just me.
Infant and early childhood cognition has certainly been studied, but it would be interesting to try to devise questions to ask at different ages to try to ascertain when awareness of mind begins. I say it happens very early and is largely unconscious in the beginning. The minute a child says "no" or "mine" they have a concepts of themselves as separate entities (if not before) with a mind of their own and are already building their little egos.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Ed: . . . to a large extent, we accept the consensus provisionally, . . .
I’m doubtful that most people accept their beliefs provisionally, Ed. Strict scientists like you may, but in my observations, they too appear fall prey to everyday appearances as concrete and relatively unequivocal outside of their areas of study. That is, they appear like normal people in everyday life. In that regard, I do not see them behave provisionally.
Making machines equivalent to “minds” would be a stretch in my book. Then again, I’m one of those who has very serious doubts that there are minds at all. You and I coming to an agreement about what “mind” is to begin with would likely lead a rather long and difficult dialogue.
You say you have coherent memories. I say that memories all exist only in the present moment. Memories are especially retrospectively constructed. Neuroscience has been recently arguing that the justice system needs to take into account documented everyday biases of memory and eyewitness accounts. (Today there seems to be a general complaint in the U.S. on this subject with police: “Black Lives Matter.”)
When it comes to mind, it seems to me that you can talk about yours, and I might be able to talk about appears to be mine. But you talking about mine, and I talking about yours seems to lead to big disagreements. (That might tell us something.)
I don’t know much about the cognition of infants from what I’ve read. I understand infants appear to have two intuitive understandings (responses)—(i) to loud noises and (ii) falling—immediately upon birth. Then there is all that depth psychology about ever-widening, non-centric, differentiating levels of awareness regarding self vs. “other” first physically, then emotionally, then mentally, then psychically. (Perhaps some of that is what Jan refers to.)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
catching up here..
As a parent I claim no great insight into how the mind develops but will tentatively suggest that awareness of mind comes later than awareness of stomach.
How so/why? shant the awareness of stomach/hunger propose the institution of "i"? Seriously, before "stomach" was realized, wasn't it a constitution tethered by "us"? Seemingly not "me"? Stomach, with no disrespect, IS MINE!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Hey mutants!
Steven Pinker on New Advances in Behavioral Genetics
"The findings of behavioral genetics have turned out to be substantial and robust, and new studies are linking genes with behavioral traits like IQ."
"Biologists are solving a related mystery: What is the additional factor shaping us that cannot be identified with our genes or families? The answer may be luck. We’ve long known that the genome can’t wire the brain down to the last synapse, so there is tremendous room for unpredictable zigzags in development."
http://graphics.wsj.com/image-grid/what-to-expect-in-2016/1666/steven-pinker-on-new-advances-in-behavioral-genetics
Careful, don't mangle your genes.
|
|
cintune
climber
Bruce Berry's Econoline Van
|
|
MikeL:
Cintune: I guess it's just fun to pretend that there's something intractably mysterious about it all
Quit guessing.
So, it is fun, then?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
only if you call silly, fun? Ha.
seriously tho, i gotta go back and digest those last posts from Ed and Jan.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
my earliest memories all involve emotions
Aren't the emotions connected to events, though? If you remember only the emotion and not the event, how do you date the memory?
Getting stung by a bee would be both a learning experience and and emotion. Probably all vivid memories are associated with strong emotion. Emotion seems ever present though varying in quality and intensity. Is it even possible to have no emotion?
My earliest memory may involve stepping on the serrated edge of the dump bed of a sandbox dump truck, having it poke into my foot, and then seeing something yellow coming out of my foot after pulling free. I don't remember pain. I remember surprise at what was coming out of the hole in my foot.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Aren't the emotions connected to events, though?
Mh2
Ha! i've been steadfastly waiting for this one.. So are there ANY events remembered without emotion/emotions?
Edit; and i do mean any event in the entire universe.;
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
MH2, would you classify messing up your foot as a learning experience then, rather than an emotional one?
Perhaps emotional memories (at that age at least) must always involve other people rather than inanimate objects?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
That's interesting for sure since my earliest memories all involve emotions. Left brain orientation vs right brain?
or male, female... as we would have been taught different things given our gender.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
I did think of gender differences as a possibility but in my case that was not involved with memories just before or at the age of 3. They were more personal and individualized reflecting more my introverted nature. I certainly have plenty of emotional memories based on gender roles and my negative reaction to them later on. I think of those more as starting when I went to school although experts say it starts much earlier.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Interesting study but I don't think it applies. Remembering where objects are located is not the same as an intense personal experience. Or maybe an engineer type person would be better at remembering objects and a liberal arts type would be better at people oriented memories? A lot more different kinds of tests would be needed to make a conclusion.
Personally I don't trust eye witness accounts in court unless backed up with forensic evidence. On the other hand, I have had the experience of correctly identifying someone in a police line up and again a month later, from multiple photos of similar looking people. The police then told me details of the person which matched my description. For example, the reason he ran so fast and no one could ever catch him was that he was a professional sprinter. The police finally got him because I was able to tell them what building he was behind and several of them ran out with a dog and nabbed him as he sauntered around the building.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
As this is the “What is Mind?” thread . . . .
There are a number of practices in meditation and especially Buddhist practices that are meant to probe past incarnations, most all focusing on the nature of mind.
I cannot really remember my mind (maybe, “who / what” I was?) from what I would normally call “the past.” I only have loosely connected visions of “events” painted with feelings. Evanescence. The history that I would seem to have access to of my mind is just about nothing when I look closely. Just fleeting images.
Nothing lasts. Not even history.
It’s always now. Even the past is now.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!