death of the mind.

patty pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net
Mon Jul 5 22:51:46 EST 2004


Eray Ozkural exa wrote:

> patty <pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<%3BFc.17602$a24.11221 at attbi_s03>...
> 
>>>A simplistic approach is to simply say by fiat, "There is no
>>>homunculus. There is no soul (mind)". This is the position taken by
>>>many workers in the soft sciences. But only at work. When they leave
>>>the classroom, they discover that they do, indeed, have a soul (mind).
>>
>>Well now we have it, and now we don't.  Perhaps we could say when it 
>>goes away it dies.  Maybe we should bury it.  Perhaps there is a real 
>>need to have a funeral here.  Let us officially mourn the death.  Then, 
>>once finally buried, it may be less likely to return as a living dead. 
>>When Nietzsche killed God, patty missed the funeral.  He just suddenly 
>>was dead, gone from the scene, nowhere to be found, no chance to talk 
>>with him on the bus ever again.  Can't we have just this little 
>>ceremony, would that be such an awful thing?
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.
> 

I dont call it "silly", i call it "melodramatic".


> Try to answer whether you have a mind or not. Do you, for instance,
> possess a subjective experience? 

I have trouble with the implied predicate (x possesses y) which seems to 
stem from English Common Law and is strangely out of place in this 
discussion.  However patty has defined "subjective experience" quite 
mathematically below in the post entitled Re: blinkers experience gliders.

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=U2_hb.539621%24Oz4.440948%40rwcrnsc54>

You are free to draw the boundaries of the experiential bubble any place 
that is convenient for your to call that which is inside "you" and that 
which is outside "not you", for any you that you choose to analyze.

> Do you see colors? 

Yes.

> Just *what* is this phenomenon? How can we explain it
> physically?
> 

The EAB has not problem in measuring a class of private behavior.  Patty 
has no problem in referring to the private process she calls "seeing 
blue".  I put "process" at the top of the partition of my ontology that 
you would call "physical".  What is your problem?


> Mind is not simply perception, it is more than that (as it includes
> such things as planning for instance). What kinds of abilities does
> *your* brain have in addition to audio-visual/haptic/olfactory etc.
> perception? What do you call these abilities and their subjective
> experience?
> 

... "abilities" and "subjective experience".

> Does the totality of these functions exist?
> 
> Do you have a name for it? (If it doesn't exist, you shouldn't be
> referring to it.)
> 

Look, there are many processes in this messy world, and since there is 
no longer a God to divvy them up, it is up to the processes themselves 
to partition.  Now here is England, here is the Duke of York's estate, 
here is the Duke himself, and there is Napoleon and here comes his army. 
  This is all very political and you pays your money and stakes your 
claim.  Signs will be posted and stuck in the ground.  I have drawn an 
illustration,  i hope you like it:

<http://icyberspace.net/patty/diagrams/SEMIOT.JPG>

The squiggly line is just patterns of cause-effect.  Normally patty 
takes the closed manifold that is labeled "interpreter" as the boundary 
of her epidermis through time.  That boundary creates a privileged point 
of view.  That privileged point of view patty calls  "i".   That i goes 
through changes.  That i is those changes.

What do you think of me ?

patty



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list