death of the mind.

Eray Ozkural exa erayo at bilkent.edu.tr
Tue Jul 6 07:06:45 EST 2004


patty <pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<mlpGc.31259$IQ4.1779 at attbi_s02>...
> Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
> 
> > patty <pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<%3BFc.17602$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".

I think it's tragicomic.
 
> 
> > 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>

Not bad. I too think a causal definition of subjective experience is
worthwhile.

> 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.

But that is not quite true. You are talking about theory. I am talking
about reality.

You cannot for instance decide to exclude "hearing" from your
"experiential bubble". You cannot decide to include an echolocation
perception (without augmenting your CNS; something we don't know how
to do that). Do you see the point?

But, of course *you*, your *physically defined* experiential bubble,
can imagine that there are other minds, there are bigger minds, etc.

> > 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.

That is not correct. It has every problem with qualia such as
subjective experience of color!

>  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?

You don't have a problem because you are not a behaviorist.

> > 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".

Patty, find a dictionary, it's called "mind".

> > 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.

What is political is promulgating some idiotic philosophical
mumbo-jumbo from 1950s. What's the point?

What could be more political than going nuts and proclaiming "There is
no mind!". You don't have to be an LSD addict like Quine.

>  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.

Good. But remember: semiotics is not necessarily "radical behaviorist"
(Oh my god, those silly guys again). We call that squiggly line up
there in the "interpreter" MIND.

>  Normally patty 
> takes the closed manifold that is labeled "interpreter" as the boundary 
> of her epidermis through time. 

Good. But you don't have a choice.

Mind is what exists, not what is theorized.

> 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.

Such observations are useful in that they reduce subjective experience
to functions.
 
> What do you think of me ?

I think you are a smart computer, that's why I think you have a mind.
(At least you appreciate the relevance of semiotics to the
discussion!)

Regards,

--
Eray Ozkural



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list