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.
Not bad. I too think a causal definition of subjective experience is
> 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
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?
> > 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!
> 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
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:
> 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
> 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
More information about the Neur-sci