Page 397 of 456 FirstFirst ... 297347387395396397398399407447 ... LastLast
Results 11,881 to 11,910 of 13654

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #11881
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,809
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    so you are saying the mind is the source of the signals from the eyes, ears, etc. The brain auto creates its own signals?
    no I did not say that but the brain can recall from memory. I said the mind/brain processes signals.It also fills in missing details from memory too, but overall the mind makes sense of all those signals to give you your reality.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  2. #11882
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,960
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Either there is an MDR-interpreted MIR or MDR is god. My MDR, and you and Ken are jusy (annoying) figments of my imagination...
    This is a classic fallacy of the excluded middle. We are not looking at two choices here, we are simply looking at the meaning of our own word "reality." This is very simple, it's our word, it means what we choose it to mean, no more and no less. It is not handed to us, we decide how we create a meaning for that word, using our senses and our minds. It isn't god, it doesn't have to come from some MIR that has no properties we could ever name. We have a scientifically testable hypothesis, that any time anyone ever uses a concept of reality in the process of any form of scientific thinking, the role played by their mind is easily demonstrable with a little digging. That's it, that's the MDR hypothesis that this thread is about, and it isn't either of those options, so we see right away those are not the options here.

    As a result of this well-tested hypothesis, one good way to create a nonsensical meaning of "reality" is to use anything along the lines of "reality is whatever is there that doesn't depend on our minds, and is responsible for everything that our minds conclude but is not itself what our minds conclude." It takes about two seconds to demonstrate the glaring inconsistencies in that definition any time anyone who thinks that's their meaning actually uses the word "reality" in practice, and indeed that is the point that has been repeated over and over in this thread.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-Apr-10 at 01:44 PM.

  3. #11883
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,960
    In this single long post, I will summarize this whole thread. The thread is not an investigation of "what reality actually is, something dependent on our minds or something not dependent on our minds," that wouldn't be scientific. Instead, it is about the scientific testing of the MDR hypothesis, and it is instructive to simply test it in the context of Philip Dick's nice definition of "reality," that sums up all the key issues. It also serves to correct misconceptions about what MDR means in the first place, so let's see how this works.

    Philip Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." The testable claim of the MDR hypothesis is that this meaning of "reality" can be demonstrated to give an important role to the mind, in any situation where the meaning is actually used for anything remotely scientific. Dick's definition is indeed a scientifically useful meaning, and indeed seems reasonably close to whatever meaning most people ascribe to their reality concept, so the MDR hypothesis should apply. Hence we can use this to test the hypothesis, and if it fails, we have refuted it-- it is a scientific hypothesis.

    But the hypothesis doesn't fail-- it succeeds in dramatic fashion. That may sound surprising, after all, some have used Dick's quote as a kind of refutation of MDR in favor of MIR. But that's merely because they have concealed from themselves why Dick's quote is not about any MIR, it is a classic statement of MDR. This is testably demonstrable.

    Let's start with the obvious, if superficial, mind-dependent elements, and then move to the more subtle (and more important) issues that Dick's quote brings up. The obvious mind dependence comes from the fact that Dick's quote requires we be able to understand what it means to believe or not believe in something, such that we could then say whether that something satisfies the definition. Yet of course, it requires a mind to believe, and it also requires a mind to judge what someone else believes, so we have mind-dependence in Dick's meaning of "reality." If two different minds disagree on what is being believed and what is being not believed, then we have those same two minds, using Dick's meaning, disagreeing on what rises to that meaning of reality. That's clear mind dependence, and a pass to the hypothesis.

    A more subtle, and more important, mind dependence appears when Dick says that reality "doesn't go away." For something to go away, it would have to be there in the first place. After all, if invisible unicorns are there in the first place, they too will not go away if disbelieved, so they also rise to the meaning of reality-- if they are there in the first place. So if interpreted as a statement about some MIR, the definition is circular, by which I do not mean the way all definitions are circular, I mean the logical fallacy version of assuming a concept has meaning and inserting that meaning into the definition without demonstrating that it has meaning. The way definitions should actually work is, we should have a set of ideas that we regard as well-founded, widely understood, and already useful, and we frame the meanings of new words in terms of those prior well-understood meanings. So for this definition of reality to be any good, we must presuppose that we already have a useful and widely understood meaning to "what is there in the first place," such that we can then judge if it "didn't go away" when people stopped believing in it. That's not a problem for an MDR definition-- we do indeed build our MDR replete with concepts like "what is there in the first place," and we can then indeed judge "whether or not it went away"-- but it's all very clearly mind dependent. So Dick's definition is a perfectly good meaning of an MDR.

    But it's a terrible meaning of an MIR, because taking it that way would render it disastrously circular. It would be the logical fallacy of saying, "assume there exists an MIR that involves things that are there in the first place, and then define this MIR as having the additional property of having those things not go away if people stop believing in them." How are you going to apply that definition if there are no people around to stop believing in what you regard as already being there? You have there a definition that is completely meaningless in a corner of the universe that includes no people, unless you start out by asserting what is already there, and then do nothing with it! No one means that by "reality," it is way too mind dependent, so what is actually meant is that if we hypothetically insert people into that distant corner of the universe, and hypothetically imagine them not believing in it, then whatever we meant by what "was there before" would "not go away." Well, using hypothetical imaginings to support a meaning of a word is the clearest possible example of mind dependence, so the MDR hypothesis passes with flying colors.

    But the power of the hypothesis goes even deeper, and passes this definition on that deeper level as well. When Dick says "doesn't go away," this is synonymous with "continues to be true." It is inescapable, the definition rests on a concept of "what is true," such that if we have no criteria for "what is true," how are we ever going to say whether it "doesn't go away"? So it goes deeper than simply avoiding some kind of transition when people "stop believing," the whole definition of reality rests on what is meant by what is true. This hidden implication, the implication that we have in place a consistent and agreed-on meaning of truth, is the most important place where mind dependence enters that definition. It is why Dick is choosing a means of defining an MDR, it's just clearly an MDR he has there, because of his reliance on his own concept of what continues to be true before he could ever apply it to situations where people stop believing it. Different minds that do not agree on what is true, who use Dick's definition, will arrive at different conclusions about what is real. That's MDR, in a nutshell-- it is the most obvious possible form of an MDR, and it's the main reason that the MDR hypothesis works so well: any workable concept of reality rests on some means to establish what is true.

    Now the MIR believer might try to maintain that Dick is providing a constraint on the meaning of truth, that anything that doesn't survive people not believing in it cannot be a valid meaning of "truth," and this then provides a constraint on valid meanings of both "reality" and "truth" that is mind independent. Unfortunately, this argument is demonstrably wrong for (at least) two reasons:

    1) someone applying it to their own truth could still hold that it continues to be true when people stop believing, such as, if the person in question believes that some deity is real, they will hold that the deity will continue to be real even if for some reason they lose their own faith. Indeed, they will have already seen this with other people, they will see other people lose their faith, yet they themselves will still hold that the deity is real, ergo passing Dick's definition.

    2) there is simply no connection between the MIR concept and the idea that reality must remain consistent even when people change their beliefs, because someone who is a deep believer in, say, faith healing, can hold that the MIR can be affected by belief. So what we find in the context of faith healing is that the MIR believer can hold that faith is a potent force in affecting the MIR, either by psycho-somatic channels or actions of a deity that alter the MIR, whereas a scientific MDR thinker would ask for evidence that the effects are not simply illusory. In this example, we see clearly the absence of any necessary connection between MIR belief and the requirement that belief must not affect that MIR.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-Apr-10 at 03:05 PM.

  4. #11884
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    The moment you try to understand anything of it, you are in the realm of MDR, indeed you entered it before this, because the very things you are trying to interpret are presented to you in MDR terms. MIR is just a source beyond this you are in MDR, so your reality is not the MIR source, it is the MDR source that feeds your sense making. Realism/Idealism its all the same to your sense making activity. If we take your MDR doichotomy, then it falls to you to demonstrate that all forms of idealism are false, thus if your binary is true, you have demonstrated that some form of realism must be true. (ignoring the fact that this inherently relies on axioms, making it mind dependent) no test has yet been put forward that can do this, short of argument by incredulity.

    ETA: so its not just a case that the mind is involved and thus we fundamentally cannot separate ourselves out from out description, it the case that even within our MDR we cannot at an objective level satisfactorily demonstrate which is correct, we just have our own opinions
    MDR is what our minds create, it is not a source. it is a product of our minds. I never said our reality is the MIR source. MDR needs input.

  5. #11885
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    no I did not say that but the brain can recall from memory. I said the mind/brain processes signals.It also fills in missing details from memory too, but overall the mind makes sense of all those signals to give you your reality.
    So where do the signals come from? Yes, our senses. Somwhatbfeeds the senses?

  6. #11886
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    This is a classic fallacy of the excluded middle. We are not looking at two choices here, we are simply looking at the meaning of our own word "reality." This is very simple, it's our word, it means what we choose it to mean, no more and no less. It is not handed to us, we decide how we create a meaning for that word, using our senses and our minds. It isn't god, it doesn't have to come from some MIR that has no properties we could ever name. We have a scientifically testable hypothesis, that any time anyone ever uses a concept of reality in the process of any form of scientific thinking, the role played by their mind is easily demonstrable with a little digging. That's it, that's the MDR hypothesis that this thread is about, and it isn't either of those options, so we see right away those are not the options here.

    As a result of this well-tested hypothesis, one good way to create a nonsensical meaning of "reality" is to use anything along the lines of "reality is whatever is there that doesn't depend on our minds, and is responsible for everything that our minds conclude but is not itself what our minds conclude." It takes about two seconds to demonstrate the glaring inconsistencies in that definition any time anyone who thinks that's their meaning actually uses the word "reality" in practice, and indeed that is the point that has been repeated over and over in this thread.
    Still does not explain what the source of sensorial input to our mind is.

  7. #11887
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    MDR is what our minds create, it is not a source. it is a product of our minds. I never said our reality is the MIR source. MDR needs input.
    it this one thing that leads me to believe in MIR. However:

    "it is not a source"

    that isn't precisely true, even given MIR is there as some ultimate source, your subconscious creates the picture you become aware of, albeit if MIR is there, based upon this. So the MDR that your subconscious is creating is the basis for everything you think of as reality, not MIR directly.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  8. #11888
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Actually, saying this thread is about testing the MDR hypothesis, smacks of hijacking this thread. The MDR hypothesis is not existant outside of this thread, has never been submitted as a peer reviewed paper. It is your pet theory. I do not feel constrained in this thread to limit the reality discussion to simply a MDR discussion.

    I would like to have the unbiased opinion of a moderator on this issue. Thanks in advance.

  9. #11889
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    As I recall, and looking at the first post backs this up... NCN created this thread to attempt quarantine the whole discussion of MIR/MDR into a single place rather than it spreading out into other threads and derail them as it was at the time

    ETA: however Ken has been saying this from the very early pages, that he was testing his hypothesis, and looking for people to make claims to mind independence. So its not really a hijacking or least not a new one.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-10 at 04:25 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  10. #11890
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    As I recall, and looking at the first post backs this up... NCN created this thread to attempt quarantine the whole discussion of MIR/MDR into a single place rather than it spreading out into other threads and derail them as it was at the time

    ETA: however Ken has been saying this from the very early pages, that he was testing his hypothesis, and looking for people to make claims to mind independence. So its not really a hijacking or least not a new one.
    it is if he wants to restrict discussion solely to MDR. See here:

    In this single long post, I will summarize this whole thread. The thread is not an investigation of "what reality actually is, something dependent on our minds or something not dependent on our minds," that wouldn't be scientific. Instead, it is about the scientific testing of the MDR hypothesis, and it is instructive to simply test it in the context of Philip Dick's nice definition of "reality," that sums up all the key issues. It also serves to correct misconceptions about what MDR means in the first place, so let's see how this works.]
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2017-Apr-10 at 04:32 PM.

  11. #11891
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,960
    The thread is in a "science" subsection of a "science" forum, that says it all.

  12. #11892
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The thread is in a "science" subsection of a "science" forum, that says it all.
    show me peer reviewed paper on MDR.
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2017-Apr-10 at 05:01 PM.

  13. #11893
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    tough call lol, seeing as MDR is typically considered more philosophy of science rather than science itself. It is however much more science than realism or idealism are, because it makes testable claims. It provides a framework that removes the realism/idealism argument from the immediate picture and changes the reality debate into a framework that openly admits the role of the mind within every part of what we claim to know.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  14. #11894
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    I have nothing against discussing MDR. Just disagree it is the only topic of discussion in this thread about reality.

  15. #11895
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    well I agree on that part, although if we sidestep too far into philosophy here, without making sure we are firmly talking philosophy of Science, Ken is right in that it wouldn;t really be an appropriate discussion in this forum.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  16. #11896
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,809
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    So where do the signals come from? Yes, our senses. Somwhatbfeeds the senses?
    Phenomena feed the senses and we cannot know the source of phenomena. This was said yonks ago. And KenG has summarised.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  17. #11897
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Phenomena feed the senses and we cannot know the source of phenomena. This was said yonks ago. And KenG has summarised.
    Still does not make the problem go away....
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2017-Apr-10 at 07:07 PM.

  18. #11898
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Still does not make the problem go away....
    no, nothing we know of can answer that question except as a pure belief on behalf of the individual.

    nothing in your modelling will be axiom free, that which you are modelling is at least shaped by your subconscious. there is no test, no objectively satisfying argument you can give to demonstrate MIR even slightly. only a matter of belief.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-10 at 08:54 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  19. #11899
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,451
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Actually, saying this thread is about testing the MDR hypothesis, smacks of hijacking this thread. The MDR hypothesis is not existant outside of this thread, has never been submitted as a peer reviewed paper. It is your pet theory. I do not feel constrained in this thread to limit the reality discussion to simply a MDR discussion.

    I would like to have the unbiased opinion of a moderator on this issue. Thanks in advance.
    Several points...

    First, the MDR hypothesis absolutely exists outside of this thread and is not solely the pet theory of anyone on CQ. Multiple thousands of posts ago I mentioned that I had (at the time) recently read a book on the topic (it was with regard to the merging of GR and QM). I am not familiar enough with the peer reviewed literature on the topic, but about 15 second of google scholar seemed to show lots of papers on it.

    I don't know that you have to limit the "reality discussion" to just an "MDR discussion"; frankly, until the post was Reported to the Moderation Team I hadn't looked in this thread for a very long time, and I barely know what you all are still discussing. I assume you are all able to have a polite discussion on all the related sub-topics.

    Lastly, that will be it for the meta-discussion. Frankly, the post I've quoted and several others are inappropriate for this thread and you have all been here long enough to know that. If you wish to question the content of this thread, specific posts, or otherwise get the attention of the Moderation Team, you Report the post (but you don't post about it in thread) or you start a thread in Feedback.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. 2017-Apr-11, 01:43 AM
    Reason
    off topic

  21. #11900
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Taking a step back: how does a mind come into existence?

  22. #11901
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,809
    The mainstream view in science is first you have evolution, then you have growth from infancy with the brain making and breaking synapse connections. Gradually the brain manages to make its own ideas about the inputs it receives. If you watch an infant develop you can see the mind and theory of mind arise, at least that interpretation fits the evidence. The idea that mind is brain structure based phenomenon is strong. Does that help accept that reality is mind based?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  23. #11902
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    Well when does mind begin..maybe it goes right back to the zygote; maybe it goes back to the first self-replicating mechanisms on Earth. Maybe 'mind' made the first cells...
    ................................

  24. #11903
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    Well when does mind begin..maybe it goes right back to the zygote; maybe it goes back to the first self-replicating mechanisms on Earth. Maybe 'mind' made the first cells...
    what do you mean by mind here? are you referring to some kind of disembodied consciousness? In theory there is nothing to prevent this being true, although we might have to redefine what we mean by these terms, that are specifically referential to ourselves.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-11 at 08:25 AM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  25. #11904
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    what do you mean by mind here? are you referring to some kind of disembodied consciousness? In theory there is nothing to prevent this being true, although we might have to redefine what we mean by these terms, that are specifically referential to ourselves.

    well not a body made of the atoms we are used to. Some form of consciousness, and intelligence, that pre-dates Earth, and the big bang.
    ................................

  26. #11905
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Taking a step back: how does a mind come into existence?
    Well this question first of all begs the same question as I just posed to Frog March.... What do you mean by mind? but if we limit this strictly to human minds, then its still not a straight forward question. The thing is it doesn;t just switch on one day, but its not a completely smooth process either. What is plain is that a baby's brain doesn't become fully functional in one point, at roughly fixed intervals from conception, massive changes occur in a baby's brain that bring wiith it new function etc, the ability to do new things and think in different ways. Thus at what point do we wish to say the baby has a mind?
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  27. #11906
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    Well this question first of all begs the same question as I just posed to Frog March.... What do you mean by mind? but if we limit this strictly to human minds, then its still not a straight forward question. The thing is it doesn;t just switch on one day, but its not a completely smooth process either. What is plain is that a baby's brain doesn't become fully functional in one point, at roughly fixed intervals from conception, massive changes occur in a baby's brain that bring wiith it new function etc, the ability to do new things and think in different ways. Thus at what point do we wish to say the baby has a mind?
    well I think a baby has a mind at least way back in the womb, but then their brains(I'm just guessing) are quickly bigger than a rat's brain, and I think rats have minds; well I think ants have minds too....
    ................................

  28. #11907
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    well not a body made of the atoms we are used to. Some form of consciousness, and intelligence, that pre-dates Earth, and the big bang.
    right so we are not directly talking universal consciousness theory. I just wanted to be clear on this, that we weren;t talking about a consciousness perhaps embodied in quantum fields etc, but ultimately a part of the universe.

    Well obviously we are now talking something akin to the god hypothesis, with all the problems such brings to the table when you want to discuss such in a scientific fashion. However again in theory its possible, but by itself, the concept is not yet well formed enough to make any risky predictions. Our notions of intelligence, consciousness etc are all defined in relation to ourselves and our experience of such. The terms cannot directly apply outside of which unless we are also anthropomorphizing ourselves into the wider universe. Now of course we do always do this, (at least in part), as a natural part of our MDR but if you are trying to remove our mind from the equation, we cannot include stuff which does this.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  29. #11908
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    well I think a baby has a mind at least way back in the womb, but then their brains(I'm just guessing) are quickly bigger than a rat's brain, and I think rats have minds; well I think ants have minds too....
    all of which depends upon just what you mean, when you use the term mind. What properties does this imbue something with, when you apply the term in describing something? As Ken has said countless times in this thread alone, terms don't have some universal meaning handed down on high. They have the meaning we wish them to take and if we wish to be scientific, we must be very precise in what such a meaning is, within context. Once we do this, we can use such a definition to devise a test to see if something should be classified as having such properties or not.

    For instance most of us will accept that a rock doesn't have a mind, not in some absolute sense, but simply because it displays no evidence of the required properties for us to say it does.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-11 at 09:00 AM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  30. #11909
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    With regards Ants though, there is a secondary thing here of importance. Whilst an individual Ant would not seem to have the capabilities that most would say represent a mind. The Hive as a whole does seem to have a kind of delocalized mind, that is a hive of ant's satisfies the mainstream definition. This is actually of more than passing interest in a number of ways, but the one I want to bring out is that certain properties of the mind would seem to arise in a similar way in the brain, that is they are emergent from the colony of neurons we call the brain, rather than arriving as some specific function of a pathway of neurons etc.

    ETA: That in fact it may be the case that certain properties of what we describe within our concept of mind, may indeed need to be emergent, which raises all kinds of interesting questions.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-11 at 09:31 AM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  31. #11910
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    The question however I am going to pose here, is this... Is a Hive of Ants conscious? The question is of real importance here, because its separating out two related concepts... mind and consciousness.

    If it is, then what is experiencing that consciousness, if it is not, then it must be the case that consciousness is not something we require within our definition of mind, which will have repecussions in other ways, such as that if a mind created the universe this doesn't mean it was a conscious mind. And in which case, all we are really doing is applying the term mind to a set of physical processes that led to the big bang, which may have in totality displayed certain emergent properties that we would see as being a mind.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-11 at 09:37 AM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •