Is the mind a machine?

[Robin]

From the Science, Mathematics etc... forum:

Q. Can a machine think as the human mind does?
Robin: The human mind is a machine so one machine already thinks as a human mind does.
Interesting Ian: And I imagine that no justification will be given for this outrageous assertion

So here does - is the mind a machine?

Argument 1 - What does dualism (or pluralism) explain?

Now let's suppose that the mind is not a physical thing - that it is an entity in some non-physical domain. We observe that it behaves with a pattern so it is not random, it behaves according to some set of rules.

But what is physics but an attempt to derive a set of rules describing how things behave? So clearly we are not talking of a non-physical domain we are talking of a theoretical alternate physical domain when we speak of dualism.

If there is something inexplicable about the human mind in the context of the laws of physics, how does substituting some other set of laws suddenly make it explicable? If it can be explicable using the laws some theoretic alternative universe it should be explicable using the laws of physics derivable by science.

We have no reason for believing that this theoretical alternate physics exists but even if it does then the mind is still a machine, albeit working to some unknown physical principle.

Argument 2 - the mind develops with the physical brain

When we observe a baby are we observing simple thought processes or are we observing sophisticated thought processes imperfectly translated? A complete answer is of course out of the scope of this discussion, but most parents and educators would see a child's mind as developing rather than just 'becoming clearer'. Understanding of cause and effect for example are just not there. So clearly if the mind actually exists in some alternate domain then clearly no advantage is derived, the mind is still constrained by the physical and so presumably declines and dies with the physical.

Argument 3 - the purposes of consciousness

Some things like fear, pain, hunger, desire have very obvious physical purposes for the survival of the organism. They would have no meaning if there was no physical body. It seems unnecessary to have some non-physical entity processing the housekeeping for the local physical body. Like having hardware drivers for the terminal located on the server. It doesn't disprove the idea or a non-physical mind but suggests that it is not the most reasonable hypothesis.

 

[JAK]

From the Science, Mathematics etc... forum:

So here does - is the mind a machine?

I suggest using "system" instead of "machine." It's easier to defend.

Argument 1 - What does dualism (or pluralism) explain?

Now let's suppose that the mind is not a physical thing - that it is an entity in some non-physical domain. We observe that it behaves with a pattern so it is not random, it behaves according to some set of rules.

I agree. Because of the rules, it becomes predictable and can be deemed systematic. The rules are the "attractors" of the system.

But what is physics but an attempt to derive a set of rules describing how things behave? So clearly we are not talking of a non-physical domain we are talking of a theoretical alternate physical domain when we speak of dualism.

If there is something inexplicable about the human mind in the context of the laws of physics, how does substituting some other set of laws suddenly make it explicable? If it can be explicable using the laws some theoretic alternative universe it should be explicable using the laws of physics derivable by science.

We have no reason for believing that this theoretical alternate physics exists but even if it does then the mind is still a machine, albeit working to some unknown physical principle.

I love it. Go, Robin, Go!

Argument 2 - the mind develops with the physical brain

When we observe a baby are we observing simple thought processes or are we observing sophisticated thought processes imperfectly translated? A complete answer is of course out of the scope of this discussion, but most parents and educators would see a child's mind as developing rather than just 'becoming clearer'. Understanding of cause and effect for example are just not there. So clearly if the mind actually exists in some alternate domain then clearly no advantage is derived, the mind is still constrained by the physical and so presumably declines and dies with the physical.

Oooo ... not an easy area. Please read Gerald Edelman's books on "neural darwinism."

Roughly speaking, the brain/mind is like a lump of clay, and genetics as well as experience "sculpt" it into the being it becomes.

Argument 3 - the purposes of consciousness

Some things like fear, pain, hunger, desire have very obvious physical purposes for the survival of the organism. They would have no meaning if there was no physical body. It seems unnecessary to have some non-physical entity processing the housekeeping for the local physical body. Like having hardware drivers for the terminal located on the server. It doesn't disprove the idea or a non-physical mind but suggests that it is not the most reasonable hypothesis.

IF the "being" is a projection of a "spirit," then the mind/body is here to serve the spirit, not the other way around. From this view, the mind/body may not "need" the spirit, but the spirit "needs" the body. Those who support this view would say that once the mind/body has lost it's spiritual ties, it becomes a "loose cannon" in some respects. The spirit, thus, loses control of it, and the spirit destructs it (via accident, illness, etc.).

Is this true??? Who knows. With today's science, it is untestable.

 

[jmercer]

I love these kinds of threads, especially when the person starting them does such a nice job of expressing themselves. Let me up-front say that I'm not at all sure I understand all of the concepts referenced in the thread, so I'm giving my opinion strictly on the basis of my own personal viewpoint.

I like JAK's comment about system rather than machine, if for no other reason than systems tend to be more comprehensive and flexible than machines.

I'm of two minds about dualism... (joke!) - but I think that until we have a really good working definition of self-consciousness, we're not going to get very far with that particular discussion.

Fear, hunger, pain and desire... I think, Robin, that you may be mixing up some intrinsically different things in this list - which may cause you problems in defending your position.

Hunger is an instinctual reaction generated by a biological process in animals that doesn't even require self-awareness - so including it in a discussion of "mind" is probably inappropriate. Pain is also biological in nature (a signal of damage to the organism), and instinctual in reaction. A mind isn't needed to either experience or react to pain. For example, both hunger and pain can be demonstrated in single-cell animals... and while I said that we don't have working definition of self-consciousness, I feel reasonably safe in saying that a paramecium isn't self-aware.

That leaves fear and desire. (I assume you mean sexual desire, not emotional.) And unfortunately, this brings us back to needing a good working definition of self-consciousness. After all, some pretty low-end animals can demonstrate both fear and desire... but do they have minds?

Setting all the above aside, I would like to give you my opinion on whether the human mind is a machine/system, or something more. (I'm speaking strictly of the mind, here - I'm not attempting to address spirit in any way. Yeah, I know - that's a cop-out - sorry. )

Even though the human mind manifestly follows specific rules (else we wouldn't be able to communicate as a species!), there are as many differences as similiarities between people's minds.

My best guess is that if you want to view the mind as a system, it has to be a system that embraces a degree of randomness during development, as in a form (perhaps) of chaos theory. In this way you can cite how minds can follow the same rules, but still end up unique.

Just my thoughts - perhaps worth nothing on this particular subject...

 

[Dancing David]

'The mind' is a rubric under which we sweep all the processes that appear to be related to having a brain. The mind is the manifestation of the brain, a dependant phenomena as it were.

As I have said before, the brain is like a boat and the mind is it's wake.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I see this subject from a different perspective: The human see the world, and try to explain it from the perspective that there is "the I" and there is "the world".

But...

What if this (primary) concept is wrong in the first place? What if trying to explain experiences is more important than trying to explain how an explanation of those experiences (the objective world), functions?

Just an idea.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Re: Re: Is the mind a machine?

I see this subject from a different perspective: The human see the world, and try to explain it from the perspective that there is "the I" and there is "the world".

But...

What if this (primary) concept is wrong in the first place? What if trying to explain experiences is more important than trying to explain how an explanation of those experiences (the objective world), functions?

Just an idea.

OK, I see or experience the world. You posit that it is more important that I try to explain those experiences than to explain how an explanation of those experiences of the objective world functions.
Is that it?

 

[jmercer]

'The mind' is a rubric under which we sweep all the processes that appear to be related to having a brain. The mind is the manifestation of the brain, a dependant phenomena as it were.

As I have said before, the brain is like a boat and the mind is it's wake.

I have to admit, that's a really attractive viewpoint. It's simple, concise, and covers a lot of ground. But for the following reason I'm having trouble accepting that it's this simple.

One of the things that bothers me is that our minds are so complex. We certainly didn't need to become this complex to survive. If we did, we would have died out long ago before we achieved our current complexity.

And it appears that we're the most complex animals (mentally) on the planet. If we take this down the path of evolution, we have to ask what factors continued to force evolution of our mental abilities beyond the basic Cro Magnon man, who was obviously very successful... this becomes (for me) especially strange if (as you say) the mind is an after-effect of the brain. And the brain (unless I'm wrong) has changed since Cro Magnon. Why? What's the advantage to a more complex mind?

Or is it just an accident - does evolution only have an accelerator pedal, and no brakes once it's started something evolving?

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Is the mind a machine?

I see this subject from a different perspective: The human see the world, and try to explain it from the perspective that there is "the I" and there is "the world".

But...

What if this (primary) concept is wrong in the first place? What if trying to explain experiences is more important than trying to explain how an explanation of those experiences (the objective world), functions?

Just an idea.

Just asking, but wasn't most of human history spent explaining experiences? (Setting aside philosophers that tried to explain how it all works, that is... "I think, therefore I am", etc.)

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

One of the things that bothers me is that our minds are so complex.

-snip-

if (as you say) the mind is an after-effect of the brain.

-snip-

Why? What's the advantage to a more complex mind?

I'll give this one a shot: The complex mind allows us to consider possibilities that do not exist in physical reality. In other words: "look outside of yourself". In more other words, it gives us "intelligence". The "mind" doesn't really exist in any real form. It exists in an imagined form. In fact, it is "imagination".

The "mind" is a symbolic representation of emperical observation. This gives us a huge advantage. Without it we would not have complex intelligence. Without it, chemistry would be developed based on trial and error: it would be limited to mixing this with that and recording results instead of being able to create a (non-existant) symbolic representations of emperical observation of chemicals and then manipulate those symbols to predict what would happen when "this and that" are combined BEFORE doing a trial.

Without a capability for "symbolic representation of emperical observation", there would be no "mind" and no "intelligence". Our expectations of future events would be based solely on past experience. Being able to base expectations on symbolic hypotheticals gives us reason and logic, which allows us to do all kinds of thing that are advantageous for surival.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Argument 3 - the purposes of consciousness

Some things like fear, pain, hunger, desire have very obvious physical purposes for the survival of the organism. They would have no meaning if there was no physical body. It seems unnecessary to have some non-physical entity processing the housekeeping for the local physical body. Like having hardware drivers for the terminal located on the server. It doesn't disprove the idea or a non-physical mind but suggests that it is not the most reasonable hypothesis.

Exactly. There is obviously something other than just "knowing" that you experience "fear, pain, hunger, desire". But what is it? It is an imagined symbolic representation of that "knowing". Why is an "imagined symbolic representation of that knowing" necessary? For intelligence, reason, and logic.

What I don't know is how the human brain is capable of creating imagined symbolic representation of empirical observation. My hunch is that it is a degree of complexity. In other words, as a system becomes increasingly complex, eventually it hits a point where it becomes "aware" of the system that created it. That is self-awareness. With that self-awareness would also come awareness of things outside itself. Therefore it could consider complexities not only within its own system, but complexities in ANY system. Then you have true intelligence. If I knew the answer I could give you the mathematical formula for the exact complexity required and create artificial intelligence. But I can't. So the argument goes on whether this is possible at all, or is beyond human understanding.

 

[jmercer]

I'll give this one a shot: The complex mind allows us to consider possibilities that do not exist in physical reality. In other words: "look outside of yourself". In more other words, it gives us "intelligence". The "mind" doesn't really exist in any real form. It exists in an imagined form. In fact, it is "imagination".

The "mind" is a symbolic representation of emperical observation. This gives us a huge advantage. Without it we would not have complex intelligence. Without it, chemistry would be developed based on trial and error: it would be limited to mixing this with that and recording results instead of being able to create a (non-existant) symbolic representations of emperical observation of chemicals and then manipulate those symbols to predict what would happen when "this and that" are combined BEFORE doing a trial.

Without a capability for "symbolic representation of emperical observation", there would be no "mind" and no "intelligence". Our expectations of future events would be based solely on past experience. Being able to base expectations on symbolic hypotheticals gives us reason and logic, which allows us to do all kinds of thing that are advantageous for surival.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very happy we have complex minds. But from an evolutionary perspective, why do we? Once we did fire, club, spear and chipped rock knife - which made us highly successful, survival-wise - why did we continue?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Don't get me wrong - I'm very happy we have complex minds. But from an evolutionary perspective, why do we? Once we did fire, club, spear and chipped rock knife - which made us highly successful, survival-wise - why did we continue?

Good question. I don;t know enough biology to answer that. But it sems that maybe once "we did fire, club, spear and chipped rock knife" we actually had the biological intelligence we have now, and since then it has been an evolution of knowledge rather than biology that continued. Why? because more more knowledge and technology can get you the things you want (or at least that you think you want). Sort of: survival begat a desire to survive which required surivability, surivability begat survival traits which required intellignce, intellignce begat knowldge which required technology, technology begat comfort which required delivered pizza and a high speed internet connection.

 

[Atlas]

Don't get me wrong - I'm very happy we have complex minds. But from an evolutionary perspective, why do we? Once we did fire, club, spear and chipped rock knife - which made us highly successful, survival-wise - why did we continue?

I'd like to add that nature values communication. And much of survival is about sexual reproduction.

Human beings have some very complex sexual rituals. They have very complex emotions. How many animals experience embarassment. How many experience guilt that becomes debilitating.

For our sexual and emotional makeup we may have needed more robust communication skills. The brain evolved a capcity to manipulate abstract symbols and a mouth and tongue to articulate a wide variety of sounds.

We may be the complex creatures we are not because we needed to chase down prey but to chase down sex partners. Raising offspring might have also been something that required communicational development.

Once we had language capacity and actual language we had the complexity for all kinds of abstract thought and reasoning. That is, we may have our greatest mental capacity because it helped us get laid, establish community, and raise kids. Every thing else may be unnecessary but helpful. It may explain why we never achieved much until the last couple centuries. (I don't mean to discount completely the last 10,000 years of human history when indeed great strides were made - just that the last couple of centuries make us appear like we are striding away from the animal kingdom.)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

We are mere animals, I cant see anything radically different about us in order to separate humans from the rest of the creatures in this world. True, more complex rituals, the capacity to think in abstract terms, thats right... but thats about it.

 

[Atlas]

We are mere animals, I cant see anything radically different about us in order to separate humans from the rest of the creatures in this world. True, more complex rituals, the capacity to think in abstract terms, thats right... but thats about it.

No argument - except in your choice of using the word "mere". Mosquitos are "mere".

While it's true that we are driven at times like salmon during spawning season we are achievers that have no rival in the animal kingdom.

I said "appear like we are striding away from the animal kingdom". For the most part we are taught that we are above the animals. Religions might say we are because we possess an eternal soul. With our books, clothing, and machines around us as well as our penchant for keeping animals as livestock or pets we easily adopt an attitude that we are not animals. We are refined and they are crude and stupid. Some get downright violent at the suggestion they evolved from monkeys. (They usually suggest that themselves from their own misunderstanding of evolution.)

Anyway, as our technology improves, we will look at ourselves less and less like animals. Look at me, I'm already bristling at the use of "mere" to describe us.

 

[Robin]

Don't get me wrong - I'm very happy we have complex minds. But from an evolutionary perspective, why do we? Once we did fire, club, spear and chipped rock knife - which made us highly successful, survival-wise - why did we continue?

As far as I know we didn't, we are pretty much identical to our fire, club, spear and rock knife ancestors. Perhaps we shouldn't underestimate the brain power required to do those things.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Atlas

Anyway, as our technology improves, we will look at ourselves less and less like animals.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems like a lot of what is meant by 'improving our technology' entails getting machines to more closely mimic the subtlest and most elusive aspects of human thought (creativity, humor, common sense, etc). The problem is that for every inch of progress we make toward that goal, our estimate of the size of the remaining gap increases by a yard.

We may continue to look at ourselves more and more like animals. (Some of us, anyway. Some may go with looking at us more and more as spirits).

 

[Atlas]

Some may go with looking at us more and more as spirits.

I guess I cannot argue from any certain knowledge. I think of spirits as different from animals.

But as far as technology, it is shrinking toward invisibility in some regards. Some people sport portable, wearable computer gear. Cell phones get smaller too. It's not outside the realm of possibility that implants might be interfaced with our bio impulses and provide communication and information directly.

Possibly too sensors will flow in our veins monitoring our health and warning us of infections or cancers and in other ways extending our lifespan.

If we move out to colonys in space we'll have fewer notions of our animal natures and more and more of the hubris that only we can achieve.

 

[jmercer]

As far as I know we didn't, we are pretty much identical to our fire, club, spear and rock knife ancestors. Perhaps we shouldn't underestimate the brain power required to do those things.

Hmm... perhaps I'm mistaken, but hasn't our cranial capacity increased since Cro Magnon days?

 

[JAK]

Hmm... perhaps I'm mistaken, but hasn't our cranial capacity increased since Cro Magnon days?

Enlargement or not, the size may not be as important as the complexity within. Even so, the most recent evolutionary growth appears to be in the frontal lobes which are used for planning and for refined emotional management.

Evolution driving us toward greater complexity has been postulated by Stuart Kauffman (sp?) as the 4th law of thermodynamics. It can be traced throughout evolution - single celled creatures to multicellular creatures to chordates, etc. Even trilobyte fossils show increased complexity by virtue of the appearance of "eyes" which are not found in earlier fossils.

This line of thinking began with Erwin Schrodinger in the 1940s when he noted that all living organisms must climb toward negative entropy (away from chaos, and toward order). As entropy increases, information and complexity is lost. Thus, climbing toward negative entropy is a climb toward information and complexity.