What did Haldane mean?

[hodgy]

I'd like to make a brief appeal here... please, please, PLEASE don't bring computers into the discussion. Comparing a human brain to a computer is a waste of time and effort until there are self-aware computers capable of making independent decisions.

Pretty please?

I do not agree at all that it is a waste of time and effort. As I said, I could have used any physical system to illustrate my argument, I chose the computer because of the use of the word 'logic' in this discussion seemed to make it a better analogy.

His argument boils down to if a physical system can be imagined to malfunction then it must also have a soul to make sure it works properly.

The lack of logic in Haldane's argument is concealed by a certain elegance but is apparent as soon as you try to make an abstraction of the arguments.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

....why should he suppose that this infinite mind is capable of improving the situation with respect to the truth of his thoughts?

Don't know.

 

[jmercer]

Humans did have survive within certain enviromental parameters, obviously not designed parameteres. We are only taking in a limited set of inputs, again not designed.

Unlike computers, we can form new logic branches, as you said, and we can over time in the spieces level, alter our hardware.

I'm taking the radical behaviorist, or at least my limited understanding of it, approach to the question posed at the top.

I think that a "independent decision", is really a product of a person's history, current enviroment and genetics. I think Haldane was arguing for free will, a concept I'm rather dubious of right now.

Fair enough. Actually, as long as we can keep your above (excellent!) comments in mind, I don't really have an objection to using computers as a limited analogy.

My problem with using computers in these threads is that I invariably see people insisting that the analogy is much, much more perfect than it really is.

 

[jmercer]

I do not agree at all that it is a waste of time and effort. As I said, I could have used any physical system to illustrate my argument, I chose the computer because of the use of the word 'logic' in this discussion seemed to make it a better analogy.

His argument boils down to [/i]if a physical system can be imagined to malfunction then it must also have a soul to make sure it works properly[/i].

The lack of logic in Haldane's argument is concealed by a certain elegance but is apparent as soon as you try to make an abstraction of the arguments.

The problem is that computer logic... isn't. It's human logic imposed upon a computer. The computer itself can't form entirely new logic branches, not really. All it can do is rearrange existing branches into different configurations by reusing the same decision-points.

This may change over time. There are computers that are capable of very, VERY primitive learning... but that's a far cry from what we're talking about here. They can't even match an insect's learning ability yet.

So if you must use computers as an analogy, please proceed with great caution or you may find the analogy detrimental to your argument.

 

[hodgy]

The computer itself can't form entirely new logic branches, not really. All it can do is rearrange existing branches into different configurations by reusing the same decision-points.

All systems are constrained, including the human brain.

This may change over time. There are computers that are capable of very, VERY primitive learning... but that's a far cry from what we're talking about here. They can't even match an insect's learning ability yet.

Primitive or not, its still learning - a matter of degree, not substance.

So if you must use computers as an analogy, please proceed with great caution or you may find the analogy detrimental to your argument.

Ok - so I'll concede on this one, its clear my analogy was not very good because obviously nobody got it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Oh, I getcha. I am a "materialist." But what I think is not wholly determined by the atoms in my brain. It's also determined by the atoms outside my brain. I have senses.

I see. I would say that both statements could be correct. Your thoughts could be wholly deteremined by the current state of the atoms in your brain, but the state of the atoms in your brain is influenced by atoms outside your brain.

Analogy: The message on a billboard is wholly determined by the state of the atoms on the billboard, but obviously the state of the atoms on the paintbrush influenced how the billboard atoms got to where they are. (I hope jmercer is appreciative of how I resisted the analogy of using computer memory.)

But other than that, I think that most people in this thread have hit the nail on the head about this one. Haldane is basically saying that it makes him uncomfortable to believe the materialist premise, so he isn't going to.

 

[jmercer]

All systems are constrained, including the human brain.

Not that I really disagree - it's an utterly logical statement - but right now, I don't know of any actual proof of constraints regarding the human mind. (Not brain - I don't equate the two. )

Primitive or not, its still learning - a matter of degree, not substance.

I'm not totally sure if this is correct or not - the reason being there's no actual evidence that the learning process in computers is fundamentally the same as in biology. (In fact, it's probably not the same. That doesn't make it invalid, but it's far too early to draw any conclusions based on what's being done in this field so far.)

Ok - so I'll concede on this one, its clear my analogy was not very good because obviously nobody got it.

Nah, it was fine, and I think a number of people got it. The problem is drawing conclusions between the two. It's a bit like comparing a plankton to a human being. Sure, they have some things in common - but can you really draw a useful parallel between them?

 

[IllegalArgument]

Not that I really disagree - it's an utterly logical statement - but right now, I don't know of any actual proof of constraints regarding the human mind. (Not brain - I don't equate the two. )

I hate to ask but what do you mean by "mind" then if not the brain?

How about optical illusions? Do they show that the brain has limitations?

 

[jmercer]

I hate to ask but what do you mean by "mind" then if not the brain?

How about optical illusions? Do they show that the brain has limitations?

What do I mean by mind... hm. That's one of the tougher questions around here. I'll try to answer it as briefly as reasonable.

I equate "mind" to self-consciousness, self-awareness, reason, mental imagery, and emotion. All of these processes (and probably more that I haven't thought of) combined make up the human "mind". Are these processes purely physical? That, I think, is part of the debate.

It's possible to have a apparently physically intact brain without having a mind. Granted, the brain doesn't reflect "normal" electrical activity - but that's not the same thing as having a physically damaged or inoperable brain. However, it's impossible to have a mind without a brain... so it would seem clear that there's a kind of one-way dependency between the two. (Stating the obvious, I know.)

But - if one can have an intact brain without having a mind... that would seem to open the door to the converse thought that the mind - while dependent on the physical brain - may exist in a way other than purely physical. Else why would an otherwise perfectly useable brain fail to have a mind active in it? I believe we are forced to assume that there's something else going on that we don't fully understand... which is why research on the human brain and mind is ongoing.

Effectively all I'm really saying is that there's enough unanswered questions for me to be uncertain about this. Thus I differentiate between the brain and the mind. (At this time. )

Regarding your second question - you can either view optical illusions as a limitation or a demonstration of a lack of limits. If the illusion is perfect, then there is no demonstration of limitations, because a perfect optical illusion is indistiguishable from reality.

If the illusion is NOT perfect (and very few are!), then one can say that the mind failed to interpret the data from the senses properly, which would indeed demonstrate a limitation - but is it one of the mind, or of the senses? Hard to say.

Alternatively, one can say that the mind filled in the gaps where the illusion failed to be perfect. In this case, that's quite the reverse of a constraint - it shows a great deal of ability instead.

Just my take on it, of course, and I'm tired, and going to bed... so I hope what I wrote makes some kind of sense. I'm too tired to tell.