Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

I might come back to this comment later (though I don't promise anything), but I just wanted to clarify that by "equated" I meant "identified with". That is, the belief that the neurological processes not only give rise to the phenomena of the mind, but that the processes and the mind are in fact one and the same thing.

Thanks for the clarification. There is little doubt in my mind (pun intended) that mind is a property that transcends "brain." The relationship between mind and the processes of the brain is a more complex matter. I look at my experience of "sight," which most animal species also have. I know how the eye functions (generally) and became more familiar with the function of the optic nerve (unfortunately) when my son suffered a bout of optical neuritis that left his right-eye vision impaired. What we have is various wavelengths of reflected light impacting rods and cones in the eye, setting off an electrochemical process that is carried as impulses along the optic nerve to the vision centers of the brain. Those electrochemical firings are interpreted by the brain as "colored pictures." Damage anything along that path, and those images are marred, or even prevented entirely. Sight is a "transcendent" characteristic of the processes of the brain. How we go from all of the optical and electrochemical energy to "I can see that tree" is still a mystery to all of us. But there is no question that it arises from that complex set of organs.

So why is "mind" any different? Why do we see it as different? I cannot see a reason for doing so.

[JonathanL]

In what sense would you define the mind in distinction to the physical brain?

The mind is either the entity that support the existence of subjectively felt mental states, or it's the collection of all of these subjectively felt mental states taken as a whole (and my view is that it's probably the former). The brain is what the mind uses to gather information about and interact with the physical world. How exactly this interaction between mind and brain looks like I have no idea.

Does it store and retain information as does the brain, does it have a memory bank, and if so, then it's a brain, so what need has it of another brain?

It does have a memory bank, which is the brain. Can it store and retain information without having access to a brain (i.e when you die and your mind and brain are separated)? We'll have to wait and see, but at least for now my belief is, yes, it can.

If it doesn't, then what is it, how would you define it's function, and what does it do? Does that distinct mind also have a mind distinct from itself, and that mind another adinfinitum?

As I said above, the mind is either that which supports the existence of and experiences subjectively felt mental states, or the collection of these mental states taken together as a whole. The mind is also that part of the person that makes every single conscious decision in that persons life. And no, it does not have a mind distinct from itself.

[JimL]

The mind is either the entity that support the existence of subjectively felt mental states, or it's the collection of all of these subjectively felt mental states taken as a whole (and my view is that it's probably the former). The brain is what the mind uses to gather information about and interact with the physical world. How exactly this interaction between mind and brain looks like I have no idea.

So the brain then, is what the mind uses, in order that the mind be anything at all? What I mean to ask, how do you define the mind/entity in and of itself, apart from the brain? All that you are saying is that the mind, apart from the brain, is an entity, which doesn't really say much about the mind itself, or its function. And how does it interact with the brain, how does it interpret neuronal processes whipping around and through the fleshy mass. Can it see the process, can it feel it? How is the information transferred from physical brain to the non-physical empty vessel you call the mind?

It does have a memory bank, which is the brain. Can it store and retain information without having access to a brain (i.e when you die and your mind and brain are separated)? We'll have to wait and see, but at least for now my belief is, yes, it can.

Well, if it can, then a physical brain would be superfluous, no? And if it can't, then it amounts to an empty vessel, or entity if you like.

As I said above, the mind is either that which supports the existence of and experiences subjectively felt mental states, or the collection of these mental states taken together as a whole. The mind is also that part of the person that makes every single conscious decision in that persons life. And no, it does not have a mind distinct from itself.

So how does the mind, which is not an intellectual thing in itself, it's not a container of information, it's basically an empty vessell/entity, from what I gather from your argument, so how does it do what you say the brain itself can not do?

[shunyadragon]

Again, the chatbot takes a few words from my post, repeats them and creates some sort of nonsensical response.

Simply you have failed to respond coherently, simply have not addressed the issue at all, and play the Three Stooges Duck, Bob and Weave.

Seer and you have failed to respond to the question of 'arguing from ignorance,' when seer misused it in a rhetorical false accusation.

[Zara]

Your unfound skepticism in this regard is clouded with a religious agenda.

Ad hominem.

The fact is there has been considerable advances in Computers/A1 intelligence that it is reasonable to consider the possibility of not only attaining sort of rationality and powers of reasoning, but they actually likely will. The following is only one example of recent scientific advances, though my bet is that the next generation of future computers will simulate the brain.

Reasonable to consider according to whom? You? John Searle tends to disagree with the premise that computers/AI intelligence can be sufficient to be or simulate a human mind. You are conflating computer/AI intelligence with human intelligence. Deploying like three or four fallacies in total.

Again, arguing from possibility of what science is capable of in the future.

You have no idea what science "is capable" of in the future, although it will be heavily driven by ignoramuses given the current trend - also, science is not capable of anything.

You are not even up to date on the scientific advances in the development of 'organic computers,' and computers that simulate the neurological nature of the brain, which represent the future generation beyond our mechanical digital computers.

Haha, you cite the daily mail - which is trash reporting at its best. However, let's not attack the source.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2050500/Biological-computers-soon-reality-scientists-build-basic-components-bacteria-DNA.html

'Living computers' could become reality as scientists build tiny components out of bacteria cells

Scientists are one step closer to making a biological computer after building basic components for digital devices out of bacteria and DNA.

Some scientists believe that, in the future, small biological computers could roam our bodies monitoring our health and correcting any problems they find.

Researchers from Imperial College London have demonstrated they can build the 'logic gates' which are the building blocks of today's microprocessors out of harmless bugs and chemicals.

Brains in jars: Scientists are one step closer to making a biological computer after building basic components for digital devices out of bacteria and DNA (file picture)
Scientists are one step closer to making a biological computer after building basic components for digital devices out of bacteria and DNA (file picture)

The biological logic gates described in Nature Communications are the most advanced 'biological circuitry' ever created by scientists.

Professor Richard Kitney said: 'Logic gates are the fundamental building blocks in silicon circuitry that our entire digital age is based on. Without them, we could not process digital information.

'Now that we have demonstrated we can replicate these parts using bacteria and DNA, we hope that our work could lead to a new generation of biological processors, whose applications in information processing could be as important as their electronic equivalents.'

Although still a long way off, the team suggests these biological logic gates could one day form the building blocks in microscopic biological computers.

© Copyright Original Source

Nice, you're replicating something that can't think in a different medium - not even a human brain, how totally pointless.

Again . . . your skepticism is not motivated by science.

Your position is motivated by ignorance - which is ironically what seer accused you of. It was actually quite funny.

People like you give science a bad name - no, really, it's metaphysical drivel like the above which - rightly - puts people off scientific enterprise, which, when it matters, i.e., in 90% of normal science, has a detrimental effect on the project of science.

If you want to make a human mind, have sex and raise the child in a human culture that hasn't gone full reductive retard.

[Tassman]

No it is not the same result, with AI you have the rational (us) designing and creating the rational (AI). We us you have the non-rational (laws of nature) creating the rational (us). Completely different.

Nope.

We are only rational, reasoning entries because this is how we have been programmed by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. If we create advanced AI Computers, as we seem increasingly capable of doing, there is no reason why they cannot also be programmed to be equally rational, reasoning entities. The only difference is that we are organic whereas AI Computers will be non-organic. The capabilities will remain the same regardless of the materials of which we are made. .

[Tassman]

The brain is what the mind uses to gather information about and interact with the physical world. How exactly this interaction between mind and brain looks like I have no idea.

Why would you categorize the brain and the mind as two separate entities? It make more sense to simply recognize that the 'brain' and the 'mind' are one and the same, thus avoiding the insoluble problem of how an immaterial entity (the mind) can interact with a material entity (the brain).

[JonathanL]

Why would you categorize the brain and the mind as two separate entities? It make more sense to simply recognize that the 'brain' and the 'mind' are one and the same, thus avoiding the insoluble problem of how an immaterial entity (the mind) can interact with a material entity (the brain).

How on earth does it make sense to recognize a notion that's so patently absurd and false? The issue of how an immaterial entity can interact with a material entity isn't even half as insurmountable as the problem the eliminativist faces when he has to explain how the brain and the mind, two entities that do not share one single characteristic in common, could actually be one and the same thing, despite every indication to the opposite.

[MaxVel]

Ad hominem.



Reasonable to consider according to whom? You? John Searle tends to disagree with the premise that computers/AI intelligence can be sufficient to be or simulate a human mind. You are conflating computer/AI intelligence with human intelligence. Deploying like three or four fallacies in total.

Again, arguing from possibility of what science is capable of in the future.

You have no idea what science "is capable" of in the future, although it will be heavily driven by ignoramuses given the current trend - also, science is not capable of anything.



Haha, you cite the daily mail - which is trash reporting at its best. However, let's not attack the source.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2050500/Biological-computers-soon-reality-scientists-build-basic-components-bacteria-DNA.html

'Living computers' could become reality as scientists build tiny components out of bacteria cells

Scientists are one step closer to making a biological computer after building basic components for digital devices out of bacteria and DNA.

Some scientists believe that, in the future, small biological computers could roam our bodies monitoring our health and correcting any problems they find.

Researchers from Imperial College London have demonstrated they can build the 'logic gates' which are the building blocks of today's microprocessors out of harmless bugs and chemicals.

Brains in jars: Scientists are one step closer to making a biological computer after building basic components for digital devices out of bacteria and DNA (file picture)
Scientists are one step closer to making a biological computer after building basic components for digital devices out of bacteria and DNA (file picture)

The biological logic gates described in Nature Communications are the most advanced 'biological circuitry' ever created by scientists.

Professor Richard Kitney said: 'Logic gates are the fundamental building blocks in silicon circuitry that our entire digital age is based on. Without them, we could not process digital information.

'Now that we have demonstrated we can replicate these parts using bacteria and DNA, we hope that our work could lead to a new generation of biological processors, whose applications in information processing could be as important as their electronic equivalents.'

Although still a long way off, the team suggests these biological logic gates could one day form the building blocks in microscopic biological computers.

© Copyright Original Source

Nice, you're replicating something that can't think in a different medium - not even a human brain, how totally pointless.



Your position is motivated by ignorance - which is ironically what seer accused you of. It was actually quite funny.

People like you give science a bad name - no, really, it's metaphysical drivel like the above which - rightly - puts people off scientific enterprise, which, when it matters, i.e., in 90% of normal science, has a detrimental effect on the project of science.

If you want to make a human mind, have sex and raise the child in a human culture that hasn't gone full reductive retard.

Welcome to 'dialogue' with Shunya. Watch out for when he cites a source which clearly refutes whatever position he's arguing for. That's always entertaining.

[Tassman]

How on earth does it make sense to recognize a notion that's so patently absurd and false? The issue of how an immaterial entity can interact with a material entity isn't even half as insurmountable

And yet no one has surmounted it.

as the problem the eliminativist faces when he has to explain how the brain and the mind, two entities that do not share one single characteristic in common, could actually be one and the same thing, despite every indication to the opposite.

What indications are these?

[Zara]

Welcome to 'dialogue' with Shunya. Watch out for when he cites a source which clearly refutes whatever position he's arguing for. That's always entertaining.

You're taking the piss? Either way - the issue is that these reductive forms of materialism are, in my considered opinion - dangerous. They are a form of scientific imperialism. And for what, why do we need to destroy folk psychology or traditional forms for humans to be with each other and with the world - to be replaced with a 'true' theory, built out of, what exactly? The debates around these issues are by no means settled - yet here we are, with two talking heads telling us that that it is settled or that, if it isn't, it must be explainable in terms of their theory so we might as well just accept what they say.

Yeah, religion too comes with issues - religious imperialism is no better - which one would I choose? I would choose neither and settle for Dostoevsky:

"I am a ridiculous person. Now they call me a madman. That would be a promotion if it were not that I remain as ridiculous in their eyes as before. But now I do not resent it, they are all dear to me now, even when they laugh at me -and, indeed, it is just then that they are particularly dear to me. I could join in their laughter--not exactly at myself, but through affection for them, if I did not feel so sad as I look at them. Sad because they do not know the truth and I do know it. Oh, how hard it is to be the only one who knows the truth! But they won't understand that. No, they won't understand it." The Dream of a Ridiculous Man

[Zara]

And yet no one has surmounted it.



What indications are these?

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/294

[JonathanL]

And yet no one has surmounted it.

Perhaps, but if the question of how the mind can interact with the brain if they're two distinct entities has yet to be adequately explained then it looks even bleaker for the person who wants to maintain that they're one and the same thing.

What indications are these?

Well for one (and this is perhaps the most fundamental difference), your brain is physical and can be touched, while your mind is intangible and cannot be accessed by anyone other than yourself.

[carpedm9587]

How on earth does it make sense to recognize a notion that's so patently absurd and false? The issue of how an immaterial entity can interact with a material entity isn't even half as insurmountable as the problem the eliminativist faces when he has to explain how the brain and the mind, two entities that do not share one single characteristic in common, could actually be one and the same thing, despite every indication to the opposite.

Not a single characteristic in common?

1) They both exist.
2) They both are associated with humans (brains to other animals and mind possibly as well)
3) They are both associated with thought (and the brain with other things as well)
4) They are both impacted (to one degree or another) when harm is done to the brain
5) They are both associated with memory
6) They are both associated with the five senses
7) They are both fallible
8) They both exist in time and space

That's my quick list...there may be other things.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think they are "the same thing." But they do appear to be inextricably linked.

[carpedm9587]

Well for one (and this is perhaps the most fundamental difference), your brain is physical and can be touched, while your mind is intangible and cannot be accessed by anyone other than yourself.

Are you arguing that this evidence supports the proposition that they are separate things and the mind can have its own existence separate from the brain?