What is a mind? What does a mind do? This is from Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.

Accordingly, every mind requires a minimum of two thinking elements:
•​A sensor that responds to its environment
•​A doer that acts upon its environment — Ogas and Gaddam

They talk about the amoeba, which has the required elements.

Obviously, these definitions of mind and thinking are as basic as can be. But it's where it all starts.

Can a neuron be said to have a mind, to think, by these definitions?

Or do you say a neuron has a mind because of some other definition?

So Roombas are the mental equals of humans? The only thing separating us is emotion?

How about wording it this way:
A Roomba wouldn't work if it didn't realize it has options.
— Patterner
I'm fine with that.

You didn't answer the question asked "What fundamentally do you do that a Roomba doesn't?" when you imply that a Roomba doesn't realize options. — noAxioms

I did not. I was waiting to see if we were thinking of things the same way.

The difference is I am aware that I have options. The Roomba goes one way or the other at the command of it's programming, never aware of how the decision was made; that a decision was made; or even that there are options. It has no concept of options. It does not think about the choice it made two minutes ago, and wonder it if might have been better to have gone the other way. And it certainly doesn't regret any choice it ever made.

Working memory is the memory of the conscious mind which is temporary. — MoK

Right. I'm thinking this specific thing is less about working memory than what the ability to recognize numbers of randomly arranged objects is called. No?

Strikes that. What do you mean by working memory? I'm thinking someone could glance at, say, a max of 10 randomly arranged items, and immediately know there are 10, without counting. Someone else might only be able to do that with up to 5 items.

Makes sense.

We can indeed perceive a set of distinct objects as falling under the concept of a number without there being the need to engage in a sequential counting procedure. Direct pattern recognition plays a role in our recognising pairs, trios, quadruples, quintuples of objects, etc., just like we recognise numbers of dots on the faces of a die without counting them each time. We perceive them as distinctive Gestalten. — Pierre-Normand

I would think there's a limit to this. We might recognize the number of dots on a die because of the specific arrangements that we've seen so many times. Would we do as well with five or six randomly arranged objects? Or ten or fifteen?

Might it not be the case that my legs kick for some independent, strictly neurological reason, which then causes me to dream about kicking, in the same way that a full bladder causes me to dream about urination? — J

I suspect not, for two reasons.

1) Most people don't kick in their sleep, yet they kick in their dreams. So the sleeping kick can't be the cause of the dreaming kick in most instances. We don't usually punch, walk, or drive in our sleep either, yet we do those things in our dreams.

2) I've occasionally kicked in my sleep. I remember waking up in some pain because I kicked the wall, while dreaming about kicking something. My sleep kick could not have caused my dream kick, because kicking the wall woke me up instantly. It's the order of events. I did not sleep kick the wall, remain asleep and dream kick, then wake up.

But, unlike the Roomba, I realize I have options.
— Patterner
A Roomba wouldn't work if it didn't realize options. — noAxioms

How about wording it this way:
A Roomba wouldn't work if it didn't realize it has options.


I'm afraid you've lost me, regarding the puppet.

It seems to me you are talking about the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Photons hit retina; signals go to the brain; pattern recognition shows that there are two possible paths; stored information of past encounters with similar patterns are triggered; on and on and on. But, unlike the Roomba, I realize I have options.

I could certainly have misunderstood what you are saying.

In what way are you free, if only in a trivial way? I would think a decision making machine just crunches numbers. Or, rather, the neurological impulses, which all came about due to previous impulses, all guided by upbringing, physiology, interactions with others, etc., interact with one another until a final arrangement (in regards to the books, although that becomes part of the next group of impulses that interact when future choices are made) is reached. Just as the arrangement of everything at the bottom of a mountain after an avalanche is the ends result of many interactions. (And that arrangement becomes imput for future events, such as erosion and the presence of animals.) I don't understand what freedom exists.

↪Patterner I am a decision making machine. I'm free, perhaps in a trivial way, to do (or try to do) the things I want to. The things I, as a decision making machine, decide to. — flannel jesus

In the Book vs. Water scenario, which action is a thing you want and are free to do, and which is the result of the machinery? I don't suspect you mean book is one and water is the other. Perhaps you are free to choose to get a book, but the machinery decides which book you will pick? Or the other way around?

You should definitely read the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy article on compatibilism. No doubt my concept of compatibilism is not universal among compatibilists. — flannel jesus

Yes, I've started that. Thank you.

Cool. Can you tell me what kind of free will you have (pardon the pun) in mind? I understand (more or less?) the determinism and randomness, but not the free will.

↪T Clark I'm a compatibilist, — flannel jesus

(From another thread.). I had never heard the term compatibilism before coming to this site, and can't say that I have much of a handle on it. You say these things;

The reasoning in the linked article is why I believe libertarian free will doesn't make sense — flannel jesus

I'm actually inclined to think it's basically tautologically true that, for any given evolution of a closed system from one state into another state, either that evolution is deterministic or it involves some randomness. — flannel jesus

Is it random?
— Patterner

In my view, yeah, that's really the alternative to determinism. If we have a system evolving over time, it seems to me that any given change in that evolution must either be determined or be at least in part random. — flannel jesus

It doesn't sounds like you think there is free will, which, from what I'm reading, is a part of compatibilism.

Or is it that you think there is free will, but not libertarian free will?

Humans do what they do, make the choices they do, according to both these views because of factors outside of the agent’s control, e.g., upbringing, physiology, and interactions with others. On both views, if time were rolled back any amount and allowed to play forward again, the exact same events would occur.

If this is true, isn't everything outside of the agent's control? If we have all the thoughts we think, and do all the things we do, because of all those things, what is in our control? And what is the nature of that control?

The reasoning in the linked article is why I believe libertarian free will doesn't make sense - even if we live in an indeterministic world. — flannel jesus

If the choice of book or water, or even which book, is not determined, and it's is not the result of free will (whatever that is), then how does the one happen instead of the other? Is it random?

Our world is indeed deterministic, in the sense that every effect has a cause. But some effects have multiple causes. As a physical metaphor, consider the Mississippi river, which has multiple tributaries. So, when it floods in New Orleans, which prior cause do you blame : the river from Tennessee to the gulf, or Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, & Red? Or do you blame the hurricane that delivers above normal rain to the flood plain? Today, with professional weather observers and high-tech tools, we can track the blame even back beyond the hurricane, to local heat & humidity in the Atlantic ocean. So, like an Agatha Christie mystery, the determining cause is shrouded in complexity. It's "full intricacy". And don't forget the confounding side-effect/cause of individual Free Will. :smile: — Gnomon

What is free about Free Will in this scenario? From what is will free?

Things that are determined are predictable. But only to the degree that the predictor is able to perceive all the factors, and calculate all their interactions. The farther away, farther into the future, and larger the scale of, the thing a being tries to predict, the less certain their prediction, and the more likely they will be wrong.

I agree entirely.

And, of course, whether or not I measure the system would be determined, down to the second I begin. As well as whether or not I measure my measuring, etc.

What does "would otherwise have done" mean in a deterministic setting?
— Patterner
In the context of my comment, it means that determinism does not remove the choice from being a function of your will. Had you willed otherwise, a different choice would have occurred. — noAxioms

In determinism, could you have willed otherwise? What is will? In determinism, is it not the resolution of an uncountable number of factors which, although we cannot hope to track them all, resolve in the only possible way? Just as, though we cannot calculate all the factors in an avalanche, due to their arrangement at the start, every rock lands in exactly the one and only place and position it does?

Many spin determism as a bad thing, but never have I seen an example of determinism thwarting what you would otherwise have done. — noAxioms

What does "would otherwise have done" mean in a deterministic setting?

Sure, one can see the appeal that a dream is often related to something we are thinking about, sometimes unconsciously - but the weirdness involved is quite striking (in my case anyway). — Manuel

It is sometimes bizarre beyond any understanding. Like if we find ourselves interacting in a way with someone we absolutely would not interact with in that way. Whether from one extreme like romantic/sexual with someone we most certainly would not, to the other extreme iof trying to kill someone we love. Yes, we've thought about the person involved. Yes, we've thought about that kind of interaction with a human. But that interaction with that person? Literally never thought about it. Yet, obviously, our unconscious did.

Perhaps it is as I describe above, the brain gets tired from having to adhere to the restrictions of the conscious mind forcing it to be "rational". The brain needs periodic "vacations", to do its own thing, in order to maintain the mental health of the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

Could be. It's all such a crazy, fascinating topic.

More than 50% of the sensory receptors in the human body are located in the eyes, and a significant portion of the cerebral cortex is devoted to interpreting visual information. — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29494035/

That's an amazing statistic!

And, again, I'll maintain that the very process of falling asleep is regulated and brought about by the unconscious aspects of our mind. — javra

Indeed. It's not our conscious mind that makes us sleep. Our conscious mind often fights it in any way it can. Eventually failing.

Anecdotally, I know of people that benefit in their ease of falling asleep by having the TV on. — javra

Yes. Some need silence, and others need noise. I would guess the tv acts as white noise. Just background droning. I would guess, that's all it is, those people would not be able to sleep if the show varied greatly and sounds. Conversations of several minutes followed by bazooka and machine gun fire might not work for them. i've never tested what noises I could fall asleep too. I can read a book in a room with people talking, or on the couch next to the television. but that's not the same as trying to sleep.

What I was thinking is that we can go to sleep without shutting out sounds as thoroughly as we shut out sights. Sine people have white noise machines. Some people seem to require absolute silence. But, as a species, we can fall asleep in a room with many conversations taking place, and music playing. Why does that sensory input not as bother our sleeping as much as visual input?

My last few days have been crazy busy. i've only read your latest response to me once, which isn't enough for me to have absorbed much. hopefully soon!

As for the conversation the two of you are having, why not substitute hearing or smelling for vision?

I have to read more about the eye/brain connection. Amazing stuff!

The

As one example, although its difficult toward impossible to conclusively establish strictly via fossils and DNA, common consensus has it that cephalopods (like octopi and squid) and vertebrates have evolved their eyes independently via convergent evolution. A reference for this. — javra

Yes, I think this was mentioned in Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness, by Peter Godfrey-Smith.

These details aside, (maybe as you yourself imply (?)) I so far don’t find all this much mattering though when it comes to basic appraisals of the unconscious mind and consciousness’s dependence on it. — javra

No, I'm just curious.

However, I don't understand your use of "unconscious". I'm sure partly due to my ignorance of the topic. But also possibly because different people mean things in different ways. I'm wondering which, if any, of these you mean. And I'm seriously winging all this.

1) Any brain activity. Which could include those that control heartbeat, temperature, etc.

2) Brain activity like visual, audible, and tactile signals, as well as pain, fatigue, and I don't know what else, since we react to such things, but which are not, themselves, behavior.

3) Brain activity that is reacting to things like visual, audible, and tactile signals, as well as words, memories, and anything else, but which we are not consciously aware of. Which I mighty guess could include such things as Freudian Slips, posthypnotic suggestions, and conditioning. Also the vaguely-defined intuition.

That's rather fascinating information about the embryonic development of the retina!

I'm afraid, though, it throws my understanding of things into chaos. Lol. I thought the first step in the evolution of the eye was supposedly molecules that changed shape depending on the amount of light they were exposed to. Then these molecules, or groups of such molecules, became connected with parts of the entity that moved. Thus, it moved in different ways, depending on the light.

Then, the nature of the connecting structure between the eyespot and moving element changed, becoming a neuron, and eventually a brain.

If that's accurate, then the light-sensitive part did not originate as part of the connecting structure. So, at some point, the connecting structure started producing the light-sensitive material, and the old method of production ceased.

But that's another topic. :grin: I'm thinking that, even if sensory nerves of any other type, in any other part of the body, are not officially part of the brain, they serve the same function as the retina. That is, they send signals to the brain that contain information about things outside the body. And the signals they send to the brain play the same role as the signals the retina sends to the brain.

If the retina is part of the brain, then are the sensory nerves in the toes? I don't know what your definition of brain is.

If the sensory nerves in the toes are part of the brain, then are the signals generated by the toes when something brushes against them an event of the unconscious mind, just as signals generated by the retina when struck by photons are?

My way of explaining this is that it is not that you (i.e., that I-ness) which is the agential first-person point of view (i.e., which is the conscious intellect during waking states) that devises the given dream which one as first-person point of view experiences – no more than it is you as an agential first-person point of view which produces that which you see, smell, hear, etc. during waking states. Rather, it is that you (that I-ness) which consists of one’s total self or being (more specifically: one’s total mind, the unconscious aspects of it included) which produces the REM dream which is experienced by you as a first-person point of view during sleep. Just as its your unconscious mind which produces that which you are conscious of during waking states.

But this gets bound up in the philosophy or else psychology of what a self is constituted of. To use William James' basic dichotomy, which mirrors that of Kant’s and of Husserl’s, the first-person point of view is the “pure ego” which is that I-ness that experiences and thereby knows the phenomenal aspects of one’s total self; i.e., the “I” as knower of the experienced self; e.g., I see; I choose, I remember, etc. All aspects of selfhood that are experienced by this same pure ego is then broadly classified as the “empirical ego”; i.e., the “I” as the self which is known via experience (this by the pure ego); e.g. I am tall/short (or: I have two hands); I am stupid/smart in relation to some topic (or: I have an unconscious mind); I am of this or that nationality, etc. The first consciously experiences phenomena; the second is constituted of the phenomena experienced. So, during a dream, the agential first-person point of view (the pure ego) can well be surprised by that which agencies of its total unconscious mind present to it. To further complicate matters, the pure ego can in certain dreams hold an empirical ego quite distinct from its empirical ego during waking states. But this is a very broad and possibly very different topic. — javra

Thank you for your response. I'm understanding it a little more with each reading. But I'm not understanding this:.
Just as its your unconscious mind which produces that which you are conscious of during waking states.
I am conscious of the temperature, various sounds, my hunger, things that I see, itches and pains, symptoms of illness... How is my unconsciousness mind producing all of that? I would have thought it's role is in different areas.

IMO, the most amazing part of it is that, in my dreams, I am entirely surprised by everything. The scenery. What I find when I walk into a room. Who I run into. What others do. Events like the weather. I, obviously, created everything in my dream. Yet I chose to hide things from myself, and am somehow sble to do so. How do I make a character in my dream do and say everything it does and says, and still be surprised by everything it does and says?

Yes, Bach and Beethoven it is. Beethoven's quartets are the most sublime music every written.

I agree it is a source of wonderment. I'm glad to see you are apparently not one of those who go on to insist there must be something more than the merely material going on. — Janus

No, I'm one of those. :grin: I agree with Chalmers that there needs to be an explanation for why the physical processes don't take place without subjective experience. As Chalmers puts it:

This further question is the key question in the problem of consciousness. Why doesn't all this information-processing go on "in the dark", free of any inner feel? Why is it that when electromagnetic waveforms impinge on a retina and are discriminated and categorized by a visual system, this discrimination and categorization is experienced as a sensation of vivid red? We know that conscious experience does arise when these functions are performed, but the very fact that it arises is the central mystery. There is an explanatory gap (a term due to Levine 1983) between the functions and experience, and we need an explanatory bridge to cross it. A mere account of the functions stays on one side of the gap, so the materials for the bridge must be found elsewhere. — David Chalmers

At 7:00 of this video, Donald Hoffman says it well, while talking about the neural correlates of consciousness, and ions flowing through holes in membranes:

Why should it be that consciousness seems to be so tightly correlated with activity that is utterly different in nature than conscious experience? — Hoffman

So the physical activity of matter doesn't have any connection to consciousness that we can see.

I've quoted Brian Greene in Until the End of Time before. Here it is again;

And within that mathematical description, affirmed by decades of data from particle colliders and powerful telescopes, there is nothing that even hints at the inner experiences those particles somehow generate. How can a collection of mindless, thoughtless, emotionless particles come together and yield inner sensations of color or sound, of elation or wonder, of confusion or surprise? Particles can have mass, electric charge, and a handful of other similar features (nuclear charges, which are more exotic versions of electric charge), but all these qualities seem completely disconnected from anything remotely like subjective experience. How then does a whirl of particles inside a head—which is all that a brain is—create impressions, sensations, and feelings? — Brian Greene

And the physical properties of matter don't have any connection to consciousness that we can see.

Maybe we should consider the idea that this macro thing that isn't explained by any theory of physical activity is made possible by a micro property unlike those that a leading expert in the field says don't even hint at it.

Property dualism.

You have offered fairly extensive reasons for why you feel as you do. Do you feel the way you do for those reasons or are they just a rationalization of how you would feel regardless of those reasons. — Janus

I'm not sure it's not the same thing, looked at from opposite directions. However, not rationalization, but explanation.

It serms to me everybody's mind is drawn to, or resonates with, certain things. I prefer Bach to Mozart, by a long shot. It's not a close call. It wasn't a decision. I didn't mull it over, weigh various qualities, and decide which I preferred. It was automatic. After having taken piano lessons for several years, teachers always giving me Mozart Mozart Mozart, I heard my first Bach piece. BAM! I didn't have to understand why, and couldn't have said at the time. It was just an instant, unquestionable reaction.

Now I can say why, because I took classes in things like music theory, counterpoint, and music history. Why would there be no reasons? And if there are reasons, why wouldn't I be able to name them?

The two main factors are counterpoint and rhythm. Bach is the undisputed king of counterpoint. Can't imagine how many fugues he wrote. He probably spoke in fugue. :rofl: And the Baroque Era is sometimes called the Age of Unflagging Rhythm. It just goes on and on, driving, breathless. I'm not rationalizing my love of Bach's music with these things, and I'd love it without them. They are the reasons I love it - the things my mind is drawn to/resonates with - and I'm describing them.

Frankly, I did leave out a big aspect of my regard for human consciousness. It blows my mind that a clump of matter is aware of its own existence, its own awareness, its own thoughts. We are aware of some things that no other species is. There are also many things we are aware of that other species are also aware of, but which we are aware of to a much greater degree. We think in ways, and about things, nothing else we know of does. We can have end goals that can only be years or decades off, which require various components that, individually, don't have any obvious connection to them, and that will never exist anywhere in the universe but for us. And we bring them into being. The blind laws of physics do not bring about everything that can exist. We are doing things that the universe cannot do without us. Knowingly and intentionally, which are qualities no other part of the universe possesses. Absolutely mind blowing to me.

But I know there are any number of people who don't feel that way.

↪Patterner Nicely put. — Tom Storm

Thanks. But it was only the very lowest hanging fruit. :blush:

OK, I had thought that you were claiming that humans are more important than other animals per se, and not merely in your opinion. If that is how you feel, of course there is no argument against it other than to question just why you might feel that way. I mean it's easy to understand why you would feel that way when it comes to friends or loved ones. Do you think one should feel that way, even when it comes to those you don't know personally? — Janus

I don't know if one should. I do. I would cry my eyes out of I had to choose between saving the life of a beloved pet and a stranger, because I would save the stranger.

I feel the way I do for two reasons.

1) Life is extraordinary. Literally, by definition. It's a pretty huge universe. We can't claim to know terribly much of what's out there. But neither are we entirely ignorant, and we are not aware of any life anywhere other than on our planet. We don't even see signs of it, although there are possible signs that it's possible elsewhere. We haven't been able to create life from scratch, either by trying to follow any of the paths we think nature might have taken, or by stacking the deck as much as we can. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that rare things are worth more than common things. For that reason, imo, life is more valuable than non-life.

2) Awareness at the human level is, to our knowledge, unique to humans. That brute fact makes it even more rare - more valuable - than life. If there was only one flying species, I think that would be pretty special. If every oyster produced a pearl, it would still be very cool, even if the pearls did not demand as high a price. Elephant and walrus tusks are expensive because of their scarcity. My opinion is that human awareness is much more fascinating than wings, pearls, tusks, or anything else we are aware of. (If we could take it out of someone and put it into someone/thing else, I have no doubt it would be happening, with a worldwide crime organization behind it. Can you imagine how much such a thing word cost on the black market??) In support of that opinion, I offer every movie, book, and human conversation in history, as well as a pretty good percentage of all human thoughts.

And one aspect of human awareness is that it wants to continue. Life, in general, works to endure. The continuation of the species is always a primary focus of all species. But, in some species, the individuals are also working to stay alive. None moreso than humans.

Yes, it's subjective. I find human awareness/consciousness more fascinating and attractive than diamonds, chocolate, the aurora borealis, or anything else. Even more than music, which wouldn't exist without us. But I know different people feel different ways.

All that says is that humans are more important to you. — Janus

Of course. We're talking about subjective judgement.

I agree.

So to refine my thought. If burning the Quran is intended only to offend, I see no good in that. If it is to demonstrate against, and reform fanaticism, yes. — ENOAH

Quran or Bible, if you burn the whole thing, you're probably just trying to cause trouble. Burning a specific part means you have a specific concern. That can be addressed. At least discussed.

Although I don't know if any of it matters to Muslims. If Cat Stevens can call for Salmon Rushdie's execution, then I wouldn't be surprised if the religion has an All Or Nothing attitude. But I really don't know. If I know any Muslims personally, I'm not aware of it.

Humans are more important.
— Patterner

For humans, humans are more important than cats.
For cats, cats are more important than mice.
For mice, mice are more important than cockroaches
For cockroaches, cockroaches are more important than bed bugs.

Philosophically, is it right that one part of nature is more important than another part of nature? — RussellA

Yes, it is. It's a judgement call, and that is my judgement.

That's why the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge is more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Boson.
— Patterner

That means that philosophical questions about the nature of time, space and the Universe are less important than philosophical questions about the human mind.

Is it right that humans consider themselves more important than the world in which they live? — RussellA

Yes, it is. Humans are more important. In some bizarre scenario in which a human is about to be killed, some glorious natural wonder is about to be destroyed, and I can only prevent one, I'm saving the human. It's not even a close call. I will say, "Damn! What a shame! That was very pretty!"

If the second thing in danger is a star, it's still not a close call.

I anticipate many tweaks to the scenario, and have already written out answers to what I think are the more likely ones. But I wanted to just say this much in this post.

↪Patterner Maybe. But end of the day, the burning of Romans is still not a functional response to the hypothetical conflict between the hypothetical Christians and the hypothetical LGBT. — ENOAH

There doesn't seem to be a conflict between the two groups in your scenario. The LGBT people are pointing out that certain verses are evil, and should not be part of a religion based around an all-loving deity. A good response to their action would be, "You're right. Those verses are wrong, and should have been removed long ago." Anyone who has a problem with what they do is the party in the wrong. Worrying about offending them is much like worrying about offending some pre-Civil War Americans by burning copies of state laws that allow slavery. Sure, they got mad. But it was still the right thing to do.