Other Titles > Neuropath
Countering the Argument with Thorsten
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: H on December 10, 2019, 03:05:12 pm ---So, to say that "mind" is only neuronal activity sort of seems, to me, to be akin to saying the house and the pile of rubble are the same thing. Except, of course, they aren't, because the structure and relation are keys to what makes a "whole" of it's constituent parts.
--- End quote ---
So the structure inherently contains the meaning - a sort of Platonism - when there's recursion?
I would agree there seems to a dismissal of structure's importance among the more spiritual crowd that tries to compare the brain to a radio controlled car* but it also seems to me structures don't have determinate meaning - at least from the outside. So the idea here would be a structure - or at least a structure + process - brings about mental characteristics to the inside...right?
*Though Einstein did write the introduction to Upton Sinclair's book on telepathy Mental Radio... ??? :-X :-X
H:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on December 10, 2019, 10:56:46 pm ---So the structure inherently contains the meaning - a sort of Platonism - when there's recursion?
I would agree there seems to a dismissal of structure's importance among the more spiritual crowd that tries to compare the brain to a radio controlled car* but it also seems to me structures don't have determinate meaning - at least from the outside. So the idea here would be a structure - or at least a structure + process - brings about mental characteristics to the inside...right?
*Though Einstein did write the introduction to Upton Sinclair's book on telepathy Mental Radio... ??? :-X :-X
--- End quote ---
Hmm, I'm not sure, obviously I have no thought this out thoroughly. But I don't think structure has to equal meaning. I could imagine structures that are meaningless though, right? It's just that what we call "meaning" is generally found through relations, structle being one that comes up often?
But I think I agree, structure, relation and process, that is what mind is. Where is the recursion? Well, because we are structured in relation to ourselves in such a way that the process of Being, that is, Dasein (human Being) takes itself into account in what it is Be (or what is is in Becoming). So self-consciousness is recursively considering itself, that is, it's relation to itself (in addition to other things), in it's Being.
Does that make sense? I don't even know, but off the top of my head it seems to, maybe. Or maybe it's a word-salad.
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: H on December 10, 2019, 11:14:38 pm ---
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on December 10, 2019, 10:56:46 pm ---So the structure inherently contains the meaning - a sort of Platonism - when there's recursion?
I would agree there seems to a dismissal of structure's importance among the more spiritual crowd that tries to compare the brain to a radio controlled car* but it also seems to me structures don't have determinate meaning - at least from the outside. So the idea here would be a structure - or at least a structure + process - brings about mental characteristics to the inside...right?
*Though Einstein did write the introduction to Upton Sinclair's book on telepathy Mental Radio... ??? :-X :-X
--- End quote ---
Hmm, I'm not sure, obviously I have no thought this out thoroughly. But I don't think structure has to equal meaning. I could imagine structures that are meaningless though, right? It's just that what we call "meaning" is generally found through relations, structle being one that comes up often?
But I think I agree, structure, relation and process, that is what mind is. Where is the recursion? Well, because we are structured in relation to ourselves in such a way that the process of Being, that is, Dasein (human Being) takes itself into account in what it is Be (or what is is in Becoming). So self-consciousness is recursively considering itself, that is, it's relation to itself (in addition to other things), in it's Being.
Does that make sense? I don't even know, but off the top of my head it seems to, maybe. Or maybe it's a word-salad.
--- End quote ---
So before self-consciousness is Consciousness? Marcus Arvan has an argument like that, he told me he was going to publish a paper on how to reconcile his Computationalism with his (functional at least) Dualism...It's interesting as he doesn't necessarily claim there are insenstate structures, that even video game characters might suffer...I explained to him how a game character doesn't even have independent "parts" necessarily, sharing aspects in Unity for example...but he was (AFAICTell) undeterred....
H:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on December 10, 2019, 11:21:21 pm ---So before self-consciousness is Consciousness? Marcus Arvan has an argument like that, he told me he was going to publish a paper on how to reconcile his Computationalism with his (functional at least) Dualism...It's interesting as he doesn't necessarily claim there are insenstate structures, that even video game characters might suffer...I explained to him how a game character doesn't even have independent "parts" necessarily, sharing aspects in Unity for example...but he was (AFAICTell) undeterred....
--- End quote ---
In an underthought out way, maybe? I think (maybe?, some?) animals are conscious, but exactly what that "non-self" consciousness is, exactly, well, that is hard to say. But I think I am lapsing to a real Phenomenological stance though. Or, so it seems to me I might be.
But I think when most people talk about consciousness, they really specifically mean human consciousness, which is self-consciousness specifically, I think. Because Dasein (Human Being, self-conscious Being) is different (presumably) than, say, Ape Being, or Octopus Being, as far as I can tell at least.
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: H on December 10, 2019, 11:29:06 pm ---
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on December 10, 2019, 11:21:21 pm ---So before self-consciousness is Consciousness? Marcus Arvan has an argument like that, he told me he was going to publish a paper on how to reconcile his Computationalism with his (functional at least) Dualism...It's interesting as he doesn't necessarily claim there are insenstate structures, that even video game characters might suffer...I explained to him how a game character doesn't even have independent "parts" necessarily, sharing aspects in Unity for example...but he was (AFAICTell) undeterred....
--- End quote ---
In an underthought out way, maybe? I think (maybe?, some?) animals are conscious, but exactly what that "non-self" consciousness is, exactly, well, that is hard to say. But I think I am lapsing to a real Phenomenological stance though. Or, so it seems to me I might be.
But I think when most people talk about consciousness, they really specifically mean human consciousness, which is self-consciousness specifically, I think. Because Dasein (Human Being, self-conscious Being) is different (presumably) than, say, Ape Being, or Octopus Being, as far as I can tell at least.
--- End quote ---
When you say lapsing into a real Phenom. Stance, do you mean a position where there is something mental or at least proto-mental (whatever that means) in Nature?
I guess I'm curious because you seem to be trying to reconcile Hegel's Idealism with a more Physicalist position, or am I reading you wrong there?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version