Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!news3.noc.netcom.net!zdc!zippo!usenet
From: bs <ajax@freedomnet.com>
Subject: Re: Brain and Body aspects of same thing.  Mind and Matter defined in more basic terms.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: usenet@news.zippo.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Nntp-Posting-Host: p1.freedomnet.com
Organization: none
Message-ID: <DL2nyE.Dz8@news.zippo.com>
References: <4cu3ql$mok@aladdin.iii.org.tw> <DL0uEw.C6t@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1 (Windows; U; 16bit)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 14:23:02 GMT
Lines: 151
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:36528 comp.ai:35845 comp.ai.alife:4887

ccb8m@opal.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy) wrote:
>In article <4cu3ql$mok@aladdin.iii.org.tw> bs <ajax@freedomnet.com> writes:
>>complex than the body.  but just as my actions are bounded by simple laws 
>>of physics, my brain is functioning according to the simpler limits of 
>>the body.
>
>Ever look at a biochemical pathway chart?  You make a lot of uninformed
>assumptions about complexity.

i said one was more complex than the other.  no one is going to deny that 
the brain does appear to be working at a more complex level than the 
body.  my point is that they are aspects of the same thing.  the brain 
influences the body as the body influences the brain.  but there is no 
bottle neck here.  they are not seperate from each other.  when i see a 
picture of the nerves that protrude into the body, i see that the brain 
is much more than the gray mass in the skull.  the brain is not a 
homunculus.  it is not a "control center".  imagine the government 
without people to govern.  this is your brain by itself.

and evolutionarily, when did the "brain" come about?  as an organism 
increases in complexity, it finds it necessary to concentrate, to a 
degree, certain function in certain areas.  so while each cell does not 
depend totally on itself, the government is indeed made of people.

[....]
>Hmm?  First you say that doctors come in and change you (electronics &
>fake skin)  Then you say you notice nothing peculiar because nothing
>has changed.  Make up your mind.  Either it has changed, is in a state
>of flux, or it hasn't. (stable, metastable, unstable)

i am offering different views to the same thing.  to imply that all must 
have the same view is absurd.  the doctors are very well aware of what 
happened, though i am not.  i am talking of myself in a thought 
experiment.


>>the same is done with one of my eyes.  still, i am the same person, 
>>nothing to me has changed.  
>
>Not hardly, you are now dependent upon non-biological organs.  I don't
>consider this the "same" or follow how "nothing has changed".

consider a bottleneck, where the brain receives impulses in a certain 
format from a certain nerve center.  if my normal eyes give the impulses 
in a certain way, then all that is necessary to replicate them is to 
replace the eye with something that looks like an eye and that gives 
impulses in the same fashion.  if a part of the eye has been changed that 
does not influence my impulses, then i will not detect it.


>>is changed?  well, my brain and body are really just aspects of the same 
>>thing, so it would be just like having my leg replaced.  
>
>What is this "same thing"  and how is the brain related to the body?  I
>consider it a miracle that I go from the intangible desire to the
>physical realization of that desire.  At which point are we considering
>the brain an organ vs. the metaphysical mind?  How do we get from thinking
>about reaching for a cup of coffee to the physical manifestation?  You
>might say that I have this physical "need" for coffee, but I challenge
>you to divorce physical need from metaphysical need.  If it were pure
>physics I would be slurping coffee rather than meandering on this topic.

that which is detected is not changed.  whether this is physical, 
metaphysical, epiphenomenal...etc.  the point was that which i detect has 
not been changed.  there is no magical connection from what you call 
metaphysical to physical.  they are both aspects of observed phenomena.

>>what about the whole brain?  same thing, nothing to me will have changed. 
>
>Bull shit.

are you objectivist?  this aspect of your argument seems to be that which 
an objectivist would give.

>> i am the same person.  this example is probably familiar to most reading 
>
>"Same person"? Maybe, maybe not.  The example isn't familiar, nor is it 
>well grounded in reason.  Too many variables and unknowns.  Thus you
>haven't proved anything because of this lack of baseline.

for a similar example, please see the december 95 issue of Scientific 
American, pg. 86, article "Dancing Qualia in a Synthetic Brain".

the "thus, you haven't proved anything...." is non-sequitor.  i did not 
type the post as absolute evidence for my views.  much is still left to 
debate.  i do hope to come to a conclusion that would further strengthen 
my current position.  i will never claim to have "proven" anything.  it 
is the job of the person reading it to decide whether or not he will 
accept it as is, with modifications, or not at all.

>>...
>>
>>some criteria for the comparison to be made.  and what if my comparison 
>>is "actually" incorrect.  i can't be incorrect _until_ i _realize_ that i 
>>am incorrect.
>
>Lots of dead people who didn't realize they made a mistake, eh?  I don't
>think personal realization plays a part in this game.

how so?  are you still thinking in terms of "it must have a source"?  i 
am not talking of knowledge in terms of reality, or reality in terms of 
knowledge.  my point is that there is no need for trying to compromise 
them in such a way.  we will probably discover what does what in the 
brain to cause certain phenomena, but this will still not be the 
phenomena we experience.

>>even define consciousness themselves.  as long as you are able to define 
>>what something is, you can make something that exists as that thing.  if 
>>you cannot define something, then how do you even know what you are 
>>talking about?
>
>Exactly, so define everything you've been talking about before continuing...

consciousness has been purposelessly undefined, as i think that the mere 
concept is going to lead to confusion.  i certainly invite others to 
define it and use it, but its rather hard to use undefined.

i think you know what i am talking of when i say brain and body(if not, 
i'll be happy to elaborate).  possible conflict may arise in what it 
means to be "exact replica".  the phrase is used in such a way do denote 
a change for a third person perspective, while no change from the first 
person.  surely you've read a novel or seen a movie where one person 
knows something another doesn't.  i use the term phenomena to denote that 
which we think about, that which we can recognize.  though i do not have 
to recognize my knowledge of it, or know about my recognition of it, i 
just have to deal with it in such a way that an outside observer would 
say, if peering into my mind, that this phenomena exists.  any words you 
are unclear on i will be happy to define.

>>thus, if my whole body was replaced with an exact replica, not only would 
>
>What do you mean by "exact replica"?  A machine?  Sorry it isn't exact.
>A biological copy?  Then it isn't a replica, it's YOU physically speaking.
>We have no way of measuring the mental duplication.

this is what i was trying to say.  because we have no way of measuring 
mental duplication, it is not a "real" issue.  there is no way reason to 
trumpet that consciousness will never be replicated(for those that use 
the term, and for those think it means anything).

>If only it were as simple as "wishing" something to be so.  Dorthy click
>you heels three times and repeat "There's no place like home."

that won't get her very far, and she knows it.

-- 
interactivism is the view that we are neither subjects of our reality, 
nor is our reality a subject of us.  rather, we are an intrinsic part of 
our reality as our reality is an intrinsic part of us.


