Is theory of mind a dead topic?

[creativesoul]

With the advances of neuroscience being added to the already existing problem of simutaneous suffering, is it safe to conclude that there is no mind, which exists independent of the physiological nervous system?

Can thought and consciousness be logically concluded to exist as emergent properties of our physiogical constructs?

 

[Zetetic]

I think that the short answer is: Maybe, but not yet.

It seems necessary that the Hard Problem of Consciousness be dealt with. How can we define consciousness and how do we determine if a being is conscious? One suggestion has been that if a simulation of consciousness passes enough tests such as the Turing and Mirror tests, then it is conscious. I find this to be pretty questionable.

Daniel Dennett (philosopher) believes it to be the case that the Hard Problem is illusory, a result of our relatively limited understanding of the human brain and the relative youth of Neuroscience as a field of study. I tend to agree with Dennett in that our attempts at a definition of consciousness are somewhat lacking and can only be improved as neuroscience develops. I think that as we get a clearer and clearer picture, the Hard problem will become more and more trivial.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It seems necessary that the Hard Problem of Consciousness be dealt with.

Here, let me help you: there is no hard problem. Just trust Dennett and ME on this one. See how easy that was?

If you need any other deep philosophical questions answered, it will cost you. The first one is a freebie to get you hooked.

 

[Skillbus]

I think we're only "conscious" because we're programmed to think we are. There needs to be a concrete definition of what "consciousness" is, before you can claim that it makes humans any different from advanced biological robots.

 

[Sinue]

Yes and no.

I think we can fairly safely say that, if there is a soul or observer, it's about as hard to prove with the study of the brain as god is to prove with the study of the universe. Just like the "God Hypothesis" of metaphysicals lies beyond our physical scope, there's no way to objectively test something which is by definition entirely subjective. Yet the weight of evidence we have collected thus far render the "Hard Problems" meaningless. There is virtually no cognitive faculty we possess which cannot be traced to or affected by manipulation of specific regions in the brain.

But a "reductionist" view of the brain to what we can see under the microscope (or fMRI/PET/Etc as the case may be) is obviously insufficient for a comprehensive explanation. It's like trying to explain the assessment of beauty in a Rembrandt by the arrangement of atoms in the painting? Can neuroscience be used to explain why some cultural memes, such as the influence of puritan morality in America, are propagated more than others... or further, why we bend our innate morality to accommodate these cultural moralities? So a theory of the mind is still useful in explaining how our minds operate on certain relevant levels of higher interaction.

Besides, even if we know our consciousness is an emergent property of the various interactions of our cognitive faculties, we still don't have a good model of how it arises from those interactions. It'll be interesting to see how full brain emulation projects (both cellular and molecular) like The Blue Brain Project, will help formulate such a model - if it can at all. According to their FAQ, it's pretty much a matter of "lol, I dunno. That's not our goal".

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Now here is an extremely problematic issue, you can not tell the difference from someone who is conscious (the way you precieve conscious) and someone who acts as if he was conscious.

 

[Zylstra]

With the advances of neuroscience being added to the already existing problem of simutaneous suffering, is it safe to conclude that there is no mind, which exists independent of the physiological nervous system?

Can thought and consciousness be logically concluded to exist as emergent properties of our physiogical constructs?

Why would you think the 'mind' exists outside the body in the first place? People still cling to Cartesian dualism?

 

[Zylstra]

Now here is an extremely problematic issue, you can not tell the difference from someone who is conscious (the way you precieve conscious) and someone who acts as if he was conscious.

I don't have to. It doesn't matter whether you're conscious or not. The only thing that matters it that you appear to act as if you are.

You appear in all ways to be an entity which exists and acts independent of my conscious desires. Thus whether it is ultimately accurate or not, the most useful model I can construct for myself of the 'outside' universe I seem to experience features you as just that- some entity which exists and acts independent of my conscious desires. It doesn't matter whether you have a mind or not.. A model in which you possess a 'mind' and your reasoning resembles my own in some manner is much more useful than a model in which you are a doll, automaton, or non-playable character from the 80's (you seem to say more than one thing)

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

"Consciousness" can be an ilusion or something created by the combination of what we are, but most importantly you can't really tell anyway you spin it. That is why i think the philosophy of the mind is not dead, and as far as i can't tell I don't see an end to it. You can discard some "assumptions" however.

 

[Zylstra]

"Consciousness" can be an ilusion

Can it? Wouldn't you have to be conscious to be aware to perceive the illusion?

 

[creativesoul]

Perception is a prerequisite to awareness. There are many things which perceive but are not aware of it. A venus flytrap immediately comes to mind. The sense perception receives a signal from the sensory organs and the flower closes upon stimulation. If it is an unedible foreign object it closes regardless, over and over again. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the flytrap itself is unaware of the difference between foreign objects and food. It doesn't know the difference.

Plants certainly perceive sunlight and rain and then react accordingly, but the exists no reason whatsoever to conclude that they are aware of this perception capability.

Given this, a venus flytrap can perceive an illusion without knowing it. Are we any different?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Wouldn't you have to be conscious to be aware to perceive the illusion?

No. We have computers for instance that are aware of their geographic location and are able to automatically land planes or follow a particular route, are they consious?

 

[Zylstra]

Wouldn't you have to be conscious to be aware to perceive the illusion?

No. We have computers for instance that are aware of their geographic location and are able to automatically land planes or follow a particular route, are they consious?

Are they aware?

You're playing word games at this point. You claim they possess an awareness of their location/or and internal state. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that any such awareness is present.

Awareness is a term referring to the ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or patterns, which does not necessarily imply understanding. In biological psychology, awareness comprises a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aware


awareness - The state or level of consciousness where sense data can be confirmed by an observer; The state or quality of being aware of something
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/awareness


a,·ware
(-wà¢r)
adj.
1. Having knowledge or cognizance
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aware

Apprised; informed; cognizant; conscious; as, he was aware of the enemy's designs. [1913 Webster]

Noun

* S: (n) awareness, consciousness, cognizance, cognisance, knowingness (having knowledge of) "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive"
* S: (n) awareness, sentience (state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness) "the crash intruded on his awareness"

WordNet home page


Demonstrate the awareness, since your assertions imply that our technology has given birth to self-consciousness. You're anthropomorphizing the actions of electrons and the function of electronic devices with no justification for doing so beyond common vernacular.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Are they aware?
You're playing word games at this point. You claim they possess an awareness of their location/or and internal state. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that any such awareness is present.

That is easy, but first.

Awareness is a term referring to the ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or patterns, which does not necessarily imply understanding.

Here are the first few problems.
What is exactly to perceive of to feel? As far as I can tell to feel or to perceive is nothing more than the result of a set of a chain of events that could encode a form of information about the real world, computers can do that, they can make representation of objects and recognize patterns (probably not to way we do it but that is besides the point).
So in these terms yeah a computer can be "aware" (although I will give you that it may not be in the same conditions that you and I are aware).
There is another issue here that I will save for later, sense it is clearer there.

In biological psychology, awareness comprises a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aware

Computers can also receive input of information regarding to the outside world and can process that information and act accordingly to the condition or event.

awareness - The state or level of consciousness where sense data can be confirmed by an observer; The state or quality of being aware of something
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/awareness

Here is a big big problem that summarizes probably the issue of the question. Your are implying the definition of awareness has a collection of data interpreted by the "consciousness" specifically and not as simply interpreted generally independent of any degree of conscious.
Because when you posted:

Wouldn't you have to be conscious to be aware to perceive the illusion?

It feels exactly as if you where implying the awareness has simple mechanism of perception regardless of conscious as key point of the question instead of perception as a implicating awareness while awareness being defined as necessarily conscious.
And No, you don't have to be conscious to be able to accommodate the encoding information (perceive) that you are not in fact conscious. (although i think you can't actually do that or the oposite in practice, and that is the bases of the point i'm making here)

Demonstrate the awareness, since your assertions imply that our technology has given birth to self-consciousness. You're anthropomorphizing the actions of electrons and the function of electronic devices with no justification for doing so beyond common vernacular.

But doesn't the same line of reasoning implies that we have given birth to self-consciousness and that applying that to us is also anthropomorphizing the actions of neurological impulses and the function of neurological systems with no justification for doing so beyond the common vernacular?

 

[Zylstra]

Here are the first few problems.
What is exactly to perceive of to feel?

Is there any evidence that your GPS qualifies as an other mind?

As far as I can tell to feel or to perceive is nothing more than the result of a set of a chain of events that could encode a form of information about the real world, computers can do that, they can make representation of objects and recognize patterns (probably not to way we do it but that is besides the point).
So in these terms yeah a computer can be "aware" (although I will give you that it may not be in the same conditions that you and I are aware).

on a related note

http://people.tribe.net/johnkellden/blog/bd6a8dfa-3ebe-41b5-af10-d8e0445f381d

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

In biological psychology, awareness comprises a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aware

Computers can also receive input of information regarding to the outside world and can process that information and act accordingly to the condition or event.

Demonstrate evidence for a self-conscious mind that perceives, as opposed to merely a chain of moving photons/electrons.

It feels exactly as if you where implying the awareness has simple mechanism of perception regardless of conscious as key point of the question instead of perception as a implicating awareness while awareness being defined as necessarily conscious.

Could you rephrase that more coherently?

And No, you don't have to be conscious to be able to accommodate the encoding information (perceive) that you are not in fact conscious. (although i think you can't actually do that or the oposite in practice, and that is the bases of the point i'm making here)

You said they are aware . You've yet to demonstrate any such awareness. I understand that you're using common vernacular and that our language fails, but you'll need more han word games if you want your claims to stand.

Demonstrate the awareness, since your assertions imply that our technology has given birth to self-consciousness. You're anthropomorphizing the actions of electrons and the function of electronic devices with no justification for doing so beyond common vernacular.

But doesn't the same line of reasoning implies that we have given birth to self-consciousness and that applying that to us is also anthropomorphizing the actions of neurological impulses and the function of neurological systems with no justification for doing so beyond the common vernacular?

[/quote]

One's own awareness is self-evident. Demonstrate that the machine is aware and conscious just as you would demonstrate that you are.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Is there any evidence that your GPS qualifies as an other mind?

No, and that is neither my issue, I don't think it qualifies as a mind.

Demonstrate evidence for a self-conscious mind that perceives, as opposed to merely a chain of moving photons/electrons.

I never said that anything had to be conscious, and my all point here is that you can not even establish that you yourself is conscious (conscious as a perception of a separate entity either then your molecular interaction, and not conscious as something capable of cognitive operands)
When I originally asked you:

We have computers for instance that are aware of their geographic location and are able to automatically land planes or follow a particular route, are they consious?

My intention was to point out that your mentioned properties did not follow the existence of a conscious, and therefore you could not conclude with that argument the existence of it.

It feels exactly as if you where implying the awareness has simple mechanism of perception regardless of conscious as key point of the question instead of perception as a implicating awareness while awareness being defined as necessarily conscious.

Could you rephrase that more coherently?

Simplifying it appears that you said awareness as perception and the issue was bout that "awareness implied conscious" instead of saying awareness as conscious and that perception implies awareness and therefore conscious.
(
Option 1: You start from the point perception =>awareness and you argue for awareness=>conscious
Option 2: You start from the point awareness => conscious and you argue for perception => awareness

I taught you were playing by the option 1 instead of option 2.
)
Does this make more sense?

You said they are aware . You've yet to demonstrate any such awareness. I understand that you're using common vernacular and that our language fails, but you'll need more than word games if you want your claims to stand.

Given the previous point that I mentioned, it does not make sense to starting point that you are aware while using the notion of aware as necessarily conscious. It would have been justified if "aware" as you mentioned was already established as an accepted statement, but in this case using awareness just replace one unjustified statement of the "existence of conscious" to another unjustified statement of the "existence of awareness". Because what I am essentially argue is that independently of you degree of conscious the end result is identical and so you cannot distinguish the 2.
It is like the distinguish the human from a computer taught experiment (has you have pointed) with the twist that the computer behaves exactly as a human would do and the computer is a bio-organism exactly like a human.

One's own awareness is self-evident. Demonstrate that the machine is aware and conscious just as you would demonstrate that you are.

It so appears self evident. But you forget that to establish it, you have to make sure that the opposite view (not being aware) necessarily doesn't arrive to the same conclusion. Because if you are aware and it appears self evident that you are, and if you are not aware and it also appears self evident that you are as well, from your perspective trying to determine which of the categories you belong you have not achieved anything because you can't still distinguish any of the 2 states.

It's a pickle, and that is why I believe that this topic is not quite dead yet.

 

[Zylstra]

I think I see the problem. It seems to be semantics.

I have been using 'aware' as in 'conscious of'


you appear to be using 'aware' more loosely, simply meaning that information is somehow 'considered' of 'factored' (there's probably a better way to say that) without necessarily needing to be 'aware' 9as in conscious and conscious of)

 

[creativesoul]

Distinguish between the two and please... carry on!

 

[FCAAP_Dan]

this seems to be more about philosophy of mind and less about theory of mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

this seems to be more about philosophy of mind and less about theory of mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

yes, philosophy of mind, I stand corrected.