On 03 Aug 2012, at 01:43, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Evgnii,. The question is that the mind is not the brain in the same
way that Microsoft Word running in a computer ins not the computer.
The intuitive notion of location of our self, our mind behind de
eyes and thus inside the skull is not a mere derivation of the fact
that the brain is located there, but it is different. It is a
evolutionary adaptation, and a adaptation is a design, that is for
good reasons our intuition in location of our self is in the head.
But the fact that is is an adaptation and not something derived from
the position of the brain is that the mind can be cheated to be
located in a separated place. Wiht a camera and a monitor and
glasses of virtual realtiy it is possible to cheat ourseves, and
think that we are behind our bodies.
We think thar our self is in the head because in this way we control
better ourselves and we can react to inmediate dangers better.( That
is why fighter pilots, that need heavy feedback and agile movements
fly with their machines, while the spy and air to ground missions
can be managed remotely)
but the mind is not in the phisical space . Rather that that, in the
kantian sense, space , the intuitive space, the euclidean space,
seems to be the way the mind organize the objects of his perception.
This space may be isomorphic with the space of the phisical world,
but is not the same. Think for example of a program which simulate
a 3D space with objects which receive feedback from the physical
space trough a camera. Both spaces are siimlar, but the simulated
space do not "use" phisical space.
so when a person look at his hand, he is perceiving his hand, and by
definition the hand he sees is in his mind. This hand is not in the
phisical space, it is in the mental space. it is not in the phisical
world. it is in the mental world. But there is a phisical hand. Is
natural selection the designer that assures that his phisical hand
is doing what is mental hand his doing, Except if it is an
schizofrenic, is using allucinatory drugs or has some serious
deficiency. It natural selection the designer that discard "bad"
mental perceptions of reality.
However, this does say nothing about the nature of the phisical
world. The fact taht two persons see the same does not assure that
the phisical world is that way. Both can be in a Matix world, where
his sensory nervous terminations are conected to a computer
simulation. And still both perceive space and objects. But this
arangement can not evolve as a result of any natural process,
If we are machine, then that arrangement did evolve (in a logical non
temporal sense) from a very special natural number atemporal process.
Which indeed is not a "natural process" in the aristotelian sense.
This is testable, for that atemporal process can be described through
computer science and mathematics.
Thanks to QM in physics, and Gödel in math, computationalism (we are
local relative digital machine) fits with the empirical physics, up to
now.
Bruno
2012/7/31 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
Alberto,
Thank you for your answers. I will make one comment now. I plan to
read Schneider on molecular machines (thanks for the link) and then
I may make more comments.
On 31.07.2012 11:08 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
Evgenii, great questions
2012/7/30 Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>
On 30.07.2012 11:19 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
...
The activity of the brain is the mind and the mind is a separate
world that includes all that can be perceived. What is outside of the
mind may just plain mathematics. What we call phisical world is in
reality set of phenomenons perceived by the mind. Observations happen
in the mind. We can repeat and verify experiments because we live in
the same mathematical reality outside of the mind, and because our
minds have similar architecture and experience, so we have the same
language, interests, experimental machines, procedures, so, as Eric
Voegelin said, we live in a shared social mind.
I am not sure if I understand. How do you connect these two
assumptions:
"What we call phisical world is in reality set of phenomenons
perceived by
the mind."
"because we live in the same mathematical reality outside of the mind"
Do you mean that the world outside of the mind is congruent with the
perceived world by the mind?
Yes. This is not magical, but a product of natural selection. Our
mental
world is made to support life, and life is the art of maintaining and
reproducing our bodies, that live outside of the mind. A computer can
simulate anythnig we want, but our brains are dedicated computers
devoted
full time to carefully examine the external reality that appear to our
perception as phenomenons or else, we would not survive. Some
irrealities
can be accepted when they are in a trade-off with other more valuable
knowledge, or the perception is too expensive. We do not see
individual
dangerous bacterias for example, but we avoid them by smell and
taste and
some visual clues, well before we noticed its existence.
So when we have in front of our eyes an arrangement of atoms that has
direct or indirect meaning for our purposes, we identifty and
classify it
according with his "use": men, women, disgusting, pleasing, horses,
experiments, countries..but also atoms, electrons and so on. And we
proceed
acordingly. None of these things exist outside of the mind, but what
we are
sure of is that outside there is something that make all of us
perceive the
same things and it respond with certain laws that we have discovered
that
are mathematical. So both are congruent because the mind evolved to be
congruent, but not only congruent, but congruent in certain defined
ways.
There is a branch called evolutionary epistemology that study the
epistemological consequences of the evolved nature of our mind.
The world in the brain that is congruent with the world outside of
the brain brings us a paradox, as described by Max Velmans:
“Lehar (2003), however, points out that if the phenomenal world is
inside the brain, the real skull must be outside the phenomenal
world (the former and the latter are logically equivalent). Let me
be clear: if one accepts that
a) The phenomenal world appears to have spatial extension to the
perceived horizon and dome of the sky.
b) The phenomenal world is really inside the brain.
It follows that
c) The real skull (as opposed to the phenomenal skull) is beyond the
perceived horizon and dome of the sky.“
Some problem here is that science that we know has started with
observations and we make these observations in the three dimensional
world that we observe outside of our body/brain. Now if we say that
actually what we consciously observe is in the brain, then we should
reconsider as well what observation is.
Hence my interest to skeptic arguments. For example, see famous
‘Proof of an External World’ by Moore
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/
"How? By holding up my two hands, and saying, as I make a certain
gesture with the right hand, ‘Here is one hand’, and adding, as I
make a certain gesture with the left, ‘and here is another’ (‘Proof
of an External World’ 166)."
"I knew that there was one hand in the place indicated by combining
a certain gesture with my first utterance of ‘here’ and that there
was another in the different place indicated by combining a certain
gesture with my second utterance of ‘here’. How absurd it would be
to suggest that I did not know it, but only believed it, and that
perhaps it was not the case! You might as well suggest that I do not
know that I am now standing up and talking — that perhaps after all
I'm not, and that it's not quite certain that I am! (‘Proof of an
External World’ 166)"
With the picture as described by you, this does not work any more.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
