Peter:
The question about interdependance (or not) yields questions such as "can
mind exist without behaviour", and "can behaviour exist without mind"?
David Prince:
Unless you use only logic/rationalism you can not answer these questions. If
you use only logic and rationalism then you will have a difficult time
answering ANY question and especially these.
Peter:
The problem is the usual one concerning definitions: what do you mean by
"mind", and what do you mean by "behaviour".
David Prince:
Behavior is any change in any system. What is meant by behavior is exactly
what is meant by behavior when a physicist describes the behavior of a body
in motion.
I do not use the term mind. I use the term awareness. A computer has a
"mind" in that it can calculate. It can solve problems. It can learn. But is
a computer aware? Not specifically self-aware, but just aware? I would have
to say that yes, it is aware of certain events, like my keystrokes. It
responds by making sounds and creating black dots on screen.
Peter:
Then, can one say that the former categorically does / does not encompass
the latter? - or indeed the other way round
David Prince:
In my opinion, what one can say with certainty must be limited to what one
can verify empirically. How do you verify the awareness of a third party
empirically? What is the "awareness test?"
Peter:
(dp - is this more akin to the
behaviourist position? )
David Prince:
Peter, I certainly owe you some thanks for your discourse with me on this
particular topic. Thank you Peter. I think you have a great mind. You have
my respect. What you have brought me to realize is that the Behaviorist
position on mind is the "Mu" position. Behaviorists concern themselves with
behavior. If you ask them about minds, they talk about behavior. If pressed,
they will admit that some behaviorists do not believe that any unobservable
entity is within the realm of scientific study, and therefore the "mind" is
not within the realm of science. Most people counter this with the position
that one mind is always observable. However, the response to this is that
"We are concerned with behavior. Only a behavior can hurt someone, not a
mind. Thus we feel it is important to study behavior. Mu."
Peter:
Under what circumstances might we be able to say that "here is an example of
mindless behaviour, or
David Prince:
How would we know? How could we test a behavior to determine the presense of
a "mind?"
Peter:
[Under what circumstances might we be able to say ] "here is an example of
mind-without-behaviour"
David Prince:
How could there be anything without behavior? If you stop all the neurons in
your head from behaving, do you think you will still have a "mind?" Can
there be sunshine without behavior? What is the state that preceeded the
bing-bang? Physicists consider it a state out of time. What causes time?
Behavior. Events must take place in order for things to happen. It is a
tautology. How can you have a thought without behavior? How can you see
without behavior? Light must strike your eyes before you can see. In fact,
there is excellent empirically evidence to show that sight will not arise
without stimulation of the visual cortex. The visual cortex must behave.
And if it doesn't, Roger will spank it.
David:
How many different "minds" might a brain contain? Who is it that is driving
home on those days when your "mind" is still at the office? Are those minds
aware of each other? What "mind" causes your leg to move when the region
below your knee-cap is sharply struck? How did your leg "know" to move?
Peter:
Given that "mind is often considered as only a small part of what the brain
does (or sometimes even considered as an epiphenomenal "by-product"), and
given that behaviour might be considered as only part of what the mind does
(??), then here are reasonable grounds for some degree of separateness.
David Prince:
There may be reasonable grounds for some degree of separateness. However, I
am not sure that what most people think about the issue constitutes grounds
for changing from the strict empirical standpoint that minds can not stand
outside the physical universe.
Like, dude, it's just like, all, you know, totally one thing, man. (Some
American hippy type slang to empasize the fact that this strictly positivist
view is completely in keeping with the Mystical perspective of the
universe.)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST