[extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...

[Heartland]

On 4/17/06, Heartland <velvet977 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> No. I'm saying that the mind is a dynamic information processing. It's
> just physics
> and logic.


Robert wrote:
It isn't physics or logic.  Its a semantic claim on your part.  If you
assert that the "mind" is a dynamic information processing system which
ceases to exist when it ceases to be "dynamic" or "process information" that
is fine.  I would choose to assert that the "mind" is the information
content.

Information is static and mind can only exist as a dynamic process so mind cannot 
be just information.  It's obviously one of the ingredients that allows minds to 
exist but it's certainly not the mind itself. If it was, then a static copy of the 
mind should be "alive" regardless of whether this information was being executed 
upon or not. You couldn't have a conversation with a static copy, for example.


Robert wrote:
Straight from Wikipedia, "Mind refers to the collective aspects of human
intellect and consciousness that originate in the brain and which are
manifest in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination."

The key word is "manifest" which implies execution of mind process. It's not just 
static content that matters here.

Robert wrote:
These are individual and distinct aspects of a "mind" and there are
certainly physical accidents or drug induced conditions that can result in
the loss of one or more of these aspects.  When that happens most people do
not believe that the person has died.  I would assert that without the
information content that most of these aspects, excepting perhaps perception
and emotion, cannot be present.  So losing the information content
completely and utterly means losing the mind.

Anytime there exists perception there has to be a mind there. Something must 
generate that perception and if is not the mind then what is? And if it is indeed 
the mind that exists in the absence of information content then doesn't that prove 
that the mind isn't exclusively an information content?

Robert wrote:
But from my perspective...
   If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck -- its
a duck.

Sure, but this only satisfies the "same type" requirement while ignoring the "same 
instance" requirement which is actually the only thing worth paying attention to.

S.