It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But what is the ultimate nature of the robot? A physical machine, at least from our perspective. But what is the ultimate nature of robot to the robot? Mind. The robot only interacts with the external world through the programs that process its inputs, and those are the fundamental reality to it. So everything, including the physical world, is experienced through the mind. IS it thus correct for the robot to say physical reality is more real than mind? To do so is a leap of faith - for all it knows it could be wandering around in a game of World Of Warcraft, a simulation which it believes is real.
The Mind is a mythological construct...
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: tridentblue
Thanks for the response.
Therefor, the robot—that being the entire robot—experiences the world through its physical constitution, or how it was built, which includes its programming. If the robot hits a wall, it is experiencing its entire physical self—the robot—hitting a wall, not a “mind”. No mind hits a wall. If it can grasp objects, it is because it has something to grasp with and it is programmed to grasp. If it can sense its surroundings, it is because it has been equipped with the necessary parts to do so. A robot is not merely its programming, or is not some little robot within observing a robot mind. This is evidenced by looking at a robot.
Nothing is experienced through a mind. For to say so is to assume that what it is that is experiencing is something other than the object currently interacting and experiencing the surroundings. It is widely assumed there is a buffer between experiencer and what is experienced. Further, it is to assume the homunculus
I had a feeling you'd be the author here.
In your opinion what is the difference between a robot and a human? If we are nothing but a body then there is nothing to separate us from robots or inanimate objects.
What is a thought? Not the process within the physical brain that leads to it but the end result. What is happiness? Not the process within the physical brain that helps the emotion to be formed but the emotion itself.
Are thoughts and emotions physical? Or are they just the end result of a physical process? Imagine a pink butterfly, is that butterfly real or just a non-physical image within your mind?
How about intelligence? Can you hold it with your hands or touch it? If not then we are more than just a physical body. I assume you believe there is only one side to a coin? Because that's what your thought process infers. If there is a visible side then there must be an invisible side as well, just as there is hot/cold, up/down, big/small, etc.
No, you are wrong on that part. Do you think that's your hand you're experiencing as you type? Do you think you would actually directly experience an ice cube on your hand? You wouldn't, and we can prove it! It two methods: First is we block off the signals for the nerve that goes to your hand to your brain. You wouldn't feel it. Second is we give you an anesthetic that effects your pain receptors in your brain, you wouldn't feel it. You ONLY experience physical reality through your brain/nervous system, that's a fact provable in many ways. And you only experience your brain through the phenomenon of mind. Mind is the most direct experience of reality for all things.
It's strange that you would insist on repeatedly injecting the soul and spirit into a conversation that supposed to be about the mind. These concepts are not at all interchangeable and deal with completely different subject matter.
Both mind, and consciousness, while we may not fully understand them, can at least be tied to brain function and are studied at length by neuroscientists and psychologists.
Mind and consciousness can at least be considered as emergent properties of a physical substrate.
Now, is your problem more with the language thats serves as the basis for the concepts we use to describe things like mind and consciousness within the context of our physical selves? I know these are not at all easy concepts to grasp. However your misunderstanding of these ideas seems to have lead you to just handwave them away by equating them with the soul or spirit. I think that's the wrong approach here, or more likely I've completely misunderstood your view of things.
Thinking ,as a mentalistic process of the brain, is physical in nature. If we are playing chess I can see when you are thinking about your next move, however I can not see what the results "inside of your head" of your thinking were. You harbor those thoughts inside you body somewhere, sure. Most think it's in your brain somewhere. But a thought is not physical in the sense that we can cut open your brain to see them.
I know we've talked about this another thread before but I still don't understand what you believe a thought is, or how we can see and hear without using our eyes and ears.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
playing word games again?
Care to explain how? Perhaps you can explain the differences in their properties. How do the properties of the soul differ from the properties of the mind?
With so much use—rather, misuse—of the metaphors they have become habitual rather than factual. Nonetheless, if the soul, the psych, the mind possess no qualities other than words, and have served the same function throughout history, then besides the relation of its linguistic contents to itself, they are essentially the same. They are synonymous.
I admit that the soul and mind are different in their denotation, but what do they denote? The body or nothing. I stated explicitly that they are metaphors for one thing, the body, and not anything else. Is there anything other than the body these ideas represent? If they are different metaphors for the same object, then that is all they are. If they do not have any other ontological properties, they are the same—nothing.
I believe a thought is a series of bodily events. It isn’t a thing, but a conceptual set of bodily actions. In other words, thought is not mental state, but a body state.
A thought is really nothing until it is expressed. Thinking does not end, and therefor there is no boundary between one thought and another when we are thinking. Where does one thought end another begin? A “stream of consciousness” is an apt metaphor for this. There is no barrier separating one part of the stream and another. There is no transition where thinking stops between thoughts unless inhibited through outside forces.
Since our eyes do not peer inward, it is actually we who are unable to view what our thoughts actually are, as say a brain imaging expert can, or perhaps more invasive techniques in the future can. But because they are not us, they are unable to think them, or in other words, perceive them from our perspective.
Single celled organisms interact with each other and their environments, showing clear and absolute awareness of their surroundings. Behaviors emerge. This is somehow possible without a brain. So there must be something else at play. Or at least I think so.