In what sense is Descartes's dualism wrong?

[Gary Childress]

Exactly. A "mental" state is a state of "mind" as distinct from a "physical" state.

You are making the exact same error as Descartes.

"Mind" is more or less another word for "consciousness".

No, it isn't. "Mind" is more or less another word for "computer"

You have basically been using the terminology of the mind seemingly without realizing it.

I realise it just fine. My mind is a computer. I know how computers work.

Hardware and software.

Your neurons are in a physical state having a particular physical configuration. A mental state is what you're "mind" is in. Emotions are mental states. Pain is a mental state. The redness of red is a mental state.

Only I know for sure that I'm conscious and only you know for sure that you are conscious. We can only hypothesize by extension that the other has consciousness. As far as religion, I am agnostic, I don't know if there is a God or not, however, religion and whether or not there is consciousness can be two different things.

Software states correspond to physical states.

OK. Then I'd like to hear your arguments for both why a computer has mental states and for why it does not.

[Skepdick]

OK. Then I'd like to hear your arguments for both why a computer has mental states and for why it does not.

Because ALL physical systems have state.
The brain is a physical system.
Therefore the brain has state.

Mathematically we use a state-space representation to representat a system's state in the time domain.

In computer science the concept of "state" maps cleanly to the human intuition of memory/remembering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(computer_science)

In information technology and computer science, a system is described as stateful if it is designed to remember preceding events or user interactions;[1] the remembered information is called the state of the system.

And so if you take a few steps back and look at the whole picture there is a clear overlap in meaning between the concepts of "state", "state space", "space" and "memory".
This is why in computer science we have the concept of "memory-time" tradeoff. Which is also known as a space-time trade-off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space%E2% ... e_tradeoff

And so in asking the question "Do computers have mental states?" we've done a full circle.

Physical systems have state/memory.
Computer systems have state/memory (obviously - because they are physical systems).
Minds have state/memory.

Computer states (CS) are physical states (PS). CS = PS
Are mental states (MS) physical states (PS)? MS = PS?

IF MS = PS, then by transitivity MS = CS also. Because software corresponds to physical states, and because the mind is software then Mental States must correspond to physical states also.

My argument for why a computer doesn't have mental states is much shorter.

Because we don't have a state-space (Mathematical) representation of a mind.

If we did - we would program a computer with it. Because Mathematics is Software. This is an epistemic gap, not a conceptual one.

[Gary Childress]

OK. Then I'd like to hear your arguments for both why a computer has mental states and for why it does not.

Because ALL physical systems have state.
The brain is a physical system.
Therefore the brain has state.

What about the mind and mental states, though?

[Skepdick]

OK. Then I'd like to hear your arguments for both why a computer has mental states and for why it does not.

Because ALL physical systems have state.
The brain is a physical system.
Therefore the brain has state.

What about the mind and mental states, though?

Mind states are brain states. What else could they be?

Just because Descartes drew a line between mind and body it doesn't mean such line exists in actuality.

[Gary Childress]

Because ALL physical systems have state.
The brain is a physical system.
Therefore the brain has state.

What about the mind and mental states, though?

Mind states are brain states. What else could they be?

Just because Descartes drew a line between mind and body it doesn't mean such line exists in actuality.

If minds are nothing more than brain states then it should be logically possible to replicate your exact physical state at any given instance and create a perfect clone of you. The question is, if you and your clone then, after that moment of perfect correspondence, were to experience different things such as you are sniffing a flower and the other is in the bathroom taking a piss, then which one of "you" would you be? Presumably, you can't be in both places at the same time and presumably, the only thing that separates you from your clone is the addition of a different physical state AFTER the two of you have been cloned. But only one of you would have the experience of sniffing a flower. The other would have a different experience. Suppose the doctor came back and then asked, "Wait, which one of you is skepdick" and both answer "I am". Well, which one is the "real" you?

Another thought experiment is that of zombies. Is it possible to create a perfect replica of a human being except it doesn't "experience" things such as pain, scent of a flower, etc. If so, then it seems that states of mind must be somehow different from brain states.

[Skepdick]

If minds are nothing more than brain states then it should be possible to replicate your exact physical state at any given instance and create a perfect clone of you.

It would be possible of you could measure my exact physical state. But you can't.

Because Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

The question is, if you and your clone then, after that moment of perfect correspondence, were to experience different things such as you are sniffing a flower and the other is in the bathroom taking a piss, then which one of "you" would you be?

I am just going to give you the meme...

https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1879

"I" will always be the original.

At the moment of being cloned one tiny little thing changes about "me" that makes me not-me. My location in spacetime.

The clone will have a discontinuity in their world-line. The original will not.

Presumably you can't both be in both places at the same time and presumably the only thing that separates you from your clone is the addition of a different physical state

Just because two things have identical states does not mean they occupy the same position in spacetime.

[Gary Childress]

If minds are nothing more than brain states then it should be possible to replicate your exact physical state at any given instance and create a perfect clone of you.

It would be possible of you could measure my exact physical state. But you can't.

Because Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Theoretically, It shouldn't matter if it's physically possible for me or not only if it is possible. According to quantum physics, there is ever so slightly, remote a chance that atoms could spontaneously come together to form an exact duplicate of me. Suppose universes are infinite in number, or whatever physicist believe these days, and that in just one of those infinite universes, I am duplicated.

However, I've heard talk of using quantum entanglement to "teleport" people to distant planets. Apparently, some physicists believe they can perfectly physically replicate a person using quantum entanglement, somehow.

[Gary Childress]

Just because two things have identical states does not mean they occupy the same position in spacetime.

So are "you" a particular person in space-time, then? How did you come to inhabit your body? I assume you started out as a sperm and egg, at which point "you" had no awareness. Then "you" became aware at a certain age. Why didn't "you" become aware in someone else's body? Why are you aware only in your own body?

[henry quirk]

The mind is *software and the brain/body is *hardware.









*two very different things but each useless without the other

[Gary Childress]

The mind is *software and the brain/body is *hardware.









*two very different things but each useless without the other

I think there can be some comparison there to humans. But even still, we seem to be lot different from current computers. And it still seems to beg the question of if, or at what point could, a computer be made to have conscious experience as we do (and how could we tell). It definitely seems like mind is dependent on the brain. But there are mysteries still left to solve.

[henry quirk]

The mind is *software and the brain/body is *hardware.


*two very different things but each useless without the other

I think there can be some comparison there to humans. But even still, we seem to be lot different from current computers. And it still seems to beg the question of if, or at what point could, a computer be made to have conscious experience as we do. It definitely seems like mind is dependent on the brain. But there are mysteries still left to solve.

Which isn't what I'm drivin' at.

Let me explain...

My 13 year old is playin' one of the games in the Mass Effect series. In that universe, A.I. exists and is described...

...(as a) self-aware computing system capable of learning and independent decision making. Creation of a conscious AI requires adaptive code, a slow, expensive education, and a specialized quantum computer called a "blue box".

Here's the relevant part...

An AI cannot be transmitted across a communication channel or computer network. Without its blue box, an AI is no more than data files. Loading these files into a new blue box will create a new personality, as variations in the quantum hardware and runtime results create unpredictable variations.

Leavin' aside all the science fictiony goodness, the underlined bit what I'm talkin' about.

Mind states aren't just brain states.

A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of, as I say, two very different things, each useless without the other.

[Gary Childress]

The mind is *software and the brain/body is *hardware.


*two very different things but each useless without the other

I think there can be some comparison there to humans. But even still, we seem to be lot different from current computers. And it still seems to beg the question of if, or at what point could, a computer be made to have conscious experience as we do. It definitely seems like mind is dependent on the brain. But there are mysteries still left to solve.

Which isn't what I'm drivin' at.

Let me explain...

My 13 year old is playin' one of the games in the Mass Effect series. In that universe, A.I. exists and is described...

...(as a) self-aware computing system capable of learning and independent decision making. Creation of a conscious AI requires adaptive code, a slow, expensive education, and a specialized quantum computer called a "blue box".

Here's the relevant part...

An AI cannot be transmitted across a communication channel or computer network. Without its blue box, an AI is no more than data files. Loading these files into a new blue box will create a new personality, as variations in the quantum hardware and runtime results create unpredictable variations.

Leavin' aside all the science fictiony goodness, the underlined bit what I'm talkin' about.

Mind states aren't just brain states.

A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of, as I say, two very different things, each useless without the other.

I agree that the mind may very well be useless without the brain. It definitely appears to be that way based on current neuroscience.

[henry quirk]

I think there can be some comparison there to humans. But even still, we seem to be lot different from current computers. And it still seems to beg the question of if, or at what point could, a computer be made to have conscious experience as we do. It definitely seems like mind is dependent on the brain. But there are mysteries still left to solve.

Which isn't what I'm drivin' at.

Let me explain...

My 13 year old is playin' one of the games in the Mass Effect series. In that universe, A.I. exists and is described...

...(as a) self-aware computing system capable of learning and independent decision making. Creation of a conscious AI requires adaptive code, a slow, expensive education, and a specialized quantum computer called a "blue box".

Here's the relevant part...

An AI cannot be transmitted across a communication channel or computer network. Without its blue box, an AI is no more than data files. Loading these files into a new blue box will create a new personality, as variations in the quantum hardware and runtime results create unpredictable variations.

Leavin' aside all the science fictiony goodness, the underlined bit what I'm talkin' about.

Mind states aren't just brain states.

A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of, as I say, two very different things, each useless without the other.

I agree that the mind may very well be useless without the brain. It definitely appears to be that way based on current neuroscience.

And the brain is useless without the mind.

[Gary Childress]

Which isn't what I'm drivin' at.

Let me explain...

My 13 year old is playin' one of the games in the Mass Effect series. In that universe, A.I. exists and is described...

...(as a) self-aware computing system capable of learning and independent decision making. Creation of a conscious AI requires adaptive code, a slow, expensive education, and a specialized quantum computer called a "blue box".

Here's the relevant part...

An AI cannot be transmitted across a communication channel or computer network. Without its blue box, an AI is no more than data files. Loading these files into a new blue box will create a new personality, as variations in the quantum hardware and runtime results create unpredictable variations.

Leavin' aside all the science fictiony goodness, the underlined bit what I'm talkin' about.

Mind states aren't just brain states.

A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of, as I say, two very different things, each useless without the other.

I agree that the mind may very well be useless without the brain. It definitely appears to be that way based on current neuroscience.

And the brain is useless without the mind.

Definitely possible. Though I don't know for sure.

On a side note, I hear slime molds can engage in seemingly sophisticated behavior, indicating some kind of intelligence, but they don't have a brain. So not entirely sure how important mind and brain are to each other.

[henry quirk]

I agree that the mind may very well be useless without the brain. It definitely appears to be that way based on current neuroscience.

And the brain is useless without the mind.

Definitely possible. Though I don't know for sure.

On a side note, I hear slime molds can engage in seemingly sophisticated behavior, indicating some kind of intelligence, but they don't have a brain. So not entirely sure how important mind and brain are to each other.

Yeah, I read sumthin' about that too. They have, it seems, a remarkable capacity for habituation, which is interestin' since, as you say, they don't have brains (or anything even approaching a nervous system).

Don't, however, know if that impinges on the notion of man bein' a composite being.

Best we can say: slime molds mebbe represent an alternate (and inferior) method of consciousness, one entirely chemical in nature (unlike man's superior electro-chemical system).

Mebbe an eon down the road, slime molds will be havin' similar philo-conversations on a purely organic internet in whatever passes as the PN forum of their time. Instead of photons and electrons zippin' across the ether and over hardlines, they'll squirt protein packages through fibrous connections.