a nonsensical, needless and unbacked theory

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

A basic understanding of the human brain can be that of computer hardware. there is the system but there is no software.

the software is us, and this is where we assume it is slowly created over time, sort of creating itself as a natural function. not in terms of evolution, but in terms of the progression from infant to adult, when the hardware expands and uses the resources.

Continuing on, some have expressed the theory that our minds are comprised of various sections of intelligences. Howard Gardner is among such researchers, here is a link where you can quickly read the sections he groups and labels.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_ … elligences

It’s my assertion that in terms of conscious thought and understanding, we build simple and quick archetype understandings of things. words, smells, sights, sounds, gestures, etc… each their own algorithm and significance which can be recalled to the consciousness.

If we build all these numerous understandings over time and then recall them to use, our consciousness can be conceptualized as the inner parts of a piano randomly jutting upward to strike chords and producing something harmonious.

More keys would mean you understand and can access more chords or concepts.

From our perspective this would mean that we are not something altogether whole. Our current strains of thought tend to control our moods, but only to a degree. As current concepts are brought to the conscious mind and begin to fade our demeanor and thought processes change with them.

I could further guess and say that the tautology of our individual bits of concepts is what creates our base personality. the concepts we focus on in the conscious mind have direct effects whereas the subconscious acts on us as a collective.

does this reduce us to a group of algorithms randomly being struck by piano hammers?

anyone have anything to say about this nonsense?

2

is there a ghost in the machine?

-Imp

3

No, no ghosts, the machine is rolling down hill and as it hits different rocks different sequences are initiated.

This is the line where autonomy turns into causality.

though the song may seem intrinsic or complex or wonderful or intelligent, it breaks down into logical simplicity, an arrangement of matter.

The mind is a collection of patterns and symbols, not unlike a computer…

i still don’t know where i’m going with this, but for now, process hard and stay greasy.

4

are you conflating the mind and the brain?

the mind as self-writing software is not necessarily mechanical

-Imp

5

I’m simply asserting that it is mechanical.

Governing patterns…

This is where we come from and what we are, from my obviously feeble attempt at objectivity.

6

so the mind is mechanical? must it operate in the way it was designed?

-Imp

7

I think our modems came loaded, I think the information is stored in folders we cannot access, everything else is stored in an attempt to find the hidden folders.

Eventually, some of us will find the hidden folders, but only if we become computer savy.

We should also be weary of what we download, because we can always open a virus.

8

It must operate in the way which it operates, i don;t think “designed” is a good word to sue here…

It functions as it has developed and is being acted upon.

9

I think that there is a lot of hardwired elements in our minds, but i also think that because of our incredible adaptive skill, we necessarily have to have the ability to learn and create new things from old things.

conceptualizing the mind as “access to folders” is kind of askew in the view of this thread. whereas files are opened automatically by external influence and thrust into existence, we do not have the option to really navigate or acknowledge a file which remains closed.

10

so much for free will…

-Imp

11

I’ve seen a Ghost in the shell.

But Imp, those stupid plural people, that mass of biomechanical brain tissue, their consensual will is not governed by any particular individual… But the subsumption of each into a greater - non-physical - whole. The spirit of the times perhaps…?

12

the spirit of the lemming calls some to action

the spirit of the lion calls others

the spirit of the times haunts scrooge

-Imp

13

I prefer my spirits in glasses, but I don’t deny the existence of the other kind.

14

Yes so much for free will. The idea that we are each the centers of our own universes making actions entirely independent of the universe and totally dependent on some special internal IMP or Wonderer brand seal of approval is pretty far out.

The idea that freewill exists seems more of a stretch than the idea that it doesn’t.

Does an ant following horomones have free will?

Does a jellyfish with no central nervous system scooping up bacteria have free will?

Does a rat following the scent of cheese in a maze have free will.

Does the sub-molecular interaction of atoms resulting in the firing and communication of our neurons which creates what we call the consciousness have free will?

We are a simple machine which exists because its function is to reproduce.

15

Yes, I could predict almost exactly what each of those animals and objects would do next in those scenarios, with reasonable confidence. And yet, could you predict what I am going to next…?

16

Can an ant predict a jellyfish?

Can a jellyfish predict another jellyfish?

no, i cannot predict your actions, i lack an understanding of you and how you work.

Are humans predictable? (given enough knowledge) i say so.

17

I hate to think that the whole universe is nothing more than a windup toy acting predictably and in specified way until it winds down. There is at least probability, and probability is something more than just our incomplete knowledge of certainty. The universe is just not running on a gigantically complex equation. There appears to be a difference with life from the rest of the universe as we see it in that life is self-motive, that there is a component in which life asserts itself, in at least some degree, into action that is not totally subject to pre-conditions external to it. And I don’t just mean humans here. Even with an amoeba, its reaction to stimuli won’t always be the same. I have no evidence to really refute those who would claim that the different choices of stimuli are still determined by the typ of stimulus, the medium in which the amoeba rests, etc. All I can say is that a highly deterministic view depends largely upon our current understanding of natural sciences, and unless you believe that we’re pretty much close to closing the book on what scientific knowledge really is, I think there is plenty of room for a science that ultimately allows randomness. Quantum mechanics is an overused example here, but nonetheless models a more uncertain universe.

18

Spiraling coils of self replicating dna…

Deterministically we are robots.

Sure we cannot prove whether the universe is an open or closed system, but we have observations and inductions toward liklihood.

our brains function like computers in that the store, organize, and make use of information.

through life (this theory proposes) that the neurons in our brains organize and model themselves after and according to our experiences. Micro-structures representing and inducing specific thoughts are constructed and stored, and then activated at a later time.

Even if the universe is an open system or there is room for randomness we still follow this method of cognition.

We are a slave to our neuro-chemicals and a slave to our circumstances. Our minds are a collection of impressions, activated with order to produce an apparent intelligence :slight_smile:

19

try to convict a criminal who was predetermined to commit the crime… or were you predetermined to punish those who acted because they were predetermined to do so?

:banana-dance:

-Imp

20

DNA essentially serves as a template upon which proteins are eventually made. Proteins that determine our uniqueness. Environment plays a strong role in shaping us. And if you allow the potential for randomness in the environment then you allow potential for human beings to respond differently to that environment.

How come I get the sense that you’re playing devil’s advocate rather than someone who really believes this?

Inductions can reasonably be made one way or another with “likelihood”. Design the experiment that proves your view and I will accept. Otherwise the jury is still out. One such induction is that, at the most basic level, current scientific theory suggests that electron placement within the atom is truly random and uncertain.

No they don’t, actually. The analogy between the brain and a single computer is rather thin. Frankly, we really don’t know how the brain does what it does, but we can extrapolate in ways computers can’t, we can reflect upon what we perceive, we are self-aware . . .

Actually, neurons themselves don’t organize so much as their firing of electricity is organized. And there’s no real evidence that ties the ephemeral electrical firing with the stasis of constant memory.

If you allow openness in the universe, you shouldn’t be outraged by someone alleging openness in it’s consituent components, like us.

You can say it ten different ways and it won’t make it any more supported than the opposite view :slight_smile: