Stack Overflow
From: Chris Thomson (christhomsonshomepage_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/30/04
- Next message: Smart: "Passing Server-side variables to client"
- Previous message: Matthieu Villeneuve: "Re: Finding all possible combinations of elements in variable length lists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 30 Nov 2004 05:39:14 -0800
Let's say we try to understand the mind. We imagine a universe full of
people, and those people have minds, in those minds these people can
imagine a universe full of people, who have minds, etc, etc.
Or you can go the other way, let us imagine the whole universe. Now we
can imagine that this idea of the universe that we have just imagined,
is in our minds, and our minds are in the universe. But then that idea
of the unvierse with our mind in it, that idea itself is also just an
idea in our mind which is in the universe.
In either direction you can keep going forever, there is no
theoretical limit. Every step is exactly as valid or true as the last,
it looks identical to the last except that it's one step higher up the
ladder of reasoning.
These problems where trying to answer a question, raises the exact
same question, is called a recursive function. If you have no exit
conditions, the questions just stack up and you get what is called a
stack-overflow.
These are terms of computers, but unless you believe the human brain
is somehow infinite in its computational abilities, the same principle
applies. You can never get to the end of a recursive function that has
no exit conditions.
If you go down this path when trying to understand the mind and its
nature as part of the physical universe, you may as well ask yourself
"what's the biggest number I can think of?", and then when you come up
with a possible answer, ask "is that really the biggest"?.
As finite reasoning machines, we can't process infinitely recursive
functions, but in programming as in philosophy, we can recognise them.
You can see them when people try to describe, for example, the
mind/body problem. How does thought arise out of matter, you ask?
Well, maybe our understanding of matter is incomplete? But what can
you add to that understanding to account for thought arising, what can
you possibly, even theoretically add to our understanding to explain
this?
What are we trying to do here when asking this question? As we ask it,
we're not sitting in a lab measuring someone else's neurons, wondering
why we don't see the right facial expression or other evidence of
thought. We're thinking about our own experiences of being able to
think, and our own ideas about what matter is, and wondering how one
can arise from the other. In effect we are examining our idea of
thinking (an idea of "an idea" if you will), and our idea of matter.
Now, two questions arise from this explanation. Why don't they look
the same? And "but what about *real* thought and *real* matter,
independant of our ideas of them?". The answer to the first question
seems fairly obvious, it's the same reason that things don't "feel"
the same as they "taste" (unless maybe if you're a synesthesiac). The
answer is that it's two different recognition systems. One is touch,
one is taste. Taste is different from touch, and sight is different
from self-consciousness. They are two different recognition systems.
Whether they are recognising the same thing, or recognising two
different things, they can never, like sight compared smell, or like
logic compared to emotions; they can't present the same results, no
matter if the source is the same.
Not all other animals can see, and not all can hear. Some have senses
we don't, like sharks which can detect muscle movement at a distance
via electrical impulses. So too with our mental faculties. Most
animals, especially insects and the like, don't seem to know that they
are thinking. From their small brains and their simpler behaviour that
shows no sign of self-awareness, we might assume this bit of their
brain is tiny, or it just isn't there. They can't "see" their own
thoughts. We can, and they don't look the same as using our eyes to
see matter, even if in each case our recognition was provoked by the
same physical thing.
Seeing matter is not to know the actual physical thing as it really
is, it's a processed version of signals stimulated by something caused
by the actual physical thing.
Light "bounces" off a rock, hits us in the eye, stimulates a nerve
which sends an electrical impulse into our biological computers which
make up a generated image for us. What matter looks like is not what
it is, it's just what it looks like (in our brains). Thoughts (if
indeed they do arise from matter) are not what it is either, they are
just what matter - the very specific matter that makes up the brain -
thinks like.
In no direction can we turn to truly reach what matter *is*, since in
every case we are confronted by generated interepretations that we
can't do away with, or get outsdie of. In trying to know the real
nature of matter, thought is as hopeless as sight. But each gives us
an interesting an useful representation. This is why they are not the
same. So that answers the first question.
To the second question, then, "But what about *real* matter and *real*
thoughts, independant of our thoughts about them?". In trying to fully
understand this, we may recognise that any answer we come up with,
will itself be accessible to us, only in the form of a thought, as in
we will be thinking about the answer, and will not be able to "access"
it, in any other way. *Real* matter, on the other hand is only going
to be accessible as a sensory experience, or, for theoretical
purposes, our speculations and explanations about those experiences.
Speculations and explanations being two other things we can not "get
to" except in the form of thinking of them, so as far as we can tell,
they are also, somehow, in our minds. This raises the same problem,
"what about the *real* world, outside of our mind?"; and and one can
see looming on the horizon, an infinite loop.
It should be noted, that in most cases, to understand things in the
world, you can just leave your mind's physical existence out of the
equation, and concentrate on your model of the world, without having
to keep reminding yourself that it's a model. You can remind yourself
of this, but generally don't need to in order to answer questions that
come up about how the world works. Questions about how the mind
physically fits into the world, are a different logical class of
question, and no step brings you any closer to the final answer.
The mind body problem is not really a problem. We can answer practical
questions about the phyiscal aspect of thought (e.g. we can make
progress in neurology), especially as our means of measuring the brain
improve, but the theoretical end answer to the question, in explaining
the relationship between our mind and "the outside world", which has
physical matter in it, is for all practical purposes, whilever we
remain finite beings, a non-existent end. We can't even come up with a
wrong answer.
You can often detect the same problem in how people try to fit
"Determinism" with "Choice".
- Next message: Smart: "Passing Server-side variables to client"
- Previous message: Matthieu Villeneuve: "Re: Finding all possible combinations of elements in variable length lists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
