where is 'mind' located?

[tinkerbell]

"Me brain hurts!"

Hope it's not all my fault!

nota

Of course not, Miss Paranoia!    It's a fun topic indeed.  I just need to be on the right mood to answer it, do you know what I mean?

tink

[The Middle Way]

Well what I meant is: I hope it's not this topic's fault.

Definitely bring your best mood or state of - urp! - mind to this party...



I have left a hole in here you could drive a truck through, and no one's gone for it.
I said "mind has no location", later I agreed with the statement "it's all mind, every last bit".

How can these two ideas be reconciled?

NOTA

[Pica Pica]

i got idea, but am too fluey and drunk to bother with them.

[The Middle Way]

well, the important thing is you bumped the topic to the top of the board...

[Pica Pica]

so did you.

[Fer]

The brain is physical, located in time and space. The mind is immaterial, not located in time and space but connected to the brain and able to interact with it..

Currently, however, there is the view that the mind is a consquence of the physical workings of the brain. It is a viewpoint addressed by some computer programmers who are attempting to generate a deus ex machina a computer that is self-aware. 

[MeganRose]

If the brain is material, but the mind is immaterial, how can the two actually be connected? Logically that would imply that a bridge would have to exist between the two that would be both material and immaterial so they could interact. And let's not even mention the pineal gland, shall we? I don't know what Descartes was smoking when he suggested that.

I personally don't understand why the mind needs to be located. I understand the mind to be something that is located out of space and time as it cannot be defined by either of those concepts as I understand them, and I personally consider that the brain, and therefore the body and the physical world as we percieve it, to be a mere by-product of the functioning of the mind.

Call me an idealist, I can live with it .

Megan

[The Middle Way]

Currently, however, there is the view that the mind is a consquence of the physical workings of the brain. It is a viewpoint addressed by some computer programmers who are attempting to generate a deus ex machina a computer that is self-aware. 

And I would say: good luck with that. Might be as sentient as a chicken, who knows?

If the brain is material, but the mind is immaterial, how can the two actually be connected? Logically that would imply that a bridge would have to exist between the two that would be both material and immaterial so they could interact. And let's not even mention the pineal gland, shall we? I don't know what Descartes was smoking when he suggested that.

I personally don't understand why the mind needs to be located. I understand the mind to be something that is located out of space and time as it cannot be defined by either of those concepts as I understand them, and I personally consider that the brain, and therefore the body and the physical world as we percieve it, to be a mere by-product of the functioning of the mind.

Megan

As suggested below/above, phenomenon & noumenon looping, mind emanating 'everything' and vice versa.

Same as it ever was/Not not was

aota/nota

[Jessica]

As a computer programmer who is involved in artificial intelligence algorithm development and simulation, I have a whole lot to say on that topic, but it's not the same topic as "where 'the mind' is located", granted the topic is similiar, but I don't want to derail the thread.

[The Middle Way]

I am looking forward to the new thread, but as impatient as I get when I am this caffeinated, I might want to incorporate the concept of programmed 'mind' into this one.

nota

[Jessica]

I'm really not sure how to start it honestly.

Jessica

[The Middle Way]

Never mind that, then 

This is only a question:

Since programming must use on/off switches to work:
Show us how '1' isn't usually '0', and how one might arrive at such an equivalence through a more or less correct procedure.

Please?

none

[Dennis]

Never mind that, then 

This is only a question:

Since programming must use on/off switches to work:
Show us how '1' isn't usually '0', and how one might arrive at such an equivalence through a more or less correct procedure.

Please?

none

Well, there is Goedel's Theorem, which states that any system sufficiently complex to express basic mathematical functions is inherently self-contradictory. So I suppose even a system of 1's and 0's can express itself in some interesting ways, albeit ways that most computer programmers do not want in their programs.

Dennis

[The Middle Way]

Well that does seem problematic, 'inherently self-contradictory'. I may just be experiencing a failure of imagination, I don't know. (I do want to go look at Godel's Theorem, which I have only the most passing familiarity with, thank you Dennis.)

Pointing towards AI, which I guess -?- is supposed to be more than the sum of basic mathematical functions:

I am wondering whether or not a personality can be expressed (or 'express itself', according to Dennis's language) within the binary convention.

none

[Dennis]

The theorem basically proves that such a system can express the following statement as true: "This statement is not true".

It's because you can create self-referential statements within a fairly simple system. Not sure what the implications are for AI though. I did my undergrad thesis on it. It's a nifty proof.

Dennis

[Jessica]

Since programming must use on/off switches to work:
Show us how '1' isn't usually '0', and how one might arrive at such an equivalence through a more or less correct procedure.

It's actually two discreet values of electrical charge.
(generally for PC based systems it is .5 volts and 0 volts.)

.5 represents a 1
0 represents a 0

In digital systems it's either or.
Now, before you ask what happens when it's .25!

There is actually a threshold.
so it's more like
0 - .2 = 0
.21 - .22 = fuzziness and an error introduction, however, it is highly unlikely this will occur.
.23 - .75 = 1
.76+ = blown gate.

Basically, they are electrical values above and below a certain threshold.
You have a bunch of different gates that allow operations to be performed

So, it's all electrical voltages running through a bus (groups of wires) and the interaction of those voltages on that bus with gates.  It's how everything is performed inside of a computer.

I hope that answered your question.

I'll try and give a more clear example without delving to far into digital logic

mov(ax, 7)
mov(bx, 3)
add(ax, bx)

ax refers to a register which is nothing more than a large group of gates
same with bx

the result of an add is always stored in cx, another register, or group of gates at a defined location

binary group 8421
7 =              0101
1 =              0001

So, in the ax register it places: .5 volts on the 1st line
                                             0 ... 2nd
                                            .5 ... 3rd
                                            ...
bx same procedure but for a '1', 1st .5, 2nd 0, 3rd 0 etc...

then ax and bx are routed through an adder, another more complicated series of gates.
the adder takes each of those series as inputs and produces an output which is then routed to register cx.

These are now the inputs to your adder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_propagation#Full_adder

This is really as general as I can make it.

[The Middle Way]

I hope that answered your question.

You state it so elegantly even I get the picture. Thanks! (in the first part, the threshold's limits, reminds me a little bit of instrumental tuning, where you eventually say, "that's close enough for rock 'n roll"  )