# Minds: Death, anaesthetic, babies, animals and Sonic the Camcorder-Doom player. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2005, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033 "2005-05-09T10:10:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/121 "2005-06-30T16:37:34Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > As far as cognitive science goes, I don’t think we’ve got anything so rock solid and incontrovertibly useful as the Periodic Table. Agreed, and I’m not sure we ever _will_, but that is perhaps just the nature of those fields of study. Computer science is most certainly _science_, but I can’t see there being a Periodic Table os _it_ either. > [@](#): > > Two, my guess is that there are indeed algorithms and modules of pattern that go into producing any given mental output. We will eventually start compiling a list of these. And in theory those patterns implemented in a variety of substrates could produce consciousness. I’d suggest we already have such lists, in terms of sensory memory and filtering operations, which explain why we at least _eg._ _remember_ the stuff we do from the entire detailed visual field. I’d say memory (sensory, short and long term), emotion (limbic system output) and frontal cortex processing are useful starting “elements” of the mind, which might subsequently and testably be [connected](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/connectionism/) in an analogy manner to chemical analysis. Or, the neurons are the “elements” of the mind just as the logic gates are the elements of computers, and the scientific study could progress analogous to that of combining logic gates into not “molecules” but _modules_ having a specific function, as in computer science. > [@](#): > > NDEs are strange enough things in people, aren’t they? Not _so_ strange if they are dreams correlated with haywire limbic kindling, perhaps. But a disconnected computer which could remember something while completely _inactive_ would certainly shake my worldview to the core. > [@](#): > > I think the patterns are almost totally alike, but the substrates are different. Some software would run much faster on gallium arsenide than silicon. But _what and where **is** _ the substrate when the offal in the bed is inactive? Does it not exist _independently_ of that particular bed-ridden offal? > [@](#): > > Also, when you’re drunk, your substrate is woozy. You don’t ask then, “Why don’t I experience that normal state right now?” The wooziness or normalcy comes from the activity of _that particular substrate in my skull_. If the pattern of that substrate is _repeated_ **elsewhere** , it is _independent_, yes? > [@](#): > > Perhaps this is only a difference in aesthetics, self-identity, and politics. I suspect so, but do read Lakoff if you get the chance. I have reservations about his position myself given the “unreasonable effectiveness” of maths and logic you correctly point to. However, I think that overall his position is sound and does not require maths and logic to be “out there”, a dualism which I feel an overriding (but admittedly, emotional!) urge to shave. > [@](#): > > tell me what your model predicts that mine doesn’t. Well, we could start with what children and tribesmen can do _naturally_, and see what hey can only do after being _taught_. The second would suggest something which was more a _convention_ than an “ultimate” something (which one might expect children and tribesmen to perform as easily as walking and eating). These tests of what various organisms can and cannot do are the bedrock of cognitive science, although I’m sure that we might _interpret_ these results differently. > [@](#): > > I think, "Math and logic are the truth; I think math and logic are two related means of **defining** truth. Many would argue that other epistemologies are no less valid means to find truth. > [@](#): > > if you violate them that means you’re wrong," Logically and mathematically wrong, yes. If that’s all the ‘wrong’ that matters, so be it, but “might makes _right_” is a depressingly popular precept. However, this is not so monumental a gumball for us to keep chewing, I think. Consider it rather a mere pet peeve of mine, really. > [@](#): > > I meant that you could claim with condience (be “right”) that someone had not proved his/her point with an invalid argument. I’m not sure what ‘condience’ is (conscience?), but again, you’re only “right” according to the [same](http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html) rules by which the argument is invalid - you’re not really saying anything _more_ than “that’s logically invalid”. > [@](#): > > Yes, but you feel comfortable that the basic skeptical position, despite its lack of completeness, is basically OK, right? The frontal lobes are satisfied? More satisfied than the _alternatives_ - how dull if my frontal lobes were never be _fully_ satisfied! > [@](#): > > That caveat doesn’t change my (and your?) position that all experiences are brain-mediated. OK, that is welcome agreement enough I think. (Although, as I say, I’m still a little confused as to _where_ the brain whose apparent “eyes” are floating near the ceiling is actually _located_.) > [@](#): > > The body (including the brain) exist after death at a different energy level/vibration/etc. You mean the _dead_ body and brain in the bed, yes? Or a _living (ie. active)_ brain somewhere else? > [@](#): > > So, you’re apologizing but still think I’m old-fashioned, etc.–which is it! > > Anyhow, I think most of what we disagree about comes down to politics and aesthetics. So why would I disrespect your position just because the decor or secret handshake is different? Again, no disrespect intended - I would understand completely if you felt an urge to tell me, as a friend, that you think I have a dated _dress sense_ or something. I retract the comment unreservedly, but hope that you can take it as a sign of friendship that I can tell you exactly what I think of you, which is a jolly good egg. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/122 "2005-07-01T03:13:42Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Agreed, and I’m not sure we ever _will_, but that is perhaps just the nature of those fields of study. Computer science is most certainly _science_, but I can’t see there being a Periodic Table os _it_ either. I could well be wrong, but I think of the science of mind as being like a physical science, and that there will be certain atom-like or compound-like irreducible patterns (irreducible in that the patterns of neurons firing, etc., has a one-to-one correspondence with a certain mental effect, could be quite micro). But that’s just my fantasy, the second part of the metaphor. It could come down to equations and algorithms as in computer science. We’ll see. > [@](#): > > I’d suggest we already have such lists, in terms of sensory memory and filtering operations, which explain why we at least _eg._ _remember_ the stuff we do from the entire detailed visual field. I’d say memory (sensory, short and long term), emotion (limbic system output) and frontal cortex processing are useful starting “elements” of the mind, which might subsequently and testably be [connected](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/connectionism/) in an analogy manner to chemical analysis. You are right that these are all very important. My personal opinion that they all haven’t clicked yet to give us that “Ah hah!” feeling. I mean, we know how the heart works at a macro level and in many of the details. A kid can hear the scientific explanation for how the heart or kidneys or bone marrow work and in two seconds have understood the basics. The macro understanding. We can say, “The heart pumps the blood,” or, “The kidneys filter the blood,” and it makes instant sense, and it feels complete at that level. To say that “The brain controls the whole body,” or “The brain is the source of thinking,” just doesn’t click in the same way. It’s hard to say why it doesn’t. Maybe because there is no easily imagined metaphor. The heart pumping like pump. The kidneys filtering like a coffee filter. The brain whating like a what? > [@](#): > > Or, the neurons are the “elements” of the mind just as the logic gates are the elements of computers, and the scientific study could progress analogous to that of combining logic gates into not “molecules” but _modules_ having a specific function, as in computer science. Yes, this is not far from what I think, although I doubt the model is digital, as I have said. > [@](#): > > Not _so_ strange if they are dreams correlated with haywire limbic kindling, perhaps. But a disconnected computer which could remember something while completely _inactive_ would certainly shake my worldview to the core. And because of that veridical NDEs are denied by skeptics (and perhaps for good reasons, but there is certainly every motivation for disproving them). FWIW, the card experiment proposed elsewhere in this thread would blow away my own worldview if negative. Let’s run it! > [@](#): > > But _what and where **is** _ the substrate when the offal in the bed is inactive? Does it not exist _independently_ of that particular bed-ridden offal? Yeah, the brain offal is inactive (and eaten by maggots!–and rotting!)–but then a new substrate in a different dimension continues to sustain the pattern of the person (mind and body). Actually, most of the time it’s theorized that that “new” substrate is really with the mind/body (mirrors it) and continues on after the offal is R.I.P. > [@](#): > > The wooziness or normalcy comes from the activity of _that particular substrate in my skull_. If the pattern of that substrate is _repeated_ **elsewhere** , it is _independent_, yes? Same software, different computer, I should think. > [@](#): > > I suspect so, but do read Lakoff if you get the chance. I have reservations about his position myself given the “unreasonable effectiveness” of maths and logic you correctly point to. However, I think that overall his position is sound and does not require maths and logic to be “out there”, a dualism which I feel an overriding (but admittedly, emotional!) urge to shave. I’ll read the book. I don’t see math as being “out there” either, however. Any more than the Big Bang Singularity was “out there” or “in there.” > [@](#): > > Well, we could start with what children and tribesmen can do _naturally_, and see what hey can only do after being _taught_. The second would suggest something which was more a _convention_ than an “ultimate” something (which one might expect children and tribesmen to perform as easily as walking and eating). These tests of what various organisms can and cannot do are the bedrock of cognitive science, although I’m sure that we might _interpret_ these results differently. Sounds interesting, but no one ever claimed that every aspect of Ultimate Truth was right in front of your face or easy to discover. We know for a “fact” that the Xth digit of Pi is Y, but there is no way to subitize that or even have a good guess as to what it is. > [@](#): > > I think math and logic are two related means of **defining** truth. Many would argue that other epistemologies are no less valid means to find truth. I don’t know if there are “others” that eschew math and logic to any significant degree. I would also say that the concept of truth is intuited directly, though it can be defined without too much trouble and controvery (correspondence between representations and reality, etc.). > [@](#): > > OK, that is welcome agreement enough I think. (Although, as I say, I’m still a little confused as to _where_ the brain whose apparent “eyes” are floating near the ceiling is actually _located_.) > You mean the _dead_ body and brain in the bed, yes? Or a _living (ie. active)_ brain somewhere else? That brain is in a vibratory dimension that overlaps ours. In fact, the Afterlife dimension overlaps ours. According to theories. > [@](#): > > Again, no disrespect intended - I would understand completely if you felt an urge to tell me, as a friend, that you think I have a dated _dress sense_ or something. I retract the comment unreservedly, but hope that you can take it as a sign of friendship that I can tell you exactly what I think of you, which is a jolly good egg. 🙂 Yeah, be honest. Always. It’s been a good debate. If you’d like to cover anything else, please let me know. Otherwise, I’m finished. Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/123 "2005-07-01T08:12:03Z")
Thank you in return. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033.md?page=6)