Do different brains have different operating systems, or logic gates, or chips (I don't know what the appropriate thing to ask is)? — Patterner
That all makes sense. And, although I know nothing about computers has the flexibility ol you are describing, what is it most analogous with? The difference between windows and iOS? Or the difference between C++ and Java? Or between phpBB3 and whatever is used at this site? Or some other level? I don't know nearly enough about all this stuff to even know what the possibilities are. — Patterner
1. Mental states are identical to brain states.
2. From (1), talk of mental states is the same as talk of brain states.
3. Ancient peoples coherently talked about their mental states.
4. Ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their brain states.
5. Therefore, mental states are not identical to brain states.
1. Mental states are identical to brain states.
2. From (1), talk of mental states is the same as talk of brain states.
3. Ancient peoples coherently talked about their mental states.
4. Ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their brain states.
5. Therefore, mental states are not identical to brain states.
Point 4 here is rejected directly in its semantics, to talk coherently about mental states IS to talk coherent about brain states. There is no extensional difference between "I am stressed" and "My hypophysis is ejecting adrenaline". — Lionino
If we are assuming that mental states are the same things as brain states, we are nevertheless talking about different aspects of the same thing. So, the ancients were in fact talking about brain states, but those aspects they experienced. Those who have studied brains or read literature on neuroscience might well talk about other aspects of the very complicated brain/mental state phenomenon and they might on other occasions talk about another aspect of that complicated phenomenon.Mental states are not identical to brain states. If they were, ancient peoples would have been coherently talking about brain states when they talked about mental states, but ancient peoples had almost no idea what the brain did. — RogueAI
How does someone who thinks the brain's purpose is to cool the blood talk coherently about brain states? — RogueAI
When he says, "I am stressed" he can't possibly be coherently talking about his brain, which he doesn't even know exists. — RogueAI
So while the identity theory asserts that mental states are indeed brain states, the scenario you presented suggests that individuals can discuss their mental experiences without necessarily engaging with the concept of brain states — RogueAI
Even if the individuals in your example are unaware of the connection between their mental experiences and the underlying neurological processes, from the standpoint of identity theory, their mental states are manifestations of specific configurations or activities within their brains. — RogueAI
Always keep in mind, ChatGPT is trained to please, and praise, the user. — hypericin
am coherently talking about a brain state. I don't need to know anything else about the brain — where it sits, what it does, what its cells are like — to be coherent about that. — Lionino
When I say the morning star has risen, am I talking about Venus or not? — Lionino
I think this is more than just a naming issue. Whether one is talking about Venus or morning star, one is referring to a bright light in the sky that one knows exists. — RogueAI
I don't need to know anything else about the brain — where it sits, what it does, what its cells are like — to be coherent about that. — Lionino
That is absurd. — RogueAI
is not the case. If you don't, it is an open possibility and thus your OP's conclusion does not follow.Therefore, ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their mental states. — Lionino
Or, we cut the chase and let you prove that
Therefore, ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their mental states.
— Lionino
is not the case. If you don't, it is an open possibility and thus your OP's conclusion does not follow. — Lionino
The claim changed from "talking coherently about mental states" to "talked about pain, suffering, loss", but no proof was given. I will call it for myself. — Lionino
Yeah, "the least bad analogy" is about the size of it, eh?I suppose the least bad analogy would be different CPUs. C code can be compiled to run on different CPUs, and yield the same user interface, although the details of the physical processes that occur in running the code would be different. — wonderer1
My take is that, if brain states and mind states were the same thing - that is, if there was an exact, one-to-one mapping between the two - then you wouldn't have to know anything about brains, or that they existed at all. The ancient people could discuss and come to understand mind states in extreme detail. Then, as their knowledge of physical things grew, and they came to learn of the existence of the brain, all its functions, all its structures, etc., they would come to realize they already knew what they were looking at, because of their extensive understanding of the mind. They could interchangeability use words they had long used to refer to mind states with words they had more recently been using to refer to brain states, and the conversation would not change at all.Now, how can people who have no idea of what brains are talk coherently about brain states? — RogueAI
My take is that, if brain states and mind states were the same thing - that is, if there was an exact, one-to-one mapping between the two - then you wouldn't have to know anything about brains, or that they existed at all. The ancient people could discuss and come to understand mind states in extreme detail. Then, as their knowledge of physical things grew, and they came to learn of the existence of the brain, all its functions, all its structures, etc., they would come to realize they already knew what they were looking at, because of their extensive understanding of the mind. They could interchangeability use words they had long used to refer to mind states with words they had more recently been using to refer to brain states, and the conversation would not change at all. — Patterner
I'm not interested in proving this part of the argument. Now, how can people who have no idea of what brains are talk coherently about brain states? — RogueAI
Because, in reductive materialism, there no difference between "I am stressed" and "My hypophysis is ejecting adrenaline" in what those phrases refer to. When I say "I am stressed" I am coherently talking about a brain state. I don't need to know anything else about the brain — where it sits, what it does, what its cells are like — to be coherent about that. That I think the brain is actually the liver and the liver is the brain is another aspect of the topic. We don't know many things about the brain, yet neuroscientists coherently talk about it. — Lionino
We don't know many things about the brain, yet neuroscientists coherently talk about it. — Lionino
Because, in reductive materialism, there no difference between "I am stressed" and "My hypophysis is ejecting adrenaline" in what those phrases refer to. — Lionino
I'm not interested in proving this part of the argument. Now, how can people who have no idea of what brains are talk coherently about brain states?
— RogueAI
Because, in reductive materialism, there no difference between "I am stressed" and "My hypophysis is ejecting adrenaline" in what those phrases refer to. When I say "I am stressed" I am coherently talking about a brain state. I don't need to know anything else about the brain — where it sits, what it does, what its cells are like — to be coherent about that. That I think the brain is actually the liver and the liver is the brain is another aspect of the topic. We don't know many things about the brain, yet neuroscientists coherently talk about it.
— Lionino
We don't know many things about the brain, yet neuroscientists coherently talk about it.
— Lionino — Lionino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.