TBD. I assume that if biology can produce thinking organisms, then nature does not constrain a sufficiently advanced thinking organism from, at least in principle, engineering a 'synthetic thinker'.

Who is the I? Maybe the body between inner and outer wotld. Can anyone be to blame for their thoughts in their world (physically residing in the brain but only if you look at the brain materialistically).

A book has been written that is called "We are our brain". It could have just as well be named "We are our body". The intermediate between outer world and inner world

Thank you for your response.

You might enjoy Alva Noë‘s book, Out of our Heads: Why You are Not your Brain. — Wayfarer

"You are not the brain" sounds quite familar. In fact, I was teaching that in a philosophical institute quite a long ago. I will found more about it, anyway. Although the important thing is that ... At last! A different view on the subject! Up to now, "Brainists" totally outnumber "Non-brainists". And I'm afraid this difference won't get smaller ...

You are the second to mention "consciousness". The third one would be myself when I will explain my position. :smile: Well, if I do, because I don't find it will be of any use. There's too much "brainism" in here. I have already brought in enough evidence and exhausted the reasons why thought cannot be or take place in the brain. Yet, it seems that it had absolutely no effect to "brainists", which totally outnumber "non-brainists".

I created this topic to see whether philosophical thinkers, like (most) TPFers, are "stuck" and obsessed (as you say) with the brain as almost everyone else in our culture. Indeed, Science --with all that it carries with and is implied by it: materialism, physicalism, monism, etc.-- is too strong, much stronger than "God". Well, I suspected the result, but I hoped it wouldn't be true. :sad:

(Who knows, there may be late responses that will change the scene ...)

That's because the detailed information is hard to get. The moment you try to get that detailed information you are interfering with that process you distort it, more or less — Prishon

Thank you for your response.

This reminds me of quantum phyiscs ... However, I don't think that the uncertainty principle is actually the problem. Moreover, as it refers to something totally physical, it excludes the possibility that thought (like consciousness) might be of a non-physical nature. And there are many reasons to believe that, since thought seems to elude Science, and it still is a terra incognita for it. Yet, it cannot see that because it deals only with the physical universe (matter and energy). And we are grateful for that! :smile:

This reminds me of quantum phyiscs ... — Alkis Piskas

I was thinking exactly that too! :grin:

Terra incognita indeed.

"voluntary thinking" is very much the exception to the rule of – just the rippling surface of the deep – involuntary thinking. — 180 Proof

OK, but have you thought involutarily of writing this and what exactly to write about? I certainly haven't! :smile:

. I assume that if biology can produce thinking organisms, then nature does not constrain a sufficiently advanced thinking organism from, at least in principle, engineering a 'synthetic thinker'. — 180 Proof

I principle, this is impossible.

Science has not and cannot explain how they are produced and what is their source
— Alkis Piskas
Explain how you know this. — 180 Proof

As for "has not", I have already presented a documenation about what is generally known by Science on the subejct of thought. (So, if you have actually read the whole description of the topic, you shouldn't have asked this! :smile:)
As for "cannot", I assume that this refers to the future, in which Science documentedly (I have already presented something pertinent), it is because "thought" is evidently of non-physical nature and Science does not deal with non-physical things.

:smile:

TBD — 180 Proof

?

I assume that if biology can produce thinking organisms, then nature does not constrain a sufficiently advanced thinking organism from, at least in principle, engineering a 'synthetic thinker'. — 180 Proof

Indeed! So, the thought/thinking is like travelling. It can be done by foot (brain), by car, by plane, by ship, teleportation, etc i.e. the brain is just many ways thinking can be achieved. In other words, thinking isn't exclusively brain and that, in a sense, liberates thinking from biology onto other substrates. You are not your brain.

TBD — 180 Proof

So was I wondering! To Be Discussed? Two Balls Dick? To Be Daft? Togger Beaf Dunckle?

Hi, everybody. I just now created this account, and so this is my first post ever on the philosophy forum. I am not a professional/academic philosopher, but have indulged a lifelong interest in philosophical subjects. I have found that I enjoy interacting on fora such as is hereby represented, partially because if helps me in learning and in refining my own belief system, and also through the expression of my deepest thoughts, values and beliefs, for which general living seems not to provide adequate context, it helps to fulfill my needs for intimacy.

In response to Alkis Piskas' original question, I would state that the notion that memory, reason, emotion, and other types of thought occur independently of the body must by needs be predicated upon the consideration that there is some part of the individual which is incorporeal and which is comprised by that which we call "the person". This appears to be a claim about a supernatural phenomenon. It seems to me that the only rational answer to such a proposition is the (Bertrand) Russellian one: the acceptance of supernatural claims demands supernatural proofs. The fact is, that while we have ample evidence of the existence of the human body and brain, we have as yet absolutely no objective evidence (apart from the possibility that the phenomenon of the mind provides evidence therefore) of any incorporeal aspect of the human person. These facts would appear to clarify the matter.

Since apart from the phenomenon of the human mind, no evidence presents itself that there is any part of the human person apart from the physical body, the choice before us seems to be between: (a) holding the fact of the mind as evidence for an incorporeal aspect of the person, or (b) considering that thought and the mind are a result of physiological processes within the human body, particularly (though not exclusively) the brain. Of these two options, the rational choice seems clear: one must assume, in the absence of further evidence, and while not utterly denying the possibility that there is some incorporeal part of the person which is instrumental in producing the phenomenon of cognition, that the human mind is the product of the physiological functioning of the human body.

The fact that we have as yet not been able to discern the mechanisms by which thought might be produced within the brain is irrelevant to this. The field of computer science has been elucidative of the possibilities, though. We now understand that a system can be contrived whereby bits of information are stored, retrieved and manipulated as polarities in order to produce a rather unsophisticated, though highly efficient type of "thought", and indeed, a rather unsophisticated though highly efficient type of "mind". Knowing this one possibility for the production of a type of "thought" provides us with a foundation for imagining all the various possible types of information storage, retrieval and manipulation which might be occurring within a given human brain/body to result in the phenomenon of a human mind.

The preceding, by the way, involves the same line of reasoning which I follow with respect and in response to the proposition that there exists a God or gods of any description.

Indeed! So, the thought/thinking is like travelling. It can be done by foot (brain), by car, by plane, by ship, teleportation, etc i.e. the brain is just many ways thinking can be achieved. In other words, thinking isn't exclusively brain and that, in a sense, liberates thinking from biology onto other substrates. — TheMadFool

I think there is only one boat, the biological boat. Why wouldnt other boats have been around us? The information whirling around in the brain (not being able to do this withou a body or a physical world in which its immersed) cant be separated to continue in a non-biological man-made substrate.

Life on other planets different from the life here but the base is the same.

I don't waste time with random stuff pulled off of the internet – as you admitted "I made a small research in the Web" – especially in a domain of knowledge in which I've done lab research and earned a graduate degree. I asked for an explanation because the claim at issue is not consistent with what I understand scientifically. It's telling that you cannot explain your claim.

..."thought" is evidently of non-physical nature and Science does not deal with non-physical things.

Thought moves bodies. Bodies are physical and physical entities are only moved (affect-affected) by other physical entities. Ergo, "thought" is "evidently" physical.

You are not your brain. — TheMadFool

Yeah, "you" are an idea generated by a brain interacting with its environment.

Yes, precisely. As Doug Hofstadter noted: " 'I' am a strange loop".

Yeah, "you" are an idea generated by a brain interacting with its environment. — 180 Proof

You are not your brain as in the thinker, presently the brain as far we can tell, can be anything else, even a sufficiently advanced microchip for all we know.

However, is the brain sufficient for thinking? Can AI think? Can silicon-based life-forms think? — TheMadFool

There's the rub. Will we ever be able to verify whether A.I. is actually thinking/is conscious? No. Even if someone's entire brain was replaced with a functionally identical mechanical brain, and they reported they were conscious, we would still wonder: are you really conscious? We would always wonder that. Science can never answer that question. That suggests science is not the tool for this particular job.

There's the rub. Will we ever be able to verify whether A.I. is actually thinking/is conscious? No. Even if someone's entire brain was replaced with a functionally identical mechanical brain and they reported they were conscious, we would still wonder: are you really conscious? We would always wonder that. Science can never answer that question. That suggests science is not the tool for this particular job. — RogueAI

If you think like that then you mean to say that the information accessible to us is insufficient to conclude the presence of consciousness. So, here I am, talking to my friend and his conduct is identical in important respects to mine - he talks, acts just like me - and I, from that, make the following analogical inference:

1. I talk, act, initiate, respond in certain ways and I'm conscious.
2. My friend also does talk, act, initiate, respond in the same way as I do.
Ergo,
3. My friend is conscious.

Now, if I'm to doubt my argument from analogy above, there must be a relevant dissimilarity between my friend and me. If none can be found, the argument is cogent and I, perforce, must accept that my friend, like me, is too conscious.

Coming to AI, we seem reluctant to follow the same logic i.e. the following intriguing scenario is the case for AI:

4. I talk, act, initiate, respond in certain ways and I'm conscious.
5. An AI does act, initiate, respond in the same way as I do.
BUT...
6. I hesitate to conclude the AI is conscious.

We're trying to eat the cake and have it too. If you have doubts about the AI being conscious, this uncertainty automatically extends to your friend too and, conversely, if you believe your friend's conscious, the AI must also be conscious!

Something about the evidence for consciousness is problematic. Either we believe it can be mimicked perfectly in which case there's no difference between your friend and a p-zombie and nonphysicalism is true or it can't be and AI that pass the Turing test are truly conscious.

I'm a functionalist so I agree 'self-aware phenomenal cognition' (mind) is in principle substrate-independent.

you seem to equate thought with consciousness. If one were to open the cranium of a human, and destroy all those, and only those portions of the brain which are involved in producing rational thought and other types of cognition, yet leave the rest of the brain intact, the human subject would still be capable of consciousness, but not of thought, per se.

I'm a functionalist so I agree 'self-aware phenomenal cognition' (mind) is in principle substrate-independent. — 180 Proof

That means the brain isn't necessary for thought although, in our case, it is.

BUT...
6. I hesitate to conclude the AI is conscious. — TheMadFool

I think maybe it would be better to say that AI imitates human thinking and not consciousness.

Consciousness requires the existence of subconscious and unconscious mind. It's just the tip of the iceberg. Thoughts already coexist and created in unconscious mind and then show up(some of them) in human consciousness.
That's the only reason, imo, that we can't say at AI robot for example has consciousness. It just does some form of "thinking".

You ain't going to work out where thoughts are unless you are fairly clear as to what they are. — Banno

Man I can clearly picture you getting into a store, the employee welcomes you saying :
"Good morning, sir"
And you responding :
"Oh my friend first we have to clarify the definition of what good is. After what you define as morning since it's almost 12, so you could easily say noon. And last but not least to define what you mean with Sir. Since I could easily be a transgender woman dressed like a Sir! ".

No offense here, I hope. Just you are really obsessed with definitions, not that you do wrong. I find also definitions and wording extremely important for conducting a proper conversation with useful outcomes. But if we overdo it, at the end we won't be able to talk about anything!

For me in that case, let's see thinking here as "everything that our mind deals with" . As to have a base to understand each other.

How do you figure that? (Airplanes don't make bird's wings unnecessary.) Examples of 'minds' without brains (CNS) please.

"Good morning, sir"
And you responding :
"Oh my friend first we have to clarify the definition of what good is. After what you define as morning since it's almost 12, so you could easily say noon. And last but not least to define what you mean with Sir. Since I could easily be a transgender woman dressed like a Sir! ". — dimosthenis9

Good one! :lol: .

Two points I think should be included.

We cannot separate the doer from the deed. Since someone brought up Nietzsche, one cannot separate the lightning from its flash, the subject from its predicate. They are one and the same. Both the thinking being and that which is thought is the human organism.

Can the brain think without the heart? the lungs? the endocrine system? The metabolism? Though we could do away with a less vital part of our body and still be able to think, the human organism is so complex and integrated that to attribute an act to a single part which only a functioning whole can perform is to misapprehend both doer and deed. At the very least, the concept of “that which thinks” must extend to all the parts involved in thinking.

I don't waste time with random stuff pulled off of the internet – as you admitted "I made a small research in the Web" — 180 Proof

"Random stuff"? Is this what research means to you? You must better look up the word "research". Well, I will make it easier to you: Research is "creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research)

As I "admit"? Did I confess anything? (Admit means "Confess to be true or to be the case." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/admit)

In making philosophical discussions one must know well the meaning of the words one uses. This is only essential. Otherwise one's statements, questions, arguments etc., just fall apart.

I am not criticizing you. I only believe that you have to work a lot on your vocabulary if you want to make interesting philosophical discussions ...

You didn't do any scientific research (using "the Web" no less :rofl:) on a scientific problem in order to make your unwarranted statement about what science has not done and cannot ever do (or any sound argument to that effect), my friend, so check the conceptual incoherence of "a lot of your vocabulary" so that you too can one day contribute more than arbitrary opinons (i.e. sophistry) to "interesting philosophical discussions".