And you have something better that you're basing the "everyone" claim on? What better information than statistics is that? — flannel jesus

Well it is your problem not understanding ordinary linguistic expressions. How could I help you? You brining out the statistic figures make your claims sounds more unfounded and suspicious.

So if mind is not generated from the brain, where is it from?

You just seem to blindly trust and follow anything statistics or some gibberish in the internet, and try to claim that they are the truths. It is just form of a religion in disguise.

It's not some tiny minority. Only 51-52% of professional philosophers are physicalists about the mind. That means up to 48% of philosophers might not think the mind emerges from the brain.

It's not senseless, 52% isn't "everyone" by any reasonable definition. — flannel jesus

I don't subscribe to any statistics. It means nothing to me I am afraid.

And I suppose you're defining "reasonable" as "people who agree with me", which makes it tautologically true, not meaningfully true. — flannel jesus

In all the sciences, math and philosophy, they all pursue for the knowledge which is true for generality. But you bring out some minority claims of the folks from the shade, and try to refute the general principles and knowledge. It sounds senseless.

You now know that not everyone thinks minds emerge from brains, so you have no reason to make the claim again. — flannel jesus

Everyone who are reasonable knows that mind generates from the brain.

but if you meant the majority of people, (a) you would have said that when I invited you to say what you meant, and you didn't say that, and (b) that would still be incorrect. The majority of people are religious and believe in souls. — flannel jesus

I have explained it you, but you seem neither try to read my explanation nor try to understand it. You just kept on saying wrong wrong wrong, admit wrong. That is not philosophical discourse.
You don't demand admitting anything from the other party. The other party will admit wrong, if he genuinely knew he was wrong, and feel that the admitting is needed at his own accord.

And you still can't just say "yes, not everyone knows or believes that". How easy would that be to say? — flannel jesus

People use "Everyone" "Anyone" to say the majority of people or really anyone in the figure of speech all the time. It just means that it is widely accepted that, it is predominantly fact that, unless you are talking about First-Order logic topics.

But if you really insist on everyone to mean something else, then you won't find it. You yourself will get lost trying to understand what it means. Because then you must go and find and agree whether to include every single person since the start of the universe, or just the folks who are living on this earth at this particular moment? Or the folks in your own country? .... what is the real "everyone"?

Ok, you decided to define everyone to mean all the folks who are living on this earth at this moment. But as soon as you decided on that, there have been hundreds and thousands of the new birth in the world, and at the same time hundreds have died in the world due to old age, accidents and illness what have you. Then who are the real "everyone"?

If someone says 'everyone knows the mind emerges from the brain', do you think that's true, and what do you think that claim means? Corvus said that, I'm curious what you think is the most natural interpretation of that claim. — flannel jesus

If you were genuinely philosophically asking about it, you would have asked "What do you mean by Everyone?", and gave me a chance to explain about it. But you decided to claim "Everyone? There are the non believers, and it is not true. It is wrong, you are wrong wrong wrong. Admit you are wrong."

Hmmm anyone would sense that your aim was not pure and silly sophistic.

I would even say quite the contrary. The possibility and the limits of metaphysics follow from his exposition concerning time, space and consciousness. Just have a look on the paragraph "What Objective Unity of Self-consciousness is". — Pez

By the way, I was going to ask you, what do time and space have got to do with consciousness in Kant?

The implication I got from reading Corvu's responses was that only brains are conscious, but he might not be saying that. — RogueAI

My point on mind is that it is property of lived life and experiences in the world interacting with the other minds. The property being able to exercise high level of linguistic, rational and emotional interactions ... etc etc with the other minds in the societies they live in. AI and the intelligent devices definitely seem to posses and demonstrate the rational part of consciousness, but they seem to be lacking in the other part of the human mind and consciousness.

The core of mind is definitely in the brain. I am not sure if mind can be further divided into lower level material structure. Maybe it can, but it would be then neurological, biological and physical terms.

I was trying get this point across, but kept on insisting that he could not understand and accept what the word "Everyone" means. Obviously he is incapable of communicating and discoursing in ordinary linguistic level, hence I tried explain to him in logical manner, by which he seemed to have further confusing himself resorting into ad hominem in the end.

I would even say quite the contrary. The possibility and the limits of metaphysics follow from his exposition concerning time, space and consciousness. Just have a look on the paragraph "What Objective Unity of Self-consciousness is". — Pez

Good point. I will try to read on the concept of Self in Kant, and see what he had to say.

That's been the question since all the way back here: — flannel jesus

No, you just wrote saying that there are the other folks who don't know, and saying "Everyone knows" is wrong, therefore I must admit incorrect. You either have a short memory or ....

When you claim "everyone knows the mind emerges from the brain", what does everyone mean to you in that sentence? — flannel jesus

Yes, this is the question you should have asked. You are giving a logical opportunity for further clarification and limitation to the concept "everyone" which it cries for. My reply would be "Everyone" that I came across in my reading and listening. Is it that important? :rofl:

"every" is the opposite of vague. It's one of the most well-defined concepts in existence. — flannel jesus

Does "everyone" mean then, everyone who ever lived in the past, is living at present, or will live in the future, or totality of the all the folks who ever lived on this earth since the big bang or what?

If you were thinking logically, you should have asked whether "everyone" meant the whole population of the universe, or a group of folks I know, or whatever, rather than jumping into the bandwagon shouting that I must admit I was incorrect.

I wouldn't describe your way of discoursing was exactly logical or fair, to be fair and honest.

You have been insisting to admit that I was incorrect. But the fact is that you don't seem to know a very basic knowledge in First-Order Logic. "Every" is a quantifier which is vague on its own without further limiting quantifier.

It is difficult to imagine anyone insisting "everyone" must mean the whole population in the universe. It doesn't exist, it is vague and obscure, and it is illogical to even imply that.

Please read the above post again, and think before posting.

I am only responding to your posts addressed to me. Not wasting time as such. I was just telling you that your understanding is not correct, and your insistence sounds unusual.

Anyone would say that your insistence that "Everyone" must mean the whole population in the universe without the class limitation is incorrect and unusual. This is a simple knowledge in First-Order Logic and High-Order Logic.

Well, you've already admitted that "everyone" doesn't mean "everyone", so that's a good start. — flannel jesus

Well, I have even given you a clear and detailed explanation what "Everyone" can imply in logical sense with the advice not to be too restrictive in your judgements which sounds too impractical to consider in serious manner. I have not admitted anything at all. That is another prejudgement of yours.

But I'll take your reply as a sly way of admitting you were incorrect. Perhaps you're just one of those people who can't say the words "I was incorrect." — flannel jesus

No, that would be an unwise act of digging down yourself into further below into the darkness of the cave.
How can anyone admit being incorrect without being incorrect just because you want him to? That would be a sinful contradiction. :D

Finally I look at whether a microtubule fractal suggests that electric current plays a part in conventional neurocomputing processes in plants." — RogueAI

If they want to insist that the whole universe is conscious, then it would only make sense, if they also stipulate the condition that there are different types or levels of consciousness.

it doesn't matter if you agree with them or think their ideas make sense, the point is *not everyone believes the thing you said everyone believes*.
an hour ago — flannel jesus

You shouldn't be too naive to presume that "everyone" strictly means the whole population in the universe anyway. "Everyone" is a pronoun with the universal quantifier "every", which implies "everyone" that I know, "everyone" who are sensible, "everyone" with common sense, or "everyone" who are logical ... etc.

You shouldn't be too judgemental or restrictive in understanding and interpreting "everyone" in unreasonably narrow way insisting it must be "everyone" in the whole world or universe.

no, I think they're talking about all consciousness, including human.

People who believe in souls are of course another great example of people who don't think minds emerge from brains. They think minds are in souls. — flannel jesus

I can't quite follow or agree with their ideas then. The prime sign of possessing consciousness and mind for a being is demonstrations of its linguistic, rational reasoning capability, and showing the signs of emotional interactions.

I cannot see how anything else in the universe can be conscious apart from humans, and some of the mammals (having lesser consciousness due to their lack of language uses).

If some folks want to believe that raining and strong wind are the sign of the universe being conscious, and these folks trying to have chats with the trees on the hills and fishes in the rivers, then how can, or why should anyone stop them from doing so?

Despite not having read the article, I don't think Jan Szaif's point is that Greek had no word for truth. — Lionino

I think his point is that aletheia in ancient Greek meaning is different from modern day meaning of truth.
I will read the article again when I am freer, and will try to update further.

500 years from now I will come back from the dead and use the word "Heidegger" to describe break-dancing at a beach. Hopefully the academics will talk about that in 600 years. — Lionino

Do you believe in eternal resurrection? That would be a Nietzschean idea, wouldn't it?

It was from an article called "Plato and Aristotle on Truth and Falsehood" by Jan Szaif, 2018 OUP.

He says due to the fact it is difficult to translate "aletheia" into the English word "truth". He also points out the word "aletheia" had been used by Heidegger to describe the character of the world.

Some people are panpsychists who believe consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism — flannel jesus

But isn't the mind the panpsychists talking about totally different type from the human mind?
Wouldn't it be more like the "Soul" rather than human consciousness with reasoning, experiencing, sensing and feeling capabilities?

Truly in English means "really" all the time, does that mean English has no word for truth? — Lionino

Truly can mean truthfully and rightly too. Truth is an English word for truth. :D
Anyway, "aletheia" is a Greek word for "truth", but it comes from the etymology "Not"+"Concealment" = a+lethia = alethia. I thought it was an interesting word. Would it imply that truth is hidden by nature?

But not everyone knows, or agrees, that consciousness emerges from the brain, and not everyone agrees that it's possible for AI to be conscious. — flannel jesus

What is your evidence for the claim?

Do you accept that not everyone knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain? — flannel jesus

No I don't accept it. I still believe that everyone (with common sense) knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain.

no, it's even more unclear than before. I didn't write that they're connected, someone else wrote it, and then you agreed with it. Everythings entirely unclear now.

Why are you agreeing with some guy saying they're connected, and then complaining that connected is vague? — flannel jesus

I think that's what @pez meant for "connected" - consciousness emerges from physical brain. He didn't mean that it is connected physically with a chain or something. That's how saw it.

But when you replied with saying it again gave an impression that is what you were saying it, because you were vehemently denying something. I didn't quite understand what you were denying about, and presumed that what you were saying was that consciousness is connected to the brain, it is different from saying that consciousness emerges from the brain. This gave me further impression what you were saying was that consciousness is connected to the brian physically with some chain or link, which I thought was totally muddled.

I can see the problem very clearly. There is no complications here. You seem to try to conclude that everything unclear for some reason, when it is not. As I said, it is not the central point of the OP. We can just accept the situation and move on, and try to discuss the OP - can computers and AI think?

What I meant was that everyone knows that brain is where mind and conscious generates and emerges. If I said "connected", that would be the relationship I meant. But I never said anything about "connectedness".

You said that many folks don't believe that is the case. You then wrote, and think that the brain is connected to consciousness, which I found as vague expression. Now clear? :grin:

"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague.
— Corvus

Then... why did you agree with it and say it was your point when Pez said it? — flannel jesus

I thought that was what you were saying. I never said that brain is connected to consciousness physically. It is first time I am reading it from your post.

Saying "the brain is connected to consciousness", which probably nearly everyone agrees with, is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from saying "consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" or whatever, which is what you said everyone knows. — flannel jesus

"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague. What do you mean by the brain is connected to consciousness? What is it connected with? Is it connected with a piece of string or golden chain or rubber band? It sounds more obscure.

"consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" is some of the academic theories of Mind-Body topics in the cognitive science textbooks, and is a widely known claim.

Nobody would contradict this and the close connection between brain and consciousness. — Pez

Yes, that was my point against .

Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality". — Pez

This still sounds like a materialistic methodology.

And that is exactly the crux of Kant's argument, that materialism alone does not suffice to explain our experience. — Pez

I thought Kant doesn't make explicit comment on the mind, self or physical brain in CPR. He was only interested in propounding on how metaphysics is possible as a science explaining transcendental idealism.

That is nonsense, the word for truth goes back to Homer. — Lionino

The closest ancient Greek word for truth is "aletheia", which can be analysed etymologically a (negation) + lethe (concealment, forgetfulness, escape) = aletheia.
It doesn't quite reflect a word for truth, does it?

I put my point badly. I only wanted to say that dualists might find it somewhat problematic to say that the brain generates the mind - even if you expand it to the body creates the mind. Dualism may be less popular than it was, but it still has philosophical adherents. I have to acknowledge that fact even though I think they are mistaken. — Ludwig V

No problems mate. I do respect your honest acceptance on the situation instead of keep going on with the wrong points and spiralling and falling into the ad hominem exchange of posts like some other posters in the past. :nerd: :up:

It is a common sense that everyone knows that mind resides in the brain, when there is a popular expression in the ordinary language, when someone does or says something wrong, "He / She needs his/her head examined." :smirk: Denying that, and trying to make out as if there are bunch of folks out there who believes that mind comes from the belly buttons or some other parts of body sounded totally and utterly senseless. Even the ancient Greek sophists wouldn't be out of touch with the world in that degree. :rofl:

t may be that they need to relax and concentrate on how the system works. If you ask what part of the central heating system keeps the house warm, you'll find yourself endlessly searching. If you ask where the self is that moves the car, you may discard some parts, but you'll never narrow it down to one part. — Ludwig V

Yes, if you asked where the power generates from the motor cars, then we can say, from the engine. Cleary the moving force generates from the work of the engine. But that alone cannot drive a car. The engine will need all the other parts such as gears, steering wheels, clutches, accelerator, brakes housed in solid car body also attached with 4 good tyres for the car to drive.

Likewise consciousness generates from the physical brain, but it needs all the bodily organs properly connected to the brain via the neural networks in a healthy body, for it to function properly.

Kant's argument against materialism was, that we cannot find "unity" in the material world as matter as such is always divided or divisible. Our conscious experience on the other hand is basically "one", even in multiple personality. — Pez

Of course the physical brain itself won't be able to function without all the bodily parts and organs properly connected via the neural network. If you are going into multiple personality and conscious experience, then you are leaving the physical realm of mind i.e. the brain, and entering into the world of psychology and epistemology.

So where in the brain is it located? — Pez

That is the hard problem of mind-body issue. No one seems to know. The biologists and neurologists were suppose to find about it.

Mind is located in the brain is all they seem to be saying for the simple evidence that if you break your arm or leg, then you can still speak, see, think and feel i.e. you are still fully conscious. But if your brain was injured or hurt in some physical way, then you would lose the mental abilities above mentioned, or become unconscious immediately.

Attic Greek for Plato, Aristotle, etc? Yes. Hellenistic/Roman Greek for neo-Platonists and theologians? Not that much. — Lionino

I recall reading somewhere, that in Platonic era of ancient Greece, there was no Greek word for "truth". Is this correct?

I don't really get why AI has become a topic in this thread, when it wasn't even discussed in the presentation that the thread refers to, and when it is the perennial topic of discussion in numerous other threads. — Wayfarer

I recall Seth saying briefly in his presentation that human consciousness cannot be replicated in any form of AI or machine intelligence due to the fact that consciousness is a product of lived life with real experience in the world.

But as you said rightly, it is neither the main point of the OP, nor the Youtube presentations.