Which theory of mind do you like best?
Please provide an explanation.
I've grown quite convinced over the past years mind is an emergent property of collective neural dynamics and therefore quite possibly can be duplicated by equivalent synthetic means. I've gradually come to this conclusion, an emergent systhesis in itself, by considerations of biological evolution, neural physiology, self-organization and compexity, and the generally massively non-linear dynamical world I see when I look outside of my window.
That is also my own personal view too. I think that different animals have different degrees of minds. So the closest species to ours, the chimps have a brain that is not way different from ours so they have a certain level of mind which is much primitive compared to ours but much more complex than a fish. The mind of a fish would be extremely 'faint' but still possess some kind of mind.
This is my favourite,
I like this part from Damasio's quote above:
He did say "ensemble of brain devices". I take that to mean "collective". Now, would the "individual" devices separated from one another still constitute self? I don't believe they would. If this is true, wish I could ask him, then I must assume he means the self is somehow constructed from the interractions of all the parts. He mentions, "the state of activity within the ensemble of devices". This to me means "global behavior arising from the activity of its parts". Does it not? If so, can this not be interpreted as "emergent property"?
I roughly agree with what saltydog posted, but it still annoys me that there cannot be a true creative process this way, and that everything is basically predefined. This resurrects the idea of Fate, which I hate. Ah well, logic and emotions never were good friends, were they?
Is Antonio DAMASIO proposing a purely materialistic theory of the mind?
Which school of thought do you subscribe to? Strict identity theory or functionalism?
Have we any proof that an nonmaterialistic world exists?
At first thought, our thoughts and dreams seem to be a nonmaterialistic world. But physical theory cannot account for this. So this nonmaterialistic world is merely a result of processes of our brian.
The question is do you believe in an identity theory of the mind? Or another relationship between the mind and the brian? When I said pure materialistic, I was referring to the identity theory which is not popular.
The identity theory refers to a one to one correspondance between the brian and mind. Each neural state correspondance to a specific mental state. So if one particular neural state is permanetly lost such as after having an accident, the particular mental state will also be permenately last. In reality, people are able to gain those mental states back after a period of rehabitation. This is a big problem for this theory of the mind. But there should be ways to overcome this through further scientific research. We should oneday able to see that multiple neural states can correspond to the same mental state. This is because I have the view that the mind is an emergent property and different complex structures can yield similar mental processes.
These two last replies are purely physical since a brain process is physical even if we are unable to decipher it yet.
The second brings once more some paper about NDE and OBE.
Yubz, theory of mind needs to be compatible with NDE aswell.
I take it that we all stand for the identity theory of the mind. But how do you account for the multiple realisability objection which I described as a big problem in post 10?
Hey Pivoxal. I'm not familar with the terms although I've read what you said above. I think you and I both believe mind emerges. I'm not sure what brain researchers believe however.
I'm in the rehabilitation field. Brain is a learning "machine" and it has a lot of plasticity (capacity to adapt/change). The objections you gave are only the common process of life, adaptation.
Separate names with a comma.