Weekend Fisher Replies

Weekend Fisher continues the argument for "natural" mind:

The purpose and goal of the mind

And I respond here.

WF says,

”I'd say that the mind is the natural function of the brain (and associated nervous system e.g. input from the eyes), and that the mind uses natural processes for operation.

From this and the previous statement originally made, I am beginning to understand that the statement does not say that the mind is a physical entity, recoverable for physical examination. This statement merely says that the purpose of the brain is to be host to the mind. The mind uses the brain.

Or does it really mean that?

The terminology, “natural function” is easily equivocated on the one hand and easily misdirected on the other. This is because if something exists, then it can be said to be natural. For example, as I’ll repeat below, if God exists, then God is natural even though God is not physical.

But that leaves the status of the mind itself somewhat in limbo. This is particularly the case if one attributes to the mind (and not to the brain) functions such as qualia, comprehension (in the sense of full understanding and realization of the reasons a concept is correct), in-the-moment awareness (full consciousness), conscience (which activates in grey areas of moral issues), ability to hypothesize deductively from inductive data, assess the self-evidence and necessity of First Principles and grounding, etc., etc.

So first we must assume a meaning: that the term “natural” actually means “to exist physically”. The hypothesis is then that both the brain AND the mind are purely physical, given that understanding of “natural”.

Next, the progression is made starting with fundamental awareness. Sensors are said to be aware of the parameter which is being sensed. So a thermostat is aware of temperature, when awareness is used in this manner. A 3D wide angle camera might be said to be fully aware of its immediate environment immediately in front of it. This seems to push the boundaries of the intent of the word, aware. But let’s move on.

The next step in the progression is to the creation of a world model based on sensory input, and presumably memory of consistency and non-consistency in occurrences. This is said to get us closer to the human mind, but not there yet.

The final step to the human mind includes the drive to complete, extend or enhance the world model.

It is not clear at this point how the progression leads to the concept that mind is purely physical, other than to invoke evolution, a subject we should address elsewhere and in full as necessary. The invocation of evolution as proof of a physical mind will not meet with success, because evolution is purely extrapolated inference: i.e., opinion which is given Appeal to Expert Opinion as its sole authority.

Now we get to this:

”Here are some ways we humans have come up with to empirically analyze our own comprehension, thoughts, and concepts, and we have come up with a good variety of ways.”

And the list of processes contains just these attempts to “see” a thought (the first seven are just tests for the contents of a thought):

1. “Tools like Rorshach tests”, et. al. These tools are tests not for the physical capture of a thought, but for analyzing the contents of thoughts. This applies to the first six items listed as well.

2. Brain scans. These scans do not show thoughts or mind; they show increased blood flow. The increased blood flow to actively functioning parts of the brain does not show thoughts. It shows additional nutrients being shuttled to actively functioning parts of the brain, and nothing more. What the neurons are doing is entirely and completely unknown, even though they are reacting to a question or issue. And how that neuronic activity translates into a mind is a layer beyond the neuronal unknown, and which is completely untouched by any scan of any blood flow OR even of bioelectric discharge monitoring.

3. Taking visual signals being transmitted to the brain and reconstituting them outside the skull into visual images is not the observation of a brain function, and is not a mental image. It is more akin to stealing cable signal from your neighbor, not stealing his actual pixels. Visual imaging signals are not thoughts.

Whether this technique actually is extensible to the monitoring of thoughts is a moot issue in the question of whether the mind that has the thought also comprehended the thought, forced the thought onto the brain, used the brain to coordinate motion in the hand for writing a thought, or used the brain to create music previously unheard. In other words, it would monitor the thought, not the mind which drives the brain to have the thought.

It should be obvious that the source of the thought is not addressed by monitoring the thought. Only if the thought is first presupposed to be caused by the brain could it ever be said to be caused by the brain (circular). That is false logic and false scientific process. And that still has no bearing on the existence of qualia, creativity, agency, etc. which are in the mind, not in the thought.

The author says this:

”I'm a professional coder with an interest in AI) that I haven't yet heard someone propose a mental function that I couldn't imagine a way of coding into a computer.”

While I’m sure you could code curiosity into a deterministic serial machine, can you code in creativity followed by realization? Do you really think that you can code in every human relationship, desire, lust, passion, intellectual neediness, intellectual fallacy due to improper axioms acquired by voluntary ideological bias, or need for belonging, or fear of rejection? Is there nothing about your own job which an algorithm cannot perform just as well?

You have to presume mental behaviors to be either (a) algorithmic or (b) huge full featured non-algorithmic programs with nearly infinite branching or (c) self-modifying on the fly, all the while not self-destructing (too often, anyway). Or maybe there is some sort of parallel programming you know about that I don’t. If so, please explain.

”There are perfectly natural ways to code awareness, evaluative framework, even the ability for a computer to add new abilities into its own design/framework and exceed its original instruction base.”

Please give an example of the ability to create new processor instructions. Unless that means that the new instruction for the processor is actually a combination of instructions the processor is already designed to handle at the level from machine code to internal electron flow, I am skeptical. I can see that a machine could be induced to create new subroutines or macros out of combinations of existing instructions, but to create new machine code instructions for which the processor has no designed ability to handle as valid input needs explanation.

Which is very interesting so please explain. But this in no manner leads with necessity or sufficiency to the conclusion that a mind/thought is a physical entity.

At this point I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say: is a mind/thought a completely physical thing, with the universal attributes of mass/energy existing in space/time?

Or are you saying that the mind/thought merely uses the brain as a physical platform for operating in the physical realm?

Those are two different interpretations of your statements. But they are not the same thing, at all. Saying that the mind is “natural” is indefinite in meaning. Either it is physical or it is not physical, but either of those might be termed natural. For example, if God exists, then God is natural although not physical. For that reason I don’t refer to Philosophical Naturalism, I refer to Philosophical Materialism, which is a purely physicalist view of existence (only mass/energy and space/time exist and nothing else).

Fighting off Philosophical Materialism, if that’s your intent, and I’m not sure that it is, is simple: it is internally non-coherent, because it makes a fundamental truth claim about existence which it cannot prove using its fundamental truth claim. It is also a Category Error.

I’ll leave it at that, and wait for your next response.

This is an interesting and engaging subject.

Quote of the Day

Ed Driscoll at Instapundit:

"BECAUSE HE’D RATHER DISARM AMERICA THAN ISIS: Obama has turned jihadist terror attack into personal gun war.
It’s alternately terrifying and fascinating to watch a president who’s far angrier with the American Midwest than the Islamic Middle East."

Finally. Punching Back.

GOP AGs warn Dems that if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for ‘fraud,’ so can alarmists

Correlation is not causation. Computer programs don't explain, especially when they don't even correctly describe.

Paul Ryan Makes a Joke

Ryan puffs up:

“I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers,” Ryan said in a back-and-forth about Trump's claims that he could implement a Muslim ban or build a Mexican border wall without congressional approval.

Like he did with Obama?

And while Ryan said those words, Obama let in even more illegal aliens. If these quisling RINOs had actually taken any stand against the first black president, we wouldn't be in these problems now.

Ryan is off my Christmas list... if I had one.

Ask Kuntzman!

Monsterhunternation adds an advice column for the urban quasi-male:

ASK KUNTZMAN!

"Dear Kuntzman, big fan. I am trying to go green in order to save the Earth. Dying polar bears make me sad. Should I buy a Toyota Prius?

– Carbon Neutral in Carson City

Dear Carbon, I drove a Prius once and it changed me forever. As soon as I climbed inside the minimalist brutalist interior of this carbon fiber Japanese death machine it was as if I was driving a monster truck. I pushed start. The engine was a throaty roar like a thousand nuclear jet bombers. I immediately soiled my trousers to prevent this beast of the land of hentai from raping me. Tentacles are NOT OKAY. In my haste to escape, I touched a lever, and the windshield wipers began beating like a reaper’s sickle threshing horror. Trying to reach the escape handle, I struck a phallus-like pole, and lights began to blink. Blink. Blink. A light. A terrible, red, light! BLINK BLINK! Shrieking and flailing, I clutched desperately at the door, and tumbled, helpless, into the street. In the cold New York City rain, I lay there helpless and soiled in the gutter. The terrifying Prius looming over me, asserting its alpha dominance, and I crawled away. Forever.

Also, you may want to check out the new Nissan Leaf. "

More at the LINK; and don't forget the comments.

Very IMPORTANT update:
A pajama boy quasi-male NYT "reporter" is FISKED HERE.

The Big Democrat FLUSH

Flushed down the collective memory toilet:

The Orlando Killer was THIS:

DEMOCRAT.
MUSLIM.
ANCHOR BABY.
DEMOCRAT.
MUSLIM.

Which is why the DEMOCRATS immediately changed the focus of the news onto GUNS and RIGHT WINGERS. They know full well that the AR15 was not responsible for the massacre. It was one of their VERY OWN.

Why I Oppose Using the "No Fly List" to Stop Individual Gun Sales

First. The No Fly List is a restriction of individual rights without prior conviction of any guilt. It is a presumption of guilt, not a presumption of innocence. The Left wants that ability: to restrict rights without any restrictions for themselves in their use of power against common Americans. The Second Amendment should be a clear defeater for that restriction.

Second. Many people have suffered from mis-identification. There are many people with the same name.

Third. This thrust for restricting sales would not work; any reasonable person can get someone else to buy his weapons.

Fourth. The attackers so far have not been on the No Fly List. The problem is not solved, but the Leftist gun haters would be mollified - until the next time.

Fifth. The difference between potential and actual is being blurred. Anyone can be charged with being a potential terrorist/rapist/criminal/traitor. What matters is the person who is an actual terrorist/rapist/criminal/traitor. This is an inconvenience inherent in freedom and lawful societies.

This last item places the nasty dilemma fully onto the country. It is not until it is fully recognized that Islam itself will not assimilate, cannot assimilate into western democratic free society that the solution can be presented. The guilt is traceable to the Life of Muhammad, the teachings of Muhammad, The Muhammadan Qur'an, hadiths and the entire history of Islam. Under Islam as Muhammad's example and exhortations define it, Islam's hegemony is treasonous to any society which allows it entry. All laws and customs must be overthrown, and Islam/Sharia installed in their place. The worldwide Caliphate is not imaginary.

Would there be a problem restricting any other overtly treasonous ideology? No treasonous ideology and its adherents should be allowed free access to the rights of western free society. They should be restricted as any treasonous ideological adherent would be.

There is no such thing as "peaceful" Islam. There is only Muhammad's Violent Conquest Islam, and Heretical Faux Islam which is only a dim, highly filtered reflection of Muhammad's Islam.

In the past, assimilation was assumed to be a part of all immigration because it was also assumed that the immigrants wanted to become American. That assumption cannot be the cased for the followers of Islam. Because Islam overtly demands punishment for non-Islamics, and specifically forbids assimilation, Islam is a treasonous ideology. And for that reason Islam of any form is an obvious enemy of the free countries which it invades.

The Joke Which Is Undecipherable by Leftists

Jeremy McClellan Tweets:

"Only paranoid idiots want AR-15s in case the government becomes tyrannical."

"What do you think of Trump?"

"He's literally the next Hitler"

Understandably, Leftists at that site don't get the joke. So for any Leftists here, I indented to show the two speakers. If necessary, I will go into great detail abut what it means in the comments. Just express your confusion, OK?

None Dare Say "Islam"

Hence, the Scott Adams Challenge: How many deaths is Obama willing to accept in order to preserve his Islamophilia stance? [NOTE 1]

The Road to Orlando
"There’s the rub. In 21st-century America, we have created a perverse incentive structure where fear of accusations of Islamophobia and/or racism takes priority over anything else, even preventing violence. While nobody could have foreseen the exact attack that Omar Mateen perpetrated, it’s abundantly clear that he was on track to do something awful, including murder. Yet nothing was done, even though warnings were abundant. Simply put, any American today who is accused of Islamophobia faces a ruined life with loss of employment and social stigma. Whereas the cost of not preventing mass murder is merely hurt feelings and regret.

In such an era, it’s difficult to find too much fault with the FBI. Per the cliché, they were only following orders. All the same, it bears asking why the Bureau went for the direct approach, bringing Mateen in for questioning, instead of watching him from a distance. Any time you bring a possible suspect in for interrogation, you’re showing your hand—which isn’t always wise. Particularly given Mateen’s known ties to a notorious Orlando jailbird-turned-radical-imam, there were investigative avenues of approach here that were apparently not taken, with fateful consequences.

However, the FBI was following the lead of its political masters. It’s hardly a big secret that President Obama from the moment he arrived at the White House put the kibosh on any discussion of radical Islam as a security problem, even in classified channels. In 2009, the administration banned politically loaded words like “jihad” even in classified Intelligence Community assessments discussing terrorism – a message that was received loud and clear in the counterterrorism community. Missing the next 9/11 could be survived, career-wise, while accusations of Islamophobia would not be with Barack Obama in the White House.

During Mr. Obama’s first term, there was a thorough purge of personnel in the Intelligence Community and the Defense Department who were unwilling to follow the new party line. People were mysteriously reassigned, contracts were suddenly cancelled, meetings were delayed never to be rescheduled. The message was obvious to counterterrorism professionals. As someone who has tried for years to walk a fine line on jihadism—we must be able to discuss political Islam and terrorism without stigmatizing all Muslims—I witnessed this happen, and it was tragically clear what the long-term consequences of this institutionalized unreality would be.

Now the much-feared mass-casualty jihadist attack on American soil, by a native-born American Muslim no less, has happened. President Obama, who is deeply invested in the unreality he has foisted on our security services, cannot be expected to reassess his errors in the last months of his second term. Every terrorist attack features what-ifs, missed off-ramps, and roads not taken. Our self-imposed blinders are causing us to miss these, hindering counterterrorism at home and abroad. As long as we value political correctness over the safety of Americans, innocent people will continue to die violently."

NOTES:
1. Answer: There is no limit. Not even for Gays or Blacks or any Protected Class. Because the Narrative is the highest of all priorities.

Terrorist-Bomber Bill Ayers Wants To Ban Guns To Stop Terror

Satire officially dead: Who’s up for a terrorism prevention lecture from THIS guy?

Bill knows that a good bombing works better than an AR15, and it can be done remotely so that you can become a professor and presidential power monger rather than die at the scene.