[Titanscape (OP)]

The mind, is it the flow of potassium ions or is it something more?

Is the nervous system it's house or it's substance? Action of mind then corresponding action in the nervous system or action in the nervous system is the mind?

[lightarrow]

The mind, is it the flow of potassium ions or is it something more?

Is the nervous system it's house or it's substance? Action of mind then corresponding action in the nervous system or action in the nervous system is the mind?

No one knows.

[neilep]

The mind, is it the flow of potassium ions or is it something more?

Is the nervous system it's house or it's substance? Action of mind then corresponding action in the nervous system or action in the nervous system is the mind?

The mind is more than the sum of it's parts !!

[DoctorBeaver]

I'm not going to get involved in this or the database will be filled!  []

[neilep]

I'm not going to get involved in this or the database will be filled!  []

Ewe mean ewe can't make up your mind ?

[DoctorBeaver]

The mind is very different from the brain, and the question "What is the mind?" is currently more a question for metaphysics.

There is that theory, discussed here a while ago, that the mind is created by quantum events in micro-tubules in the brain. To be honest, that's as good a theory as anything else I've heard. Something is going on somewhere that gives us self-awareness - but I'm fekked if I know what that something is.

But first, of course, one has to define what is meant by "the mind". Is it the ability to have autonomous thoughts? Is it self-awareness? Free will? Or all of those plus more? There have been many discussions and papers concerning whether animals have a mind. For instance, do dogs have self-awareness? Some animals certainly behave as if they "have a mind of their own"; but is their behaviour nothing more than instinctive behaviour that we have yet to recognise as such?

[kdlynn]

i think you may have just involved yourself...

[DoctorBeaver]

i think you may have just involved yourself...

Nah... just a passing comment

[Titanscape (OP)]

I see the mind as self awareness, consciousness and subconciousness. The part of being with ability to percieve and think. Able to percieve and then hold obejective truth and subjective truth. Imagination, logic, motivation, coordination, expression and memory.

[neilep]

I see the mind as self awareness, consciousness and subconciousness. The part of being with ability to percieve and think. Able to percieve and then hold obejective truth and subjective truth. Imagination, logic, motivation, coordination, expression and memory.

Yep..that covers it Bren........and there's probably a whole lot more to add too. The thing is...as has been cited above.....it's impossible to describe something which can not be described...because we simply do not understand it. We can philosophise about it till the cows come home but for the time being it seems that it will always remain a mystery...open to conjecture and speculation...discussion and debate.

[another_someone]

The mind is very different from the brain, and the question "What is the mind?" is currently more a question for metaphysics.

There is that theory, discussed here a while ago, that the mind is created by quantum events in micro-tubules in the brain. To be honest, that's as good a theory as anything else I've heard. Something is going on somewhere that gives us self-awareness - but I'm fekked if I know what that something is.

But first, of course, one has to define what is meant by "the mind". Is it the ability to have autonomous thoughts? Is it self-awareness? Free will? Or all of those plus more? There have been many discussions and papers concerning whether animals have a mind. For instance, do dogs have self-awareness? Some animals certainly behave as if they "have a mind of their own"; but is their behaviour nothing more than instinctive behaviour that we have yet to recognise as such?

Do we have autonomous thoughts, or free will - or is that simply an illusion?

What is self awareness, except that it is a function of language (that we have a label we can give ourselves), and we have an internal image of ourselves - but these are processing functions for which we can program a computer.

[moonfire]

I vote for illusion!

[kdlynn]

i just remembered! i know what the mind is... it's a terrible thing to waste.... or were we looking for a more scientific answer?

[DoctorBeaver]

What is self awareness, except that it is a function of language (that we have a label we can give ourselves), and we have an internal image of ourselves - but these are processing functions for which we can program a computer.

I have to disagree with your 1st assertion. It would imply that before language was invented, humans were not self-aware. I would argue that self-awareness preceded language.

Also, consider that many animals leave their scent as a marker. That, in effect, acts as their label which they can later recognise. Is that not symbolic of a form of self-awareness as you have defined it insofar as they can identify the scent as their own?

[another_someone]

What is self awareness, except that it is a function of language (that we have a label we can give ourselves), and we have an internal image of ourselves - but these are processing functions for which we can program a computer.

I have to disagree with your 1st assertion. It would imply that before language was invented, humans were not self-aware. I would argue that self-awareness preceded language.

Also, consider that many animals leave their scent as a marker. That, in effect, acts as their label which they can later recognise. Is that not symbolic of a form of self-awareness as you have defined it insofar as they can identify the scent as their own?

Very interesting issues, although I am not quite sure what conclusion you are drawing from them.

It certainly is an interesting consideration that scent may be as good a marker of self/non-self as any visual cue - after all, nobody would reasonably suggest that a blind man is not self aware.  It is ofcourse also quite possible to argue that since that scent carries information (not just of the individual, but about the hormonal state of the individual, and hence their state of mind), that it might be considered in a restricted sense to be a language.

[DoctorBeaver]

Animal scent certainly carries messages. Whether or not that can be considered a rudimentary language is debatable. Certain properties of an elementary particle carry information about the particle, but I doubt anyone would class that as a language. And no-one would consider a particle to be self-aware.

The conclusion I draw is that language is not necessary for self-awareness. I would, however, argue that memory is. Self-awareness is having knowledge of one's self, of who one is. Without memory, each instant brings about a different, new self; we would not know anything about ourself from 1 second to the next. It is for that reason that I would also argue that babies are not self-aware. Oooh... that's radical!

They are aware of sensations such as temperature, hunger, etc.; but they have no sense of being an autonomous being. That can only come about when we have memories to call upon. Prior to that, we are purely instinctive.

It may well be that at our current stage of evolution, self-awareness & language develop together. Having seen children grow from babies into adolescence, I have no doubt that self-awareness is a progressive mechanism. I wouldn't like to say exactly at what stage we actually become self-aware, but I believe there is a "critical density" that is reached when we have sufficient memories.

[paul.fr]

It is ofcourse also quite possible to argue that since that scent carries information (not just of the individual, but about the hormonal state of the individual, and hence their state of mind), that it might be considered in a restricted sense to be a language.

Not so much their state of mind, but the jacobson's gland can and does detect when a woman is ovulating. I'm sure wikipedia will have some info on this.

[DoctorBeaver]

It is ofcourse also quite possible to argue that since that scent carries information (not just of the individual, but about the hormonal state of the individual, and hence their state of mind), that it might be considered in a restricted sense to be a language.

I would say that a prime function of any language is the ability to express what one wishes to express - i.e. an adaptable vocabulary. Where the scent of an animal is concerned, the animal has no control over the message it contains.

[another_someone]

Animal scent certainly carries messages. Whether or not that can be considered a rudimentary language is debatable. Certain properties of an elementary particle carry information about the particle, but I doubt anyone would class that as a language. And no-one would consider a particle to be self-aware.

Not really a good comparison.

Scent carries the information about self - it is the language, but it is not the listener, nor the speaker - that is the animal that leaves the scent and the one that sniffs it (which may be the same animal). An elementary particle may carry information, but it neither creates not interprets that information - thus the particle may be the vector of language, but it is the user of the language that would be self aware, not the vector.

The conclusion I draw is that language is not necessary for self-awareness. I would, however, argue that memory is. Self-awareness is having knowledge of one's self, of who one is. Without memory, each instant brings about a different, new self; we would not know anything about ourself from 1 second to the next. It is for that reason that I would also argue that babies are not self-aware. Oooh... that's radical!

They are aware of sensations such as temperature, hunger, etc.; but they have no sense of being an autonomous being. That can only come about when we have memories to call upon. Prior to that, we are purely instinctive.

You seem to be interpreting "self-awareness" as having a notion of self-history.

Clearly, language is flexible, and one cannot say that such an interpretation is wrong, only that I would have regarded self-awareness as being simply a distinction of self from other, and I would have thought that even a young baby has some minimal ability to distinguish self from other (although this is not to say that it can hold that distinction equally in all domains - but even some adults have a difficulty with that).

As for memory - DNA is memory.  Where one draws a distinction between language and memory ofcourse is an issue in itself.  Both amount to an abstraction of the real world, but diverge in terms of persistence and purpose, and in that context in may be argued you are correct to place greater stress on memory than language.

A written document is both language and memory, since it is persistent (and so has memory) and able to communicate to others, and so amounts to language.  It is reasonable to argue that self-awareness only requires self-communication, and so communication with others is not a prerequisite (although it is logical to assume that an organism that can communicate with itself can also communicate with others).

In practice, even the most primitive or organisms have both a minimal amount of memory and the ability to communicate to a minimal level (this is even true of bacteria).

[another_someone]

It is ofcourse also quite possible to argue that since that scent carries information (not just of the individual, but about the hormonal state of the individual, and hence their state of mind), that it might be considered in a restricted sense to be a language.

I would say that a prime function of any language is the ability to express what one wishes to express - i.e. an adaptable vocabulary. Where the scent of an animal is concerned, the animal has no control over the message it contains.

Ofcourse this begs all sorts of questions about whether one has free will or not.

I do not agree that an animal has no control over scent (how it exercises that control - i.e. is it free will or pre-programmed behaviour is another matter).  At very least, it has control over whether to leave the scent (i.e. what territory it feels safe to mark as its own).  Beyond that, the scent also carries information regarding the emotional state of the animal, and so to some degree says something of its intent (although it cannot be said that we know whether an animal can at all control what emotion it displays in its scent).

What you seem probably to be saying (and I am not saying this is without merit) is that self-awareness is bound up with the ability to deceive.  So the question is to what extent can other animals deceive.