Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!lrm5110
From: lrm5110@tahoma.UUCP (Larry R. Masden)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Mind is What Brains Do?
Message-ID: <408@tahoma.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 89 17:21:46 GMT
References: <3244@tank.uchicago.edu>
Organization: The Boeing Co., BCA FSL, Seattle, WA
Lines: 75

From article <3244@tank.uchicago.edu>, by cs_bob@gsbacd.uchicago.edu:

> Take for example, Marvin Minsky's recent claim in "The Society of Mind" 
> that "Mind is what brains do". This effectively reduces one of the greatest
> mysteries of human thought to a question which Minsky believes can be
> answered completely within his own field. Minsky's position is not only 
> arrogant and in violation of one of the very principles Minsky pushes at 
> us in  "Society of Mind" (namely, that we should be skeptical of simple 
> explanations); it also betrays a terrible ignorance of the nature and history
> of the philosophical question "What is Mind?" It seems to me that Minsky
> wishes to use AI to accomplish with Epistemology what Skinner tried to
> do to Psychology with Behaviorism. In both cases, we see an attempt to put
> a discipline of rational inquiry on a 'sound, scientific basis' by simply
> eliminating from consideration all of the problems which are not easily
> addressed empirically. 

I couldn't agree more, here are my views on the subject:

In my opinion there is no theory in current science that explains the 
emergence of consciousness (self awareness, "I") in complex physical
systems.  In my opinion there is no scientific definition of what 
consciousness is.  Sure, there are medical definitions of consciousness
that serve a useful purpose, but these don't address the issue of
what consciousness is and how it works.

Say we built a machine with complexity near that of the human mind.  We
would have no scientific reason to say the machine was conscious even if
it claimed it was.  We could explain the operation of the complex machine
in terms of cause effect relationships just as we do for simple machines.
The complex machine's "claim" of consciousness could be explained 
mechanically (lengthy explanation) just as the operation of today's
computers or simple machines can be explained mechanically.  We don't claim
that the simple machines are conscious.  With no theory to state otherwise,
we have no reason to claim that the complex ones are.

A person's state of consciousness is clearly dependent upon the physical 
state of their brain.  Damage to the brain's physical structure can cause
loss of consciousness.  Sleep is another example of the physical state
of the brain affecting a person's state of consciousness.  However, these
and similar examples do not prove that consciousness results solely from
the physical processes of the brain.

If a new theory comes along that explains how consciousness emerges in 
complex physical systems, great!  But until then all bets are off.

Following is an alternative model for consciousness that is a little wild
but will serve the purpose of this discussion.  It is seed for further
"brainstorming" if you will.

Consciousness could arise from a system that exists in a physical domain
that we have not yet learned to observe.  The system could be constantly
monitoring the operation of what we now know as the physical brain.  It
could be affected by the operation of the brain, but not affect the operation
of the brain (a one way link.)  

Obviously, this model will be just that until someone learns how to 
observe the new domain.  Some philosophers might suggest that the
as yet unobserved domain is the spiritual domain, and that consciousness
is the human "spirit."  A two way link between the spirit and the brain
(i.e. brain can affect spirit and spirit can affect brain) might be analogous
to free will.  But if a two way link exists, we would expect to see events
in the physical brain that are unexplained by our understanding of physics.
Future experimentation may show that the brain does operate according to
our understanding of physics, or the brain may forever elude physical 
modeling.

It may be that an explanation of consciousness is theoretically beyond the 
reach of all experiments, like uncertainty in quantum physics.  Whatever it
is, the study of consciousness is bound to be complex and interesting.  In 
my opinion "Mind is what brain does" just doesn't meet the criterion.
-- 
Larry Masden       	      Voice: (206) 237-2564
Boeing Commercial Airplanes   UUCP: ..!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!lrm5110
P.O. Box 3707, M/S 66-22
Seattle, WA  98124-2207