The Material?

[Guest end3]

You make materialism seem superficial.

 

Nice strawman.

 

Aaah.....superficial so much so that people lament their misspent lives?

[Antlerman]

The materialist is like someone who says if we understand the physics of the machine, we understand the nature of mind, or if we understanding the how electricity works, we understand the nature of the computer. A computer can be reduced to DC transformer converting AC current for use in its circuit board, but is this understanding one thing about the nature of the computer itself, which is built on it?

 

I realize this is not entirely clear as to what I want to say as examples like this leave a lot to be desired, but I'll leave it here for now due to time constraints.

You make materialism seem superficial.

 

Nice strawman.

By definition it is the study of surfaces. If limiting knowledge to surfaces structures, exterior structures doesn't define superficial, I don't know what does. As I said, it is exactly 1/2 the equation.

 

One example: Is psychology the study of surface structures, or internal structures? Psychiatry does look at the chemical affects of the machine on the brain, which may affect the thought processes, but psychology studies the thought world itself. That thought world is a space of its own, on the interior, not the surface, the machine, the material.

 

I don't see any strawman here.

 

BTW, superficial in common language use seems to suggest that it lacks value. That is not true in the case of reductionism. As a tool, it is useful. But it seems important to not limit everything to that tool - as a philosophy.

[Shyone]

You make materialism seem superficial.

 

Nice strawman.

 

Aaah.....superficial so much so that people lament their misspent lives?

Actually, you're pretty close to the essence of the strawman. It's like implying that some group, say... atheists - have no purpose in life, no meaning, no hope.

 

But that's more your bag.

 

Instead, it's more like saying the materialist can't understand depth, mind, consciousness because all he sees is the mataterial.

 

 

I prefer to say that materialists are grounded in reality. It doesn't mean that I can't appreciate higher levels of organization, depth of thought, or concepts that may be discussed independently of material. That is the tragedy of misunderstanding.

[Shyone]

The materialist is like someone who says if we understand the physics of the machine, we understand the nature of mind, or if we understanding the how electricity works, we understand the nature of the computer. A computer can be reduced to DC transformer converting AC current for use in its circuit board, but is this understanding one thing about the nature of the computer itself, which is built on it?

 

I realize this is not entirely clear as to what I want to say as examples like this leave a lot to be desired, but I'll leave it here for now due to time constraints.

You make materialism seem superficial.

 

Nice strawman.

By definition it is the study of surfaces. If limiting knowledge to surfaces structures, exterior structures doesn't define superficial, I don't know what does. As I said, it is exactly 1/2 the equation.

 

One example: Is psychology the study of surface structures, or internal structures? Psychiatry does look at the chemical affects of the machine on the brain, which may affect the thought processes, but psychology studies the thought world itself. That thought world is a space of its own, on the interior, not the surface, the machine, the material.

 

I don't see any strawman here.

 

BTW, superficial in common language use seems to suggest that it lacks value. That is not true in the case of reductionism. As a tool, it is useful. But it seems important to not limit everything to that tool - as a philosophy.

You twist words to suit your intent. Superficial does not mean "surfaces" any more than depth means "volume."

 

Psychiatrists, incidentally, don't "only" address "the chemical affects [sic] of the machine on the brain, which may affect the thought processes."

[Ancey]

WOW, I have no clue how this got put into the Colloseum when it started as a rant about how the material world is viewed as small and tiny when it really isn't. What I view as material is everything that is natural and I even think that the complicated processes of thought are all products of a natural phenomena.

 

I really don't want to get into the debate, but this OP is sort of shocked.

[Shyone]

WOW, I have no clue how this got put into the Colloseum when it started as a rant about how the material world is viewed as small and tiny when it really isn't. What I view as material is everything that is natural and I even think that the complicated processes of thought are all products of a natural phenomena.

 

Yep.

 

I really don't want to get into the debate, but this OP is sort of shocked.

 

Me neither. How on earth...?

 

Sorry about trashing your thread.

[Guest end3]

I prefer to say that materialists are grounded in reality. It doesn't mean that I can't appreciate higher levels of organization, depth of thought, or concepts that may be discussed independently of material. That is the tragedy of misunderstanding.

 

No, that's the whole point....that the depth IS limited.....but will and denial are alternatives too.

[PaulQ]

Not to seem to nitpick, but this is not DC. A DC source is a static potential (Voltage) of an over-abundance of electrons and deficiency of electrons typically created through chemical processes (a battery). It has both a positive and negative charge at opposite ends of a material seeking a means to discharge. When you attach a wire from one end of that potential to the other, it discharges to neutral balancing out the number of electrons. Add a load and a device on this wire, and work is accomplished; heat is generated, a bulb burns, and fan turns, etc.

 

That is one source of DC current.

 

AC (alternating current) is created through passing coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux (or vise versa). And to add for good measure, another source of potential is created by electrostatic build-up, a storing of this abundance and deficiency potential on opposite sides of a material that doesn't allow for an easy discharge. This is a capacitor which stores this potential. Clouds and earth and air in between is the best example of this, with it negative and positive build up of electrons created in storm activity.

 

I don't believe you understand the construction of a DC generator at all. The commutator is the part of a DC generator that converts the AC voltage produced in the armature into DC voltage. The commutator is not a source of potential or capacitor.

 

In all of these examples, electrons, the bits being put into motion that create what we call electricity (the "flow" of electrons), exist with or without the machines that create the environment to set them in motion in a 'directed' fashion which we call electricity. Electricity is again, electrons in motion. Another example, waves do not exist without wind (as one source of wave potential), but water does.

 

Series generators increase their output voltage as load is added, but shunt generators decrease their output voltage as load is added. In the case of a shunt generator, DC voltage exists with no load attached as long as the armature is being turned.

 

This is going to force us back to that tough question of defining words like mind or consciousness. Shyone invariably associates consciousness with intelligent, directed, human thought processes. Hence why in his objection above which I didn't have time to respond to, he states he never sees "Intelligence" in the universe. I will try to offer some more thought later as time permits in another post that may help get around this equation of how human brains manifest consciousness with the definition of consciousness itself.

 

Human consciousness is produced by the brain after receiving input from the sensory organs, just as the voltage produced by a DC generator requires mechanical input to turn the armature. Your thoughts and ideas are constructed of images and sounds captured by your sensory organs. Even when people enlist the help of psychedelic drugs, they "See" sounds and "Smell" colours. It's still based entirely on that which we have seen and observed.

 

Let's just say for this example, the brain is like that battery with a whole circuit of loads that takes all these 'electrons' and manifests them. The manifestation of them, in a circuit, becomes its own thing. A computer is not electrons, but a world put created by harnessing electrons and putting them to work in a certain manner. If you take away the computer, you do not destroy electrons. If you destroy electrons, then you will destroy the computer. The higher level is built on the lower level, and destroying the higher level will not destroy the lower level, but destroy the lower level and everything above collapses.

 

The data stored in the computer is not comprised of electrons; rather, it is made up of many tiny little "Switches" that are either on or off. It is possible to create a purely mechanical computer which stores and computes data (see http://www.diycalculator.com/popup-h-mechcomp.shtml). By reducing mechanical components to their electronic equivalent, we are able to pack more of those switches into much smaller packages, and switch them at much greater speeds with greater reliability.

 

I don't think we have an argument that mind is dependent on brain. What we do have an argument on is that mind and brain are one and the same. They are not. This is like saying a computer program is the circuit board. And for proof, you remove the power cord! "You see, without the power it doesn't exist. It therefore is the power cord". No it's not. It's built upon it, but it is not it. Nor can be understood by understanding power alone. The computer is vastly more complex that just 'electrons in motion'.

 

The mind most certainly is dependent on the structures of our brain and its continued functioning. It has been demonstrated that surgical alterations of the human brain can change behaviour and even personality. Certainly, there are areas of the brain that are "Less Critical" to our personality and behaviour than others, but this does not change the facts as demonstrated by medical science.

 

The materialist is like someone who says if we understand the physics of the machine, we understand the nature of mind, or if we understanding the how electricity works, we understand the nature of the computer. A computer can be reduced to DC transformer converting AC current for use in its circuit board, but is this understanding one thing about the nature of the computer itself, which is built on it?

 

Not quite. Learning how a mechanical computer works does not demonstrate how a DC generator works, but can provide some insight as to how computers are able to perform their tasks.

 

I realize this is not entirely clear as to what I want to say as examples like this leave a lot to be desired, but I'll leave it here for now due to time constraints.

 

For now I'll just toss this out there: I think defining consciousness will be key to understanding what we mean when we say things like "mind". For now, let's say consciousness equals internal depth. The greater the complexity of the machine, the greater the internal depth. Mind is the manifestation of greater internal depth through a more complex machine, the brain. Take away the brain, destroy what manifests mind, and you do not destroy depth; in a sense like you would not destroy electrons by smashing a battery. You simply take away the means of manifesting depth to that degree, but not depth itself.

 

I think what you are describing is the conservation of matter and energy. All the matter and energy which makes us up existed before our consciousness was born, and will continue to exist after our consciousness ceases to exist. I believe you're confusing the finite existence of our conscious mind to the infinite existence of matter and energy.

[Shyone]

I realize this is not entirely clear as to what I want to say as examples like this leave a lot to be desired, but I'll leave it here for now due to time constraints.

 

For now I'll just toss this out there: I think defining consciousness will be key to understanding what we mean when we say things like "mind". For now, let's say consciousness equals internal depth. The greater the complexity of the machine, the greater the internal depth. Mind is the manifestation of greater internal depth through a more complex machine, the brain. Take away the brain, destroy what manifests mind, and you do not destroy depth; in a sense like you would not destroy electrons by smashing a battery. You simply take away the means of manifesting depth to that degree, but not depth itself.

 

I think what you are describing is the conservation of matter and energy. All the matter and energy which makes us up existed before our consciousness was born, and will continue to exist after our consciousness ceases to exist. I believe you're confusing the finite existence of our conscious mind to the infinite existence of matter and energy.

Sometimes it's difficult to understand what he means. I'm sure he was thinking of something, but I can only guess what. Perhaps:

 

When the brain dies, the person's essence dies too, but! They exist in the memory of others, their writings outlive them, their thoughts (and "depth") outlast the physical. Etc.

 

The brain is gone, but some of the non-material persists.

 

I guess.

 

OTOH, maybe he means that mind is soul, and soul is immaterial, and the soul doesn't require a material substrate but exists independently of the brain. Nah, I don't think he means that, even if it kind of sounds like it. I will say that I'm fairly sure he doesn't mean that the material outlasts the thought as you have suggested (although this is one way of thinking of matter). Just the opposite: thoughts outlast the brain - by transmission, recording, memory, etc.

[Guest end3]

I think what you are describing is the conservation of matter and energy. All the matter and energy which makes us up existed before our consciousness was born, and will continue to exist after our consciousness ceases to exist. I believe you're confusing the finite existence of our conscious mind to the infinite existence of matter and energy.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but is this consistent with the latest atom smasher results?

[PaulQ]

I will say that I'm fairly sure he doesn't mean that the material outlasts the thought as you have suggested (although this is one way of thinking of matter). Just the opposite: thoughts outlast the brain - by transmission, recording, memory, etc.

 

A thought is something that occurs within the confines of a brain. Once that thought has been recorded in some way, it's no longer a thought but rather a representation of that thought. While I do agree that we live on in our children and/or our work, those things and their thoughts of us are only representations of who we are. As such, while representations of our thoughts can live on beyond our years, our consciousness cannot.

 

When I watch George Carlin on my television, he is very much alive to me in my mind, and I can imagine having a conversation with him. I am not really having a conversation with him, but rather with an image of him generated by his recording of his thoughts. His consciousness no longer exists, so there is really nothing new he can tell me beyond what I can find in his works that I haven't read or seen yet. He cannot tell me anything he kept private and to himself, which demonstrates that his consciousness does not exist in my imagination, only a representation of it does.

 

I think what you are describing is the conservation of matter and energy. All the matter and energy which makes us up existed before our consciousness was born, and will continue to exist after our consciousness ceases to exist. I believe you're confusing the finite existence of our conscious mind to the infinite existence of matter and energy.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but is this consistent with the latest atom smasher results?

 

In the simplest of terms, they are smashing particles together to create other particles from that collision. This process does not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy, because the new particles do not come from nowhere; they come from the particles that were smashed together. Likewise, the particles that were smashed together do not disappear; they turn into new particles. This is consistent with the notion that the matter and energy that we are made up of will continue to exist, in one form or another, infinitely; though the current arrangement of the matter and energy which makes each of us is finite; that arrangement will continue to change.

[Guest end3]

In the simplest of terms, they are smashing particles together to create other particles from that collision. This process does not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy, because the new particles do not come from nowhere; they come from the particles that were smashed together. Likewise, the particles that were smashed together do not disappear; they turn into new particles. This is consistent with the notion that the matter and energy that we are made up of will continue to exist, in one form or another, infinitely; though the current arrangement of the matter and energy which makes each of us is finite; that arrangement will continue to change.

 

Seems like I glanced at an article, not the Hadron collider, but a different location that said there was "excess" from the collisions.....but I just gimpsed...so who knows. I couldn't find it on the web again.

[PaulQ]

Seems like I glanced at an article, not the Hadron collider, but a different location that said there was "excess" from the collisions.....but I just gimpsed...so who knows. I couldn't find it on the web again.

 

It's a pretty safe bet that if something as fundamental as the law of conservation of matter and energy were ever violated, it would make front page news just about everywhere. That would actually be an incredible discovery.

[Antlerman]

Not to seem to nitpick, but this is not DC. A DC source is a static potential (Voltage) of an over-abundance of electrons and deficiency of electrons typically created through chemical processes (a battery). It has both a positive and negative charge at opposite ends of a material seeking a means to discharge. When you attach a wire from one end of that potential to the other, it discharges to neutral balancing out the number of electrons. Add a load and a device on this wire, and work is accomplished; heat is generated, a bulb burns, and fan turns, etc.

 

That is one source of DC current.

 

As I said, which is why I chose to say "typically created". A battery is probably the most common source. There are others as you are about to mention....

 

 

AC (alternating current) is created through passing coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux (or vise versa). And to add for good measure, another source of potential is created by electrostatic build-up, a storing of this abundance and deficiency potential on opposite sides of a material that doesn't allow for an easy discharge. This is a capacitor which stores this potential. Clouds and earth and air in between is the best example of this, with it negative and positive build up of electrons created in storm activity.

 

I don't believe you understand the construction of a DC generator at all. The commutator is the part of a DC generator that converts the AC voltage produced in the armature into DC voltage. The commutator is not a source of potential or capacitor.

In this particular device, it is actually taking 1/2 of the AC sine wave (the positive direction) and sending it out in one direction. It is technically an AC signal created the same way AC is created, just making it go out in one direction. It looks like sort of like this on an oscilloscope: ^-^-^-^ It is pulses, not a steady flat signal. You do can however do other things like adding capacitors in the circuit to create a more steady voltage level. I understand this.

 

I realize it's been a few years since my getting a degree in electronics, and I've been working for the last 12 years in IT dealing with a variety of computer and networking technologies, and not so much component level design and troubleshooting anymore, but I'm thinking my basic understanding hasn't drifted too far. But I won't complain about being corrected if I'm misremembering some of this after this long not dealing with it directly. I certainly do forget or misremember things from time to time.

 

This is going to force us back to that tough question of defining words like mind or consciousness. Shyone invariably associates consciousness with intelligent, directed, human thought processes. Hence why in his objection above which I didn't have time to respond to, he states he never sees "Intelligence" in the universe. I will try to offer some more thought later as time permits in another post that may help get around this equation of how human brains manifest consciousness with the definition of consciousness itself.

 

Human consciousness is produced by the brain after receiving input from the sensory organs, just as the voltage produced by a DC generator requires mechanical input to turn the armature. Your thoughts and ideas are constructed of images and sounds captured by your sensory organs. Even when people enlist the help of psychedelic drugs, they "See" sounds and "Smell" colours. It's still based entirely on that which we have seen and observed.

And this underscores my point about defining words like consciousness as I stated in the above paragraph how consciousness=thoughts. My point exactly.

 

Let's just say for this example, the brain is like that battery with a whole circuit of loads that takes all these 'electrons' and manifests them. The manifestation of them, in a circuit, becomes its own thing. A computer is not electrons, but a world put created by harnessing electrons and putting them to work in a certain manner. If you take away the computer, you do not destroy electrons. If you destroy electrons, then you will destroy the computer. The higher level is built on the lower level, and destroying the higher level will not destroy the lower level, but destroy the lower level and everything above collapses.

 

The data stored in the computer is not comprised of electrons; rather, it is made up of many tiny little "Switches" that are either on or off.

You mean little binary bits and bytes, and whatnot? TTL? AND gates, OR gates, NAND gates, NOR gates? Those little switches?

 

I understand computer technology fairly well, plus I used to design circuits with those little guys to make it give various words for computer language. And yes, absolutely, it does use electrons to create the True/False states. How on earth to you get an either positive or negative charge without electrons??? The charge is created by either an overage of electrons, or a deficiency of them. So my point is valid.

[Antlerman]

It is possible to create a purely mechanical computer which stores and computes data (see http://www.diycalculator.com/popup-h-mechcomp.shtml).

Sure, yes. My partner has a huge Swedish Loom in our basement and she uses it to make her own fabric designs. It is purely wood, and one of the earliest form of computer. (She works in IT also, 25 years as a consultant).

 

By reducing mechanical components to their electronic equivalent, we are able to pack more of those switches into much smaller packages, and switch them at much greater speeds with greater reliability.

I would hope so considering the size of that loom in our basement!! And I can't even hook up a basic 300 baud modem to it to download 25k gif files from my favorite BBS site!

 

I don't think we have an argument that mind is dependent on brain. What we do have an argument on is that mind and brain are one and the same. They are not. This is like saying a computer program is the circuit board. And for proof, you remove the power cord! "You see, without the power it doesn't exist. It therefore is the power cord". No it's not. It's built upon it, but it is not it. Nor can be understood by understanding power alone. The computer is vastly more complex that just 'electrons in motion'.

 

The mind most certainly is dependent on the structures of our brain and its continued functioning.

Maybe you didn't read what I said above? I say, yes the mind is dependent on the brain. You counter, it most certainly is. Umm... yes.

 

As I said, definitions of mind, and definitions of consciousness. You equate it with personality. I do not.

 

The materialist is like someone who says if we understand the physics of the machine, we understand the nature of mind, or if we understanding the how electricity works, we understand the nature of the computer. A computer can be reduced to DC transformer converting AC current for use in its circuit board, but is this understanding one thing about the nature of the computer itself, which is built on it?

 

Not quite. Learning how a mechanical computer works does not demonstrate how a DC generator works, but can provide some insight as to how computers are able to perform their tasks.

Insight into, yes. Understanding it, reducing it to that, no.

[Deva]

When the brain dies, the person's essence dies too,

 

Somehow, I just find this impossible to believe.

[Deva]

WOW, I have no clue how this got put into the Colloseum when it started as a rant about how the material world is viewed as small and tiny when it really isn't. What I view as material is everything that is natural and I even think that the complicated processes of thought are all products of a natural phenomena.

 

I really don't want to get into the debate, but this OP is sort of shocked.

 

 

It's interesting, isn't it, Ancey? Ex-Christians all, but we have disagreement on this philosophical materialist position. It has always been evident on this site, but you have not been around here long enough to see it.

[Legion]

Shyone I can't help but think of how many different ways there are to manifest or realize a clock. There are water clocks, pendulum clocks, quartz clocks, and atomic clocks. Each of these different kinds of devices are analogous to each other by virtue of the fact that they realize the same function. It's true that they cannot be realized without matter, but matter is not their essence. In fact, the most materially disparate systems can still be analogous to each other. I think this is a strong indication that we can study the organization of natural systems independently of matter.

[Guest Valk0010]

There is no mind without brain, no life without chemistry, and nothing at all without matter. If you don't hear the music of matter, you can't dance with reality.

Oh for god's sake. Yes there is no mind without brain, etc, just as there is not body without carbon. But the body is the body. And there is mind! And mind is not brain! You just don't get it.

Wouldn't the mind simply be a product of the brain?

[Antlerman]

There is no mind without brain, no life without chemistry, and nothing at all without matter. If you don't hear the music of matter, you can't dance with reality.

Oh for god's sake. Yes there is no mind without brain, etc, just as there is not body without carbon. But the body is the body. And there is mind! And mind is not brain! You just don't get it.

Wouldn't the mind simply be a product of the brain?

I don't know that I like saying it is a product of the brain. I don't think so, if it means like saying that oil is a byproduct of skin tissue. Would you say that body is a product of matter? Does that really sound right to you? I see matter, biology, and mind as distinctly different spheres, built upon each other, yes, but not really "products" of each other. I think levels of development, levels of complexity, degrees of depth describe it better. Again, the body is dependent on the existence of matter, but the body is it's own thing built on the level of matter. Likewise mind is dependent on the existence of biology, but it is its own thing at a different stage beyond, or above, biology.

 

 

Shyone I can't help but think of how many different ways there are to manifest or realize a clock. There are water clocks, pendulum clocks, quartz clocks, and atomic clocks. Each of these different kinds of devices are analogous to each other by virtue of the fact that they realize the same function. It's true that they cannot be realized without matter, but matter is not their essence. In fact, the most materially disparate systems can still be analogous to each other. I think this is a strong indication that we can study the organization of natural systems independently of matter.

[PaulQ]

As I said, which is why I chose to say "typically created". A battery is probably the most common source. There are others as you are about to mention....

 

These days, it's more common for batteries to provide storage for devices and are charged by switching DC power supplies as their source. Solar panels are also DC, as are the alternators in our automobiles.

 

In this particular device, it is actually taking 1/2 of the AC sine wave (the positive direction) and sending it out in one direction. It is technically an AC signal created the same way AC is created, just making it go out in one direction. It looks like sort of like this on an oscilloscope: ^-^-^-^ It is pulses, not a steady flat signal. You do can however do other things like adding capacitors in the circuit to create a more steady voltage level. I understand this.

 

Wrong on both accounts, unfortunately. The function of the commutator is to reverse polarity of the armature windings every 180 degrees, so that both the positive and negative polarities of the alternating current are used and come out as positive. Also, to create a more steady voltage level, more loops are added to the armature to produce a smoother output voltage; thus, capacitors aren't generally used on DC generators for this purpose.

 

I realize it's been a few years since my getting a degree in electronics, and I've been working for the last 12 years in IT dealing with a variety of computer and networking technologies, and not so much component level design and troubleshooting anymore, but I'm thinking my basic understanding hasn't drifted too far. But I won't complain about being corrected if I'm misremembering some of this after this long not dealing with it directly. I certainly do forget or misremember things from time to time.

 

It appears to me as though you're making assumptions about things which are incorrect. Not necessarily a good thing when you decide to nit-pick.

 

And this underscores my point about defining words like consciousness as I stated in the above paragraph how consciousness=thoughts. My point exactly.

 

Actually, it underscores the point that even the essence of our mind - that which is our thoughts and consciousness - is based entirely in the materialistic world.

 

You mean little binary bits and bytes, and whatnot? TTL? AND gates, OR gates, NAND gates, NOR gates? Those little switches?

 

I understand computer technology fairly well, plus I used to design circuits with those little guys to make it give various words for computer language. And yes, absolutely, it does use electrons to create the True/False states. How on earth to you get an either positive or negative charge without electrons??? The charge is created by either an overage of electrons, or a deficiency of them. So my point is valid.

 

Not really, because the electrons are simply providing energy for the circuits to work. They go in, they follow a path, then they leave; themselves incapable of doing anything but following the paths we set out for them, like water flowing through a maze of pipes. Again, they are not necessary for a computer to function; a computer can be made from mechanical components, so that the binary bits and bytes are represented by mechanical components. Consider the Z1, a binary mechanical computer built in the late 1930's which ran at 1 hz and contained a memory of 64 words of 22 bits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_%28computer%29

 

It just so happens that electricity-based computers are cheaper to build and tend to run faster with greater reliability, but you can buy your own mechanical computer here: http://www.retrothing.com/2009/10/build_your_own_.html

[PaulQ]

I would hope so considering the size of that loom in our basement!! And I can't even hook up a basic 300 baud modem to it to download 25k gif files from my favorite BBS site!

 

Understanding the loom led to the development of mechanical computers, which in turn led to the development of electrical computers with 300 baud modems capable of downloading 25k gif files. Understanding how the loom works helps in understanding how more complicated computing machines work. Thank you for demonstrating this point.

 

Maybe you didn't read what I said above? I say, yes the mind is dependent on the brain. You counter, it most certainly is. Umm... yes.

 

Your argument seemed to imply that the mind existed independently of the brain; my apologies if this was incorrect. The brain is the mind in the sense that the structures of the brain, created by the pathways of neurons, provide the necessary framework for consciousness, memories, and ideas to happen.

 

As I said, definitions of mind, and definitions of consciousness. You equate it with personality. I do not.

 

Is personality not a result of a conscious mind?

 

Insight into, yes. Understanding it, reducing it to that, no.

 

Reduction is necessary for understanding. Some people see a computer as a complicated device, which it is. Broken down to individual components, it becomes easier to understand. Depending on what you need to do, you have to select an appropriate level of reduction. The same goes for understanding the universe and our own conscious minds. Without reducing things, we wouldn't have the technology we enjoy today.

[PaulQ]

Shyone I can't help but think of how many different ways there are to manifest or realize a clock. There are water clocks, pendulum clocks, quartz clocks, and atomic clocks. Each of these different kinds of devices are analogous to each other by virtue of the fact that they realize the same function. It's true that they cannot be realized without matter, but matter is not their essence. In fact, the most materially disparate systems can still be analogous to each other. I think this is a strong indication that we can study the organization of natural systems independently of matter.

 

The creation of these clocks came about because of our need to measure time. They are tools that we created because of a need to organize our day. This became necessary as there is a finite amount of time in a given day, and knowing that allows us to better manage our resources. The reasons for the existence of the clock can be found in the material world, because it is based on our own material needs. It is no more complicated than that.

[Antlerman]

In this particular device, it is actually taking 1/2 of the AC sine wave (the positive direction) and sending it out in one direction. It is technically an AC signal created the same way AC is created, just making it go out in one direction. It looks like sort of like this on an oscilloscope: ^-^-^-^ It is pulses, not a steady flat signal. You do can however do other things like adding capacitors in the circuit to create a more steady voltage level. I understand this.

 

Wrong on both accounts, unfortunately. The function of the commutator is to reverse polarity of the armature windings every 180 degrees, so that both the positive and negative polarities of the alternating current are used and come out as positive. Also, to create a more steady voltage level, more loops are added to the armature to produce a smoother output voltage; thus, capacitors aren't generally used on DC generators for this purpose.

Apparently my mind was slipping in memory about the simple use of windings in commutators in DC generators is used to make a relatively smooth signal. I do recall it clearly now Plus, I also recall that in circuits that do convert the AC signal to DC it was the use of bridge rectifiers (such as in car alternators), and not what I was thinking about capacitors in their steadying the charge in a circuit. As I said, I don't focus on that world so much anymore, but I shouldn't have forgotten about those.

 

That said however, what I said about windings of coils passing through magnetic lines of flux creating an alternating current signal is in fact correct, and specifically why it is necessary to reverse the windings.

 

I realize it's been a few years since my getting a degree in electronics, and I've been working for the last 12 years in IT dealing with a variety of computer and networking technologies, and not so much component level design and troubleshooting anymore, but I'm thinking my basic understanding hasn't drifted too far. But I won't complain about being corrected if I'm misremembering some of this after this long not dealing with it directly. I certainly do forget or misremember things from time to time.

 

It appears to me as though you're making assumptions about things which are incorrect. Not necessarily a good thing when you decide to nit-pick.

Well, I wouldn't be so ungracious. It really wasn't an assumption about AC signals being created by passing coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux. That was correct. My forgetting about the simple windings reversal, then hearing you say that DC is created by passing coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux led me to latch on to that as a statement of error on your part - which technically it is.

 

The DC is created by reversing the windings - so that the naturally occurring AC signal comes out that way. As you stated it it, that when you pass coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux you get DC, is technically incorrect. You don't, unless you do that trick in windings to make it do that. So you do not get DC the way you stated, unless you manipulated the circuit to get it to do that.

 

Correct?

 

And this underscores my point about defining words like consciousness as I stated in the above paragraph how consciousness=thoughts. My point exactly.

 

Actually, it underscores the point that even the essence of our mind - that which is our thoughts and consciousness - is based entirely in the materialistic world.

You really didn't follow what I said.

 

 

You mean little binary bits and bytes, and whatnot? TTL? AND gates, OR gates, NAND gates, NOR gates? Those little switches?

 

I understand computer technology fairly well, plus I used to design circuits with those little guys to make it give various words for computer language. And yes, absolutely, it does use electrons to create the True/False states. How on earth to you get an either positive or negative charge without electrons??? The charge is created by either an overage of electrons, or a deficiency of them. So my point is valid.

 

Not really, because the electrons are simply providing energy for the circuits to work. They go in, they follow a path, then they leave; themselves incapable of doing anything but following the paths we set out for them, like water flowing through a maze of pipes.

Technically, they don't leave. I'm imagining in your analogy that once we've let the water drain out of the source the electrons have all evaporated into the ether, leaving a bunch of depleted, electron-free atoms out there. (Now I am really nitpicking ).

 

 

Again, they are not necessary for a computer to function; a computer can be made from mechanical components, so that the binary bits and bytes are represented by mechanical components.

Now you are nitpicking. Why would I think electrons are necessary for a mechanical computer to work? You clearly could see I was referring to electronic computers, and the reasons why.

[The-Captain]

I always thought of the mind as being a sort of projection of the brain, a separate and intangible creation. We can take a look now at the circuits of the projector enough to tell it is on, but that doesn't describe the actual projection i.e mind, from that alone.

 

This is how I view it, and why not? After all our knowledge in this area is confined to seeing only the signs and mechanics of thought. Granted I am no biologist.

 

I have to quote my favorite biologist, Robert Rosen, here again...

 

From wiki... Rosen said that organization must be independent from the material particles which seemingly constitute a living system. As he put it: "The human body completely changes the matter it is made of roughly every 8 weeks, through metabolism and repair. Yet, you're still you-- with all your memories, your personality... If science insists on chasing particles, they will follow them right through an organism and miss the organism entirely,"

 

Fascinating idea, I swear I'm gonna read this guy someday.