Do we all remember that 19th century guy who took an eight-foot tamping rod through his frontal lobes and lived to tell the tale. He was not the same person, by any psychological standard. He was, though, probably the same legal entity. We confuse the two, I think
N -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mind-Body (was: The Psychology Of Yogurt) Well, you've gone _way_ beyond what I'm using as my operational definition. I'd like to stick with _humans_, meaning not only the genome but also the morphology. It's not that I don't care about other animals or organisms ... or the definition of life. I like _talking_ about that stuff and I enjoy some of the biology I end up studying as a result of my job. But overall, I'm mostly concerned with me, my family, my friends, etc. I.e. humans. When my grandfather had his stroke, he changed in _fundamental_ ways. His inability to use his right hand is what lead me (even as a kid) to start experimenting with using my "weak" hand to do tasks only my strong hand was competent to do. Everyone around me asserted quite strongly things like "He's still very intelligent!" and "He's still in there." I have my doubts. I think he was an entirely different person, despite some similarities pre- and post- stroke. Issues like this are practical, important, and immediate, unlike defining "life" and whatnot. Steve Smith wrote circa 11-09-20 11:04 AM: > I think this is well stated and on point. However... to ask these > questions properly we must have a clearer notion of what we mean by mind > and/or thought and/or identity. I am using as my working definition of > mind, the subjective (recursive?) experience "I" have of > "self-awareness" or "self-consciousness" as a key part of *my* mind. > This may differ radically from other's definition here? > > Many grant all living creatures to have minds, certainly all mammals, > probably birds, possibly all vertebrates, maybe anything with more than > some modest number of neurons... or maybe anything *with* neurons. Or > maybe... > > Others extend the notion of life, of consciousness, even of "mind" and > "awareness" on to what others (myself usually included) to all matter > (and energy). Not just the trees and lichen, but the stones and the > earth, the wind and the interstellar gasses, the electromagnetic and > gravitational flux of the universe. But by that time, I'm not sure > what we are talking about anymore... > > I don't want to presume to set the definitions but I propose the following. > > We cannot talk about mind without life. > We cannot talk about life without some kind of self-organized, > coherent systems. > > I'm game that life (and by extension mind) needn't exist only in a > matrix of cells, or even in protein or carbon chemistry. > > I may be chauvinistic in wanting life to depend on a self-other > boundary, on identity, on self-awareness. I know that nature (bio as > well as non-bio) blurs these boundaries. What is an individual > Lichen? What do a grove of genetically identical poplars know from one > another? Where is the boundary of a star, of a swirling bathtub > vortex? When is a planet not a planet (Pluto anyone?). > > I may be only digging this hole deeper... but without more definition, > I think we are blind men fondling the elephant? Perhaps only infinite > regress awaits us in this. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
