“It is changed from a living, breathing, participant in the lives of every being in the forest, into wood, a mere resource to be used up. The harm the axe inflicts does not begin when it fells the trunk and its branches, it is inherent to its very existence. The axe destroys the cyclic patterns of existence, transforming the tree into a mere standing reserve to be exploited.”
Our take-away should be that we should stop making axes? I don’t think so. Human are the most aware and powerful life-form that, like every other earth-bound life form, is existentially embedded in the earth’s ecology. For our long-term survival we need to be constantly aware of the power we wield through fire and all its children and act accordingly.
This is not a request to stop making axes, it is merely a reflection on technology's capacity to reconfigure thought. There's a companion piece to this next week coming at this idea from a different angle.
My view is that whatever is in the external world influences how a human mind thinks. [1] This was true of the very first humans. With our current communication technologies it is even more true now. The important question is just how this happens. It’s important that we start getting a grip on this. The coming onslaught of AI is really going to do a umber on us no matter how it is deployed.
Notes
[1] The Brain – The Story of You, David Eagleman, Canongate Books, 2016.
Aye, I would further say we underestimate the scale of this problem because we think of 'mind' as something entirely inside our brains. I lean towards what psychologists call 'embodied cognition', although I prefer to come at it via philosophy. Not that long ago, those two fields were united!
"‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that's all.’"
It seems to be that many philosophical disagreements would vanish if the participants took the trouble to describe the meaning they are assigning to the words they use.
When I say ‘mind’ I mean only that totally ephemeral and idiosyncratic entity that every conscious person is aware of. Most (all?) of the evidence we have at the moment is that the mind is produced by the brain.
Among other things, ChatGPT says this about ‘embodied cognition’:
“Embodied cognition is a theory in cognitive science that suggests that the way we think and understand the world around us is deeply rooted in the physical experiences of our bodies. According to this theory, cognition is not just a process that occurs in the brain, but is also influenced by the body, its actions, and the environment in which it operates.”
I agree. The reference I gave in the previous comment discusses this and cites some evidence. One fascinating bit is that after receiving a Botox treatment a person is less able to pick up emotional clues that are signaled by subtle changes in the face musculature of another person. Presumably because the ability their own face musculature has been altered.
In my mind (ha!) at the moment, I would use ‘embodied cognition’ to describe a feature of the process that the brain uses to produce the mind.
"Most (all?) of the evidence we have at the moment is that the mind is produced by the brain."
Well, it's fairer to say that most of the European conceptual baggage tied up in 'mind' is built upon the assumption that this is a phenomena of brain. Metaphysical commitments constrain people here even more than in other places - as Allen Wood has it "we are all recovering Cartesians"(!).
Your non-definition of 'mind' hints at just how much wiggle room is left here. Precisely because we are left to our intuition as to what we mean by 'mind' there are considerable knots to get tied up in... You tell me how you know the ant colony doesn't have a mind without telling me it doesn't have a brain, and I will be more inclined to believe there is not a circularity here! 😛
However, let me join you in something closer to your world for a moment and leave you with a question to ponder. When I get angry, excited, or fearful, are these emotional states a phenomena of mind? If so, reducing 'mind' to 'brain' is an error, since the adrenal glands are on top of your kidneys. Yes, the amygdala is in your brain, and that would distinguish between your fear and your excitement, but without the adrenaline it would be cut out of the loop and you would be incapable of these experiences. Yet if you want to say that emotions are not a phenomena of mind, your appeal to our intuitive sense of what a mind is would seem to be broken...
It is a shame Bob - another Stranger Traveller - is not listening, as I have had similar conversations with him on this topic! Tell you what, you can read his account here:
I believe you'll be much more in accord with him on this than I am! That said, on various points I agree with both of you... subject to the presuppositions required to make those positions make sense. And that is the difference that makes all the difference.
Many thanks for extending our conversation! It is greatly appreciated.
I’m falling behind in processing Stranger Worlds notifications, but I certainly can’t ignore this one!
First up – Looked at Bob’s website. Yes, I definitely have to read his essay. But that’s going to take awhile. I’m going to plow ahead and address poor ideas downstream.
The observed behavior of ant colonies is certainly very interesting, but I’ll put aside your challenge for the moment.
I’m probably not following you in your next brain/mind paragraph. My present model of the mind is that since the mind is just that which one is conscious of, then all emotions are mind phenomena. It seems to me that the glandular phenomena you mention generate physical signals that with aid of the brain are recognized in the mind as emotions. Would you say that one’s awareness of a particular emotion is fundamentally different than one’s awareness of a particular color?
Stranger Worlds is plowing ahead. I’m not expecting a reply until I have something to say about Bob’s piece. But if you have a few choice words (or references) pertinent to either deconstructing or strengthening my previous paragraph, they would be welcome.
Since
“It is changed from a living, breathing, participant in the lives of every being in the forest, into wood, a mere resource to be used up. The harm the axe inflicts does not begin when it fells the trunk and its branches, it is inherent to its very existence. The axe destroys the cyclic patterns of existence, transforming the tree into a mere standing reserve to be exploited.”
Our take-away should be that we should stop making axes? I don’t think so. Human are the most aware and powerful life-form that, like every other earth-bound life form, is existentially embedded in the earth’s ecology. For our long-term survival we need to be constantly aware of the power we wield through fire and all its children and act accordingly.
This is not a request to stop making axes, it is merely a reflection on technology's capacity to reconfigure thought. There's a companion piece to this next week coming at this idea from a different angle.
Thanks for the clarification.
My view is that whatever is in the external world influences how a human mind thinks. [1] This was true of the very first humans. With our current communication technologies it is even more true now. The important question is just how this happens. It’s important that we start getting a grip on this. The coming onslaught of AI is really going to do a umber on us no matter how it is deployed.
Notes
[1] The Brain – The Story of You, David Eagleman, Canongate Books, 2016.
Aye, I would further say we underestimate the scale of this problem because we think of 'mind' as something entirely inside our brains. I lean towards what psychologists call 'embodied cognition', although I prefer to come at it via philosophy. Not that long ago, those two fields were united!
"‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that's all.’"
It seems to be that many philosophical disagreements would vanish if the participants took the trouble to describe the meaning they are assigning to the words they use.
When I say ‘mind’ I mean only that totally ephemeral and idiosyncratic entity that every conscious person is aware of. Most (all?) of the evidence we have at the moment is that the mind is produced by the brain.
Among other things, ChatGPT says this about ‘embodied cognition’:
“Embodied cognition is a theory in cognitive science that suggests that the way we think and understand the world around us is deeply rooted in the physical experiences of our bodies. According to this theory, cognition is not just a process that occurs in the brain, but is also influenced by the body, its actions, and the environment in which it operates.”
I agree. The reference I gave in the previous comment discusses this and cites some evidence. One fascinating bit is that after receiving a Botox treatment a person is less able to pick up emotional clues that are signaled by subtle changes in the face musculature of another person. Presumably because the ability their own face musculature has been altered.
In my mind (ha!) at the moment, I would use ‘embodied cognition’ to describe a feature of the process that the brain uses to produce the mind.
"Most (all?) of the evidence we have at the moment is that the mind is produced by the brain."
Well, it's fairer to say that most of the European conceptual baggage tied up in 'mind' is built upon the assumption that this is a phenomena of brain. Metaphysical commitments constrain people here even more than in other places - as Allen Wood has it "we are all recovering Cartesians"(!).
Your non-definition of 'mind' hints at just how much wiggle room is left here. Precisely because we are left to our intuition as to what we mean by 'mind' there are considerable knots to get tied up in... You tell me how you know the ant colony doesn't have a mind without telling me it doesn't have a brain, and I will be more inclined to believe there is not a circularity here! 😛
However, let me join you in something closer to your world for a moment and leave you with a question to ponder. When I get angry, excited, or fearful, are these emotional states a phenomena of mind? If so, reducing 'mind' to 'brain' is an error, since the adrenal glands are on top of your kidneys. Yes, the amygdala is in your brain, and that would distinguish between your fear and your excitement, but without the adrenaline it would be cut out of the loop and you would be incapable of these experiences. Yet if you want to say that emotions are not a phenomena of mind, your appeal to our intuitive sense of what a mind is would seem to be broken...
It is a shame Bob - another Stranger Traveller - is not listening, as I have had similar conversations with him on this topic! Tell you what, you can read his account here:
https://bachrachtechnology.com/wp/troubles-in-the-universe-of-the-mind/
I believe you'll be much more in accord with him on this than I am! That said, on various points I agree with both of you... subject to the presuppositions required to make those positions make sense. And that is the difference that makes all the difference.
Many thanks for extending our conversation! It is greatly appreciated.
Chris.
I’m falling behind in processing Stranger Worlds notifications, but I certainly can’t ignore this one!
First up – Looked at Bob’s website. Yes, I definitely have to read his essay. But that’s going to take awhile. I’m going to plow ahead and address poor ideas downstream.
The observed behavior of ant colonies is certainly very interesting, but I’ll put aside your challenge for the moment.
I’m probably not following you in your next brain/mind paragraph. My present model of the mind is that since the mind is just that which one is conscious of, then all emotions are mind phenomena. It seems to me that the glandular phenomena you mention generate physical signals that with aid of the brain are recognized in the mind as emotions. Would you say that one’s awareness of a particular emotion is fundamentally different than one’s awareness of a particular color?
Stranger Worlds is plowing ahead. I’m not expecting a reply until I have something to say about Bob’s piece. But if you have a few choice words (or references) pertinent to either deconstructing or strengthening my previous paragraph, they would be welcome.