5 ms·

I didn't pay the $27.95 to read this, but the abstract is alarmingly wrong. The analogous thinking is that software bugs, in particular data storage errors[1],

I didn't pay the $27.95 to read this, but the abstract is alarmingly wrong. The analogous thinking is that software bugs, in particular data storage errors[1], are best understood as hardware malfunctions, and that precise interventions at the hardware level can solve them. It's not exactly wrong--for any given software issue, you might be able to devise hardware changes that correct it. But. I feel like I don't need to continue to make my point. [1] In reality the lines blur between software and data, so the analogy might be better more solid between trained ML models and hardware, where trained ML models are both software and data in a way that can't be meaningfully distinguished. So we're talking about correcting a trained ML model via a precise hardware edit. It's not wrong per se, not even insane in some cases. But the dismissive tone in the abstract of taking the trained model of the human mind on its own terms, versus as a purely biological object boggles my mind with how wrong-headed it is.

SubiculumCode 7y ago
I've never been convinced that the software-hardware analogy is especially enlightening when it comes to the brain and the mind, in my informed opinion.
- naringas 7y ago
  at one point I decided to disagree with the idea that the mind is just the brain.
  - didericis 7y ago
    What else so you think there is? It seems patently obvious at this point that our brains house our minds, given how manipulating someone’s brain causes them to act much differently and report perceptual and behavioral changes. Your post sounds suspiciously new age to me. I’m aware that our bodies feed into our minds, and that things like hormonal levels, nutrition, gut flora and fauna, etc all have a fairly profound impact on things like mood, but that’s different that saying the mind is not the brain. Social isolation and long periods of darkness also have profound impact on the mind. That doesn’t mean that the night sky or society somehow “is” our mind, or that our minds are somehow housed outside as well as in our brains. There’s a tendency to belittle things that we understand mechanically, which is why I believe people tend to believe the mind is somehow “beyond” the brain. But we can still have deep respect for the sovereign, spiritual like divinity associated with consciousness while recognizing that it’s all happening within the confined, physical space that constitutes a person’s brain, and that there’s a physical basis for it.
    - naringas 7y ago
      > I’m aware that our bodies feed into our minds, and that things like hormonal levels, nutrition, gut flora and fauna, etc all have a fairly profound impact on things like mood it's pretty much that. the mind is the entire body. although it's mostly the brain it is NOT entirely the brain. > That doesn’t mean that the night sky or society somehow “is” our mind, but our mind is formed by what we learn from society (culture) with our brains (the software gets installed hahah) > while recognizing that it’s all happening within the confined, physical space that constitutes a person’s brain maybe all the language and the words form within the physical bound of the brain, sure, but the mind more than just what we do with our brains. In the end, thinking this way has led me to take better care of myself, not just my "brain" (i.e. eating better and exercising the rest of the body a little more)
      - didericis 7y ago
        While I think I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, I take issue with some of the semantics. What you are describing as “Mind” seems closer to “Self” than what I would call “Mind”. I consider the mind to be the abstract entity we use to experience the world. In my view, the mind is very much coupled to the brain. Tying all of our experiential world to a single organ in the body doesn’t really do justice to the magnitude/scope of that experience, sure. But I think it’s wrong to call that experience “Mind”. Obviously I don’t want to interfere with your self care, and think it’s very important to have a holistic view of self and your relationship to those around you when trying to be healthy, I just don’t think “Mind” is the right word to use for what you’re talking about.
    - SubiculumCode 7y ago
      The concept of Embodied Cognition. This was his point.
      - didericis 7y ago
        Interesting. Maybe my worry about new age stuff was unfounded. I don’t really like the philosophical direction of the concept, though. It mostly seems about acknowledging that we are fundamentally coupled to our environment, and that our minds are not really designed to function in isolation as a brain in a vat. That’s all true, but I think it dilutes both the definition of “self” and of “mind”. While we are not designed to function in isolation, the boundaries placed by the more traditional conception of both the self and the mind make them more useful, imo. If we consider the “self” to extend into our environment whenever there’s a dependency, at what point does “self” just become synonymous with everything? It’s going in a direction that makes the concept meaningless. And I don’t think it gives us any insight. For example, it is incorrect to think of object instances as living in isolation during the runtime of a computer. They are a part of a more holistic state, and interact with are influenced by other parts of that state constantly. But if you try to think of a program in terms of one giant state blob, reasoning becomes basically impossible. We need to break things down into differentiated modules in order to understand them. Keeping the concepts of “self” and “mind” as tools with which we can differentiate between something like “experiences per meatbag” and “thing doing the experiencing“, respectively, seems important, and the “embodied cognition” idea seems to be trying to get rid of those tools without replacing them.

SubiculumCode 7y ago

I've never been convinced that the software-hardware analogy is especially enlightening when it comes to the brain and the mind, in my informed opinion.

naringas 7y ago
at one point I decided to disagree with the idea that the mind is just the brain.
- didericis 7y ago
  What else so you think there is? It seems patently obvious at this point that our brains house our minds, given how manipulating someone’s brain causes them to act much differently and report perceptual and behavioral changes. Your post sounds suspiciously new age to me. I’m aware that our bodies feed into our minds, and that things like hormonal levels, nutrition, gut flora and fauna, etc all have a fairly profound impact on things like mood, but that’s different that saying the mind is not the brain. Social isolation and long periods of darkness also have profound impact on the mind. That doesn’t mean that the night sky or society somehow “is” our mind, or that our minds are somehow housed outside as well as in our brains. There’s a tendency to belittle things that we understand mechanically, which is why I believe people tend to believe the mind is somehow “beyond” the brain. But we can still have deep respect for the sovereign, spiritual like divinity associated with consciousness while recognizing that it’s all happening within the confined, physical space that constitutes a person’s brain, and that there’s a physical basis for it.
  - naringas 7y ago
    > I’m aware that our bodies feed into our minds, and that things like hormonal levels, nutrition, gut flora and fauna, etc all have a fairly profound impact on things like mood it's pretty much that. the mind is the entire body. although it's mostly the brain it is NOT entirely the brain. > That doesn’t mean that the night sky or society somehow “is” our mind, but our mind is formed by what we learn from society (culture) with our brains (the software gets installed hahah) > while recognizing that it’s all happening within the confined, physical space that constitutes a person’s brain maybe all the language and the words form within the physical bound of the brain, sure, but the mind more than just what we do with our brains. In the end, thinking this way has led me to take better care of myself, not just my "brain" (i.e. eating better and exercising the rest of the body a little more)
    - didericis 7y ago
      While I think I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, I take issue with some of the semantics. What you are describing as “Mind” seems closer to “Self” than what I would call “Mind”. I consider the mind to be the abstract entity we use to experience the world. In my view, the mind is very much coupled to the brain. Tying all of our experiential world to a single organ in the body doesn’t really do justice to the magnitude/scope of that experience, sure. But I think it’s wrong to call that experience “Mind”. Obviously I don’t want to interfere with your self care, and think it’s very important to have a holistic view of self and your relationship to those around you when trying to be healthy, I just don’t think “Mind” is the right word to use for what you’re talking about.
  - SubiculumCode 7y ago
    The concept of Embodied Cognition. This was his point.
    - didericis 7y ago
      Interesting. Maybe my worry about new age stuff was unfounded. I don’t really like the philosophical direction of the concept, though. It mostly seems about acknowledging that we are fundamentally coupled to our environment, and that our minds are not really designed to function in isolation as a brain in a vat. That’s all true, but I think it dilutes both the definition of “self” and of “mind”. While we are not designed to function in isolation, the boundaries placed by the more traditional conception of both the self and the mind make them more useful, imo. If we consider the “self” to extend into our environment whenever there’s a dependency, at what point does “self” just become synonymous with everything? It’s going in a direction that makes the concept meaningless. And I don’t think it gives us any insight. For example, it is incorrect to think of object instances as living in isolation during the runtime of a computer. They are a part of a more holistic state, and interact with are influenced by other parts of that state constantly. But if you try to think of a program in terms of one giant state blob, reasoning becomes basically impossible. We need to break things down into differentiated modules in order to understand them. Keeping the concepts of “self” and “mind” as tools with which we can differentiate between something like “experiences per meatbag” and “thing doing the experiencing“, respectively, seems important, and the “embodied cognition” idea seems to be trying to get rid of those tools without replacing them.