3 ms·

I think it’s definitely a complex topic and not one that can be hashed out in a HN comment. My thought is something like this: because we treat our “real selve

I think it’s definitely a complex topic and not one that can be hashed out in a HN comment. My thought is something like this: because we treat our “real selves” as just our heads/minds, we unintentionally or intentionally disregard the rest of our body. To me, this seems to be related to some specific negative things like obesity, for example. Many people don’t treat their body with the same level of respect as they do their perceptions or their minds. Some old Daoist stuff delves into this a bit. In short, because we treat our minds separately from our bodies and we privilege consciousness and speech/thought, it has effects on what we do. It is also probably just conceptually wrong to think that our bodies are just a side accessory, especially when it comes to understanding how much of our actual intelligence comes from being embodied. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/

ImprobableTruth 6y ago
>It is also probably just conceptually wrong to think that our bodies are just a side accessory, especially when it comes to understanding how much of our actual intelligence comes from being embodied. There's not a single study to show this, so calling it 'probably wrong' is just disingenuous. All the current results simply say 'sensory data impacts our cognition', which people who think that the brain encompasses the whole of the mind also believe. The real test would be whether 'faking' body parts by sending mock sensory data would lead to the same result as having the real body part.
- keiferski 6y ago
  I linked to an article about embodied cognition. It’s a serious topic studied by scientists and philosophers.
  - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
    Have you read your article? Embodied cognition comes in different forms. The 'basic' idea is simply that the body plays some role in cognition. The view that's closest to traditional cognition - and generally regarded as uncontroversial - is that the body has a strong influence on the mind. A lot of (most?) computationalists would accept this idea with no issue. It's the idea that our mind is actually distributed, that our body is part of our mind, which is actually contentious. It's a philosophical position you can argue for, but there definitely aren't a lot of studies to back it up, as all of them (or at least all that I know, feel free to prove me wrong), can just as easily be explained with a non-distributed model.
    - keiferski 6y ago
      I’m not really committed to a particular model, I just think the body clearly plays an important, if not critical role - and that this is not what most people in the comments here agree with.
      - totalZero 6y ago
        I agree with you. Our decisions are based on stimuli, hormones, and other physical factors that extend beyond what is traditionally considered the "mind." If I get a blood transfusion, does the slightly different chemical makeup of the introduced blood affect my behavior? If so, at what point does it affect my "self"? I appreciate the coherent and open way that you have responded to so many different comments in this thread.
    - lambda_obrien 6y ago
      If our body is not a part of our mind, then where does the mind exist? Are we just loops of code controlling a mechanism? I'm curious why you casually toss away the possibility that our bodies and self are one inseparable thing when no scientist has yet been able to even get close to separating the two via any means. Our brains work through physical means with electrical and chemical impulses, so why think that the mind itself doesn't extend away from the brain?
      - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
        If the mind extended to other parts of the body, I'd expect there to be tons of evidence for it, but there seems to be none. Like, with the brain we know that the mind is deeply linked to it because it's just very obvious. Brain damage heavily impacts cognition, people lose memories, their personalities change, they lose the capacity to feel certain things or certain concepts - we even have some idea of damaging what area causes what. Compare this with people losing limbs or sensory organs. Someone who loses their sight, doesn't lose their visual memory, their ability to visualize things, spatial concepts, etc. If these organs were actually part of the mind I would have at least expected some part of it to be lost. So unless evidence for the contrary comes to light, it only seems reasonable to me to assume that no or at the very least minimal real processing occurs outside of the brain.
- strogonoff 6y ago
  > The real test would be whether 'faking' body parts by sending mock sensory data would lead to the same result as having the real body part. How about a test that fakes that body part which receives sensory data and triggers a response? Perhaps it can lead to the same results as having a real brain! /s (Sorry, couldn't resist!) On a serious note, articles about how for example the gut affects our mental state (all the way to links with autism) were posted to HN many times. Calling the idea that our bodies are like side accessories attached to our brains “probably wrong” may be an overreach, but personally I suspect the stage at which it becomes a viable idea would also be one where we are able to just copy an entire human brain. (Which might just turn out not to be a meaningful proposition, but I guess we’ll see!) And as long as we aren’t there/don’t know for sure, I’d put forward that the mere possibility of a “body replacement” actually destroying personality to an unknown extent is enough of a reason to never deploy it in foreseeable future except as last resort.
  - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
    >On a serious note, articles about how for example the gut affects our mental state (all the way to links with autism) were posted to HN many times. Of course, but that's because our gut is directly connected to the brain. Hardcore embodiment people will tell you that you're literally thinking with your gut. It's not like I'm saying you could just swap bodies and it wouldn't have an effect, it absolutely would, my point is simply that this is due to causation, because of the body influencing the brain, rather than distribution where the body is literally part of the mind. >And as long as we aren’t there/don’t know for sure, I’d put forward that the mere possibility of a “body replacement” actually destroying personality to an unknown extent is enough of a reason to never deploy it in foreseeable future except as last resort. Sure, but I'd say it's essentially what we're doing already. We know e.g. hormone treatment as part of sex reassignment causes changes to the brain and definitely influences personality. It's not like anyone is proposing this sort of stuff for fun (I think).
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      In a sense, everything you do, read, see, hear, experience, changes your personality. Usually the changes are so small that they can be observed only as they accumulate over the years. Sometimes, there are big changes (usually surrounding traumas of various kind, physical and mental). But the truth is, personality is a dynamic, ever-evolving construct.
usrusr 6y ago
That argument suffers considerably from a quick glance at how we treat our minds. If I take a quick survey of nutritional and intellectual fast food habits I can't pick a winner. It's bad on both sides and it doesn't even make much of a difference whether I look at society at large or no further than in the mirror.

ImprobableTruth 6y ago

>It is also probably just conceptually wrong to think that our bodies are just a side accessory, especially when it comes to understanding how much of our actual intelligence comes from being embodied. There's not a single study to show this, so calling it 'probably wrong' is just disingenuous. All the current results simply say 'sensory data impacts our cognition', which people who think that the brain encompasses the whole of the mind also believe. The real test would be whether 'faking' body parts by sending mock sensory data would lead to the same result as having the real body part.

keiferski 6y ago
I linked to an article about embodied cognition. It’s a serious topic studied by scientists and philosophers.
- ImprobableTruth 6y ago
  Have you read your article? Embodied cognition comes in different forms. The 'basic' idea is simply that the body plays some role in cognition. The view that's closest to traditional cognition - and generally regarded as uncontroversial - is that the body has a strong influence on the mind. A lot of (most?) computationalists would accept this idea with no issue. It's the idea that our mind is actually distributed, that our body is part of our mind, which is actually contentious. It's a philosophical position you can argue for, but there definitely aren't a lot of studies to back it up, as all of them (or at least all that I know, feel free to prove me wrong), can just as easily be explained with a non-distributed model.
  - keiferski 6y ago
    I’m not really committed to a particular model, I just think the body clearly plays an important, if not critical role - and that this is not what most people in the comments here agree with.
    - totalZero 6y ago
      I agree with you. Our decisions are based on stimuli, hormones, and other physical factors that extend beyond what is traditionally considered the "mind." If I get a blood transfusion, does the slightly different chemical makeup of the introduced blood affect my behavior? If so, at what point does it affect my "self"? I appreciate the coherent and open way that you have responded to so many different comments in this thread.
  - lambda_obrien 6y ago
    If our body is not a part of our mind, then where does the mind exist? Are we just loops of code controlling a mechanism? I'm curious why you casually toss away the possibility that our bodies and self are one inseparable thing when no scientist has yet been able to even get close to separating the two via any means. Our brains work through physical means with electrical and chemical impulses, so why think that the mind itself doesn't extend away from the brain?
    - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
      If the mind extended to other parts of the body, I'd expect there to be tons of evidence for it, but there seems to be none. Like, with the brain we know that the mind is deeply linked to it because it's just very obvious. Brain damage heavily impacts cognition, people lose memories, their personalities change, they lose the capacity to feel certain things or certain concepts - we even have some idea of damaging what area causes what. Compare this with people losing limbs or sensory organs. Someone who loses their sight, doesn't lose their visual memory, their ability to visualize things, spatial concepts, etc. If these organs were actually part of the mind I would have at least expected some part of it to be lost. So unless evidence for the contrary comes to light, it only seems reasonable to me to assume that no or at the very least minimal real processing occurs outside of the brain.
strogonoff 6y ago
> The real test would be whether 'faking' body parts by sending mock sensory data would lead to the same result as having the real body part. How about a test that fakes that body part which receives sensory data and triggers a response? Perhaps it can lead to the same results as having a real brain! /s (Sorry, couldn't resist!) On a serious note, articles about how for example the gut affects our mental state (all the way to links with autism) were posted to HN many times. Calling the idea that our bodies are like side accessories attached to our brains “probably wrong” may be an overreach, but personally I suspect the stage at which it becomes a viable idea would also be one where we are able to just copy an entire human brain. (Which might just turn out not to be a meaningful proposition, but I guess we’ll see!) And as long as we aren’t there/don’t know for sure, I’d put forward that the mere possibility of a “body replacement” actually destroying personality to an unknown extent is enough of a reason to never deploy it in foreseeable future except as last resort.
- ImprobableTruth 6y ago
  >On a serious note, articles about how for example the gut affects our mental state (all the way to links with autism) were posted to HN many times. Of course, but that's because our gut is directly connected to the brain. Hardcore embodiment people will tell you that you're literally thinking with your gut. It's not like I'm saying you could just swap bodies and it wouldn't have an effect, it absolutely would, my point is simply that this is due to causation, because of the body influencing the brain, rather than distribution where the body is literally part of the mind. >And as long as we aren’t there/don’t know for sure, I’d put forward that the mere possibility of a “body replacement” actually destroying personality to an unknown extent is enough of a reason to never deploy it in foreseeable future except as last resort. Sure, but I'd say it's essentially what we're doing already. We know e.g. hormone treatment as part of sex reassignment causes changes to the brain and definitely influences personality. It's not like anyone is proposing this sort of stuff for fun (I think).
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    In a sense, everything you do, read, see, hear, experience, changes your personality. Usually the changes are so small that they can be observed only as they accumulate over the years. Sometimes, there are big changes (usually surrounding traumas of various kind, physical and mental). But the truth is, personality is a dynamic, ever-evolving construct.

usrusr 6y ago

That argument suffers considerably from a quick glance at how we treat our minds. If I take a quick survey of nutritional and intellectual fast food habits I can't pick a winner. It's bad on both sides and it doesn't even make much of a difference whether I look at society at large or no further than in the mirror.