# Philosophy of Mind **Entity class:** Philosophical discipline **Collections:** [[collections/Neurotech|Neurotech]] · [[collections/Consciousness Continuity|Consciousness Continuity]] ## Definition **Philosophy of Mind** studies consciousness, cognition, mental causation, personal identity, embodiment, and the relation between mental and physical states. ## Relationships - It contains competing accounts including [[wiki/Functionalism|Functionalism]] and supplies the identity questions surrounding [[wiki/Substrate Independence|Substrate Independence]]. - It constrains how [[wiki/Functional Digital Twin|Functional Digital Twin]], [[wiki/Reconstructed Person|Reconstructed Person]], and [[wiki/Verification of Continuity Claims|continuity claims]] should be interpreted. - [[articles/Technologies for Consciousness Mapping and Transfer|Technologies for Consciousness Mapping and Transfer]] separates testable engineering equivalence from unresolved metaphysical identity. - **Edge source route:** [[collections/Edge|Edge]] connects this topic to exact Annual Question passages promoted into the Simple Reminders archive. ## Simple Reminders, Quotations, and Thoughts > "The effort to build machines that can think is certain to make us aware of aspects of thought that are not yet fully understood." > **— Mary Catherine Bateson**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Building Thinking Machines Reveals Thought Itself by Mary Catherine Bateson|Building Thinking Machines Reveals Thought Itself by Mary Catherine Bateson]] > "Describing a machine as "thinking" could be a simple heuristic convenience or machine design might be explicitly biomimetic." > **— Julia Clarke**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Calling Machine Thought Human Is Only a Metaphor by Julia Clarke|Calling Machine Thought Human Is Only a Metaphor by Julia Clarke]] > "If the right combination of chemicals can perform thinking and feeling emotions, and it does—the proof being ourselves—then sure there should be many other analogous mechanisms for doing the same." > **— Carlo Rovelli**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Chemistry Proves Minds May Have Other Mechanisms by Carlo Rovelli|Chemistry Proves Minds May Have Other Mechanisms by Carlo Rovelli]] > "We can step up to immaterial science, then make an immaterial thinkable machine by starting a very simple manual to program." > **— Koo Jeong A**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Immaterial Science Could Build a Thinking Machine by Koo Jeong A|Immaterial Science Could Build a Thinking Machine by Koo Jeong A]] > ""Thinking" is a word we apply with no discipline whatsoever to a huge variety of reported behaviors." > **— James J. O'Donnell**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/We Use Thinking Without Discipline by James J. O'Donnell|We Use Thinking Without Discipline by James J. O'Donnell]] > “We humans have had a tough time coping with our unremarkable place in the grand scheme of things. First Copernicus trashed our belief that we live at the centre of the universe, followed shortly thereafter by Herschel and co. who suggested that our sun was not at the centre of it either; then Darwin came along and showed that according to our biological heritage, we are just another animal. But we have clung on for dear life to one remaining belief about our specialness; that we, and we alone, have conscious minds. It is time to retire, or indeed euthanize and cremate, this anthropocentric pomposity.” > **— Kate Jeffery**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Animal Consciousness Ends the Last Claim of Human Specialness by Kate Jeffery|Animal Consciousness Ends the Last Claim of Human Specialness by Kate Jeffery]] > “A physicist at CERN said to me recently that they likely wouldn't have built a new $8 billion collider if there was a better way of moving the field forward. The Blue Brain Project is using supercomputers to construct a mind because the neuroscientists involved believe it is the best way of attaining an overall understanding of the brain. Robots, I now appreciate, are not simply novelty items or tools of automation, but can be a way of gaining unique insight into humans. From simulation to supercomputing, technology is now (or at least I now see) one of science's very best friends (I could say the same for the arts). And the design, magnitude, and complexity of these technological feats satisfy my (and our) need for romance in our pursuit of truth.” > **— Adam Bly**, *2008, Edge Annual Question, “What Have You Changed Your Mind About? Why?”* [[reminders/Simulation/Building Minds in Computers May Be the Best Way to Understand Brains by Adam Bly|Building Minds in Computers May Be the Best Way to Understand Brains by Adam Bly]] > “Experts on short term memory and neural network modelers with tell this story for us. As it unfolds, it will explain the emergence of a subjective present and let us understand how conscious experience, in its simplest and most essential form, is the presence of a world.” > **— Thomas Metzinger**, *2005, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Conscious Experience Emerges as the Presence of a World by Thomas Metzinger|Conscious Experience Emerges as the Presence of a World by Thomas Metzinger]] > “Today, the biggest challenge is to explain our powers of thinking and imagination, our abilities to represent and report our thoughts: the very means by which we engage in scientific theorising. The final triumph of the natural sciences over supernaturalism will be an account of nature of conscious experience. The cognitive and brain sciences have done much to make that project clearer but we are still a long way from a fully satisfying theory.” > **— Barry C. Smith**, *2006, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Your Dangerous Idea?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Conscious Experience Is the Final Frontier of Natural Science by Barry C. Smith|Conscious Experience Is the Final Frontier of Natural Science by Barry C. Smith]] > “By the sixties, cyberneticians were using models of negative feedback originally developed for the steam engine, and greatly expanded upon during the war of the forties for controlling the aiming of guns, to try develop models for the brain. But these soon ran out of steam, so to speak, and were supplanted in the general consciousness by metaphors of the brain as a digital computer. One started to hear claims of the brain as the hardware, and the mind as the software, a model that really did not end up helping our understanding of either the brain or the mind very much at all. Throughout the later parts of the twentieth century the brain became a massively parallel digital supercomputer, and now one can find claims that the brain and the world wide web are similar in how they work with webpages and neurons playing similar roles, while hyperlinks and synapses map to each other.” > **— Rodney A. Brooks**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement?”* [[reminders/Cybernetics/The Computational Metaphor Distorts How We Understand the Brain by Rodney A. Brooks|The Computational Metaphor Distorts How We Understand the Brain by Rodney A. Brooks]] > “The film A.I. and the idea contained within it that robots could someday become conscious is another case in which our wishes exceed reality. Despite enormous advances in artificial intelligence, no computer is able to experience a pin prick like a simple frog, or get hungry like a rat, or become happy or sad like all of us carbon-based units. But why is this the case? It is my conjecture that this is because there are some features of being alive that makes mind, consciousness, and feelings possible. That is, only living things are capable of the markers of mind such as intentionality, subjectivity, and self-awareness. But the important question of the link between life and the creation of consciousness remains a great scientific mystery, and the answer will go a long way toward our understanding of what a mind actually is.” > **— Todd E. Feinberg**, *2002, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Your Question? ... Why?”* [[reminders/AI Control/What Is the Relationship Between Being Alive and Having a Mind by Todd E. Feinberg|What Is the Relationship Between Being Alive and Having a Mind by Todd E. Feinberg]] > “Will a machine ever be able to feel what an organism feels?” > **— Joshua Bongard**, *2018, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS THE LAST QUESTION?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Can a Machine Feel What an Organism Feels by Joshua Bongard|Can a Machine Feel What an Organism Feels by Joshua Bongard]] > “I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery.” > **— Nicholas Humphrey**, *2005, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Consciousness May Be a Conjuring Trick by Nicholas Humphrey|Consciousness May Be a Conjuring Trick by Nicholas Humphrey]] > “Any biological theory of consciousness, which assumes that consciousness has evolved, implies that "having consciousness" is not an all-or-none property. The biological substrates of consciousness in human adults are probably also present, but only in partial form, in other species, in young children or brain-lesioned patients. It is therefore a partially arbitrary question whether we want to extend the use of the term "consciousness" to them. For instance, several mammals, and even very young human children, show intentional behavior, partially reportable mental states, some working memory ability — but perhaps no theory of mind, and more "encapsulated" mental processes that cannot be reported verbally or even non-verbally. Do they have consciousness, then? My bet is that once a detailed cognitive and neural theory of the various aspects of consciousness is available, the vacuity of this question will become obvious.” > **— Stanislas Dehaene**, *2001, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT QUESTIONS HAVE DISAPPEARED?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Consciousness May Be a Continuum Rather Than an All-or-None State by Stanislas Dehaene|Consciousness May Be a Continuum Rather Than an All-or-None State by Stanislas Dehaene]] > “The mystery is us. What kind of creatures are we? Are we composites of physical bodies and nonphysical experiences? Or are we entirely physical, or entirely nonphysical? Do brains create conscious experiences, or vice versa? Could some complex pattern of neural activity in my brain actually cause, or be identical with, my experience of red? How, precisely? Is the distinction between physical and nonphysical even useful here?” > **— Donald D. Hoffman**, *2003, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT ARE THE PRESSING SCIENTIFIC ISSUES FOR THE NATION AND THE WORLD, AND WHAT IS YOUR ADVICE ON HOW I CAN BEGIN TO DEAL WITH THEM? - GWB”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Do Brains Create Conscious Experience or Does Consciousness Create Brains by Donald D. Hoffman|Do Brains Create Conscious Experience or Does Consciousness Create Brains by Donald D. Hoffman]] > “How can an aggregation of trillions of selfish, myopic cells discover the unwitting teamwork that turns that dynamic clump into a person who can love, notice, wonder, and keep a promise?” > **— Daniel C. Dennett**, *2018, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS THE LAST QUESTION?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/How Do Trillions of Cells Become a Person by Daniel C. Dennett|How Do Trillions of Cells Become a Person by Daniel C. Dennett]] > “What is the most intelligent and efficient way to minimize the overall amount of conscious suffering in the universe?” > **— Thomas Metzinger**, *2018, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS THE LAST QUESTION?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/How Do We Minimize Conscious Suffering in the Universe by Thomas Metzinger|How Do We Minimize Conscious Suffering in the Universe by Thomas Metzinger]] > “Neurophysics, real and artificial neural networks, classical and quantum algorithms, information and complexity—standard tools that prove powerful in the study of perception, cognition and intelligence—have yet to yield a single scientific theory of conscious experiences. We cannot, for instance, answer the basic question: Why must this particular pattern of neural activity or this functional property cause, or be, this particular conscious experience (say, the smell of garlic) instead of that other conscious experience (say, the smell of a truffle), or instead of no conscious experience at all? Precise predictions of this type, de rigueur for genuine scientific explanations, have yet to be fashioned, or even plausibly sketched, with the standard tools.” > **— Donald D. Hoffman**, *2007, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC ABOUT?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Our Best Tools Still Do Not Explain Conscious Experience by Donald D. Hoffman|Our Best Tools Still Do Not Explain Conscious Experience by Donald D. Hoffman]] > “Why is our western civilization so reluctant to accept subjective, first-hand experience as fundamental data? In close association: why the reluctance to consider one's experience as a realm to be explored with a discipline just as rigorous as the one invented by science for material phenomena?” > **— Francisco Varela**, *1998, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT QUESTIONS ARE YOU ASKING YOURSELF?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Subjective Experience Should Be Treated as Fundamental Data by Francisco Varela|Subjective Experience Should Be Treated as Fundamental Data by Francisco Varela]] > “An idea that would be "dangerous if true" is what Francis Crick referred to as "the astonishing hypothesis"; the notion that our conscious experience and sense of self is based entirely on the activity of a hundred billion bits of jelly—the neurons that constitute the brain. We take this for granted in these enlightened times, but even so, it never ceases to amaze me.” > **— Vilayanur Ramachandran**, *2006, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/The Conscious Self May Be Entirely the Activity of Neurons by Vilayanur Ramachandran|The Conscious Self May Be Entirely the Activity of Neurons by Vilayanur Ramachandran]] > “In my own research on consciousness, I have changed my mind more than once. I expect it will happen again. But it has not — at least so far — been because I learned any new facts. Contrary to the hopes of neuroscientists on one side, quantum physicists on the other, I'm pretty sure all the facts that we need to solve the hard problem are already familiar to us — if only we could see them for what they are. No magic bullet is going to emerge from the lab, from brain imaging or particle accelerators. Instead, what we are waiting for is merely (!) a revolutionary new way of thinking about things that we all, as conscious creatures, already know — perhaps a way of making those same facts unfamiliar.” > **— Nicholas Humphrey**, *2008, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT? WHY?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/The Hard Problem May Require a New Way of Thinking Rather Than New Facts by Nicholas Humphrey|The Hard Problem May Require a New Way of Thinking Rather Than New Facts by Nicholas Humphrey]] > “We take each other's consciousness on faith because we must, but after two thousand years of worrying about this issue, no one has ever devised a definitive test of its existence. Most cognitive scientists believe that consciousness is a phenomenon that emerges from the complex interaction of decidedly nonconscious parts (neurons), but even when we finally understand the nature of that complex interaction, we still won't be able to prove that it produces the phenomenon in question. And yet, I haven't the slightest doubt that everyone I know has an inner life, a subjective experience, a sense of self, that is very much like mine.” > **— Daniel Gilbert**, *2005, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/We Take Other Minds on Faith by Daniel Gilbert|We Take Other Minds on Faith by Daniel Gilbert]] > “This question was asked by my eight-year-old grandson George. In eight letters it summarizes the conundrum of personal existence in an impersonal universe. How does it happen that a couple of liters of grey matter organizes itself into the unique stream of self-awareness that calls itself George? If we could answer this question, we would be on the way toward an understanding of brain structure and function at a deep level. We would probably have in our hands the key to a more rational and discriminating treatment of mental illnesses. We might also have the key to the design of a genuine artificial intelligence.” > **— Freeman Dyson**, *2002, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? ... WHY?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Why Does Grey Matter Become a Unique Stream of Self-Awareness by Freeman Dyson|Why Does Grey Matter Become a Unique Stream of Self-Awareness by Freeman Dyson]] > “The pursuit is inspired by the general agreement in the sciences of mind that intelligence arises not from the medium that embodies it—whether biological or electronic—but the way interactions among elements in the system are arranged.” > **— Pamela McCorduck**, *2016, Edge Annual Question: “”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Intelligence Does Not Arise From the Medium That Embodies It by Pamela McCorduck|Intelligence Does Not Arise From the Medium That Embodies It by Pamela McCorduck]] > “Once the internal connectivity of a system exceeds a threshold, it begins to be dominated by self-sustained, reverberating states of activity. I believe that the human workspace system has passed this threshold, and has gained a considerable autonomy relative to the outside world.” > **— Stanislas Dehaene**, *2005, Edge Annual Question: “WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Past a Connectivity Threshold a System Begins to Run Itself by Stanislas Dehaene|Past a Connectivity Threshold a System Begins to Run Itself by Stanislas Dehaene]] > “Conscious awareness is a sliver of the machine that is human intelligence but it's the only aspect we experience and hence the only aspect we come to believe exists.” > **— Mahzarin Banaji**, *2006, Edge Annual Question: “WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Consciousness Is a Sliver of the Machine We Call Intelligence by Mahzarin Banaji|Consciousness Is a Sliver of the Machine We Call Intelligence by Mahzarin Banaji]] > “The old assumption that fitter perceptions are truer perceptions is deeply woven into our conception of science. The funeral of this assumption will not be snubbed with a back-page obituary, but heralded with regime change.” > **— Donald D. Hoffman**, *2014, Edge Annual Question: “WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/The Funeral of Truer Perception Will Bring Regime Change by Donald D. Hoffman|The Funeral of Truer Perception Will Bring Regime Change by Donald D. Hoffman]] > “The mysterians argue that the human mind may be incapable of understanding itself, that we will never understand how consciousness works. But if mysterianism applies to the workings of the mind, there’s no reason it shouldn’t also apply to the workings of nature in general.” > **— Nicholas G. Carr**, *2017, Edge Annual Question: “WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/If the Mind Cannot Understand Itself Nothing Is Fully Intelligible by Nicholas G. Carr|If the Mind Cannot Understand Itself Nothing Is Fully Intelligible by Nicholas G. Carr]] > “Cognitive scientists believe that emotions, memories, and consciousness are the result of physical processes. But almost nobody else does. Common sense tells us that our mental life is the product of an immaterial soul, one that can survive the destruction of the body and brain. The physical basis of thought is, as Francis Crick put it, "an astonishing hypothesis", one that few take seriously.” > **— Paul Bloom**, *2002 Edge Annual Question, response passage* [[reminders/Consciousness/The Physical Basis of Thought Remains Astonishing by Paul Bloom|The Physical Basis of Thought Remains Astonishing by Paul Bloom]] > "Every man can, if he so desires, become the sculptor of his own brain." > **— Santiago Ramón y Cajal**, *1897, Advice for a Young Investigator* *Verification Status: Unverified — exact wording/source has not yet been independently confirmed against a primary source; source clue: Advice for a Young Investigator, 1897.* [[reminders/unverified/Every Man Can If He So Desires Become the Sculptor of His Own Brain by Santiago Ramón y Cajal|Every Man Can If He So Desires Become the Sculptor of His Own Brain by Santiago Ramón y Cajal]] > "To live on a day-to-day basis is insufficient for human beings; we need to transcend, transport, escape; we need meaning, understanding, explanation." > **— Oliver Sacks**, *Essays / interviews on mind and meaning* *Verification Status: Unverified — exact wording/source has not yet been independently confirmed against a primary source; source clue: Essays / interviews on mind and meaning.* [[reminders/unverified/Human Beings Need Meaning Understanding and Transcendence by Oliver Sacks|Human Beings Need Meaning Understanding and Transcendence by Oliver Sacks]] > "It is not enough to have a good mind; the main thing is to use it well." > **— René Descartes**, *1637, Discourse on the Method* *Verification Status: Unverified — exact wording/source has not yet been independently confirmed against a primary source; source clue: Discourse on the Method, 1637.* [[reminders/unverified/It Is Not Enough to Have a Good Mind the Main Thing Is to Use It Well by René Descartes|It Is Not Enough to Have a Good Mind the Main Thing Is to Use It Well by René Descartes]] > "The world needs all kinds of minds." > **— Temple Grandin**, *2010, TED talk title and central thesis* [[reminders/Personhood/The World Needs All Kinds of Minds by Temple Grandin|The World Needs All Kinds of Minds by Temple Grandin]]