On the Extended Mind

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 171
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

On the Extended Mind

Post by Mosesquine » March 21st, 2018, 12:59 pm

I am going to discuss the plausibility of the extended mind. The extended mind that I am concerning here is a version of David Chalmers/Andy Clark. The authors of 'The Extended Mind' (i.e. Chalmers and Clark) say that externalism of mind is right. That means, our minds are somewhat anyhow determined by our external surroundings. Furthermore, the authors of 'The Extended Mind' claim that our minds are active. According to the authors, our minds are extended to where our minds go toward. Some good examples are memos, and typed writings on a screen, and the like.

I am going to claim two things here: First, unlike Chalmers' p-zombies hypothesis, the hypothesis of the extended mind is acceptable. Second, more thoroughly, the version of the extended mind suggested by Chalmers and Clark makes people who don't agree with it be in trouble.

First, the extended mind is a precondition of the meaningfulness of some of our behaviors. Suppose that you are writing some memos on some note. The thing that makes your behavior, i.e. writing some memos on some note, meaningful, is the fact whether you are really doing something like that. If you are consciously doing something like that, then you are doing that meaningfully. This means that your conscious doing on some objects is your mind extended to those objects. I am going to analyze this thesis as follows:

An agent S is doing consciously on some object x iff S's mind m is extended to x, ...

Of course, there are some more sufficient conditions above, but the extended mind looks like a necessary condition for conscious behaviors.


Second, the extended mind would make its opponents be in trouble in many cases. Suppose that you are a person who disagrees with Chalmers/Clark version of the extended mind. Suppose, further, that you are writing a post on your own blog by typing a keyboard into your laptop computer monitor screen. Since the extended mind is, at least Chalmers and Clark claim so, a precondition of the meaningfulness of conscious behaviors, your writing a post on your own blog by typing a keyboard into your laptop computer monitor screen is, if you are an opponent of the view of the extended mind, totally meaningless. Since your writing a post on your own blog by typing a keyboard into your laptop computer monitor screen is totally meaningless, no one around, like your family members, your friends, your neighbors, regards you as doing something. This means that they might think that you are doing nothing. Doing web-blog is a method of letting people know what you are thinking. I mean that your disagreeing with the extended mind is a failure of your conscious behaviors like writing, doing memos, and the like.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: On the Extended Mind

Post by Namelesss » March 23rd, 2018, 3:10 am

Mosesquine wrote:
March 21st, 2018, 12:59 pm
I am going to discuss the plausibility of the extended mind. The extended mind that I am concerning here is a version of David Chalmers/Andy Clark. The authors of 'The Extended Mind' (i.e. Chalmers and Clark) say that externalism of mind is right....
I haven't read the book, but I know that Chalmers has yet to solve his 'hard problem' of 'mind/body duality', so, as far as I am concerned, he hasn't earned the credibility (displayed the Knowledge) to discuss 'Mind'.
The One Universal Mind/Consciousness/Thought...!

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 171
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: On the Extended Mind

Post by Mosesquine » March 26th, 2018, 6:07 am

I think that 'hard problem' is only a problem for advocates of mind-body dualists. The so-called hard problem is not a problem for physicalists or materialists.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: On the Extended Mind

Post by Namelesss » March 26th, 2018, 9:46 am

Mosesquine wrote:
March 26th, 2018, 6:07 am
I think that 'hard problem' is only a problem for advocates of mind-body dualists.
An obvious relationship! *__-
The so-called hard problem is not a problem for physicalists or materialists.
Hahaha!
The 'hard problem' for materialists/physicalists is in ever finding any evidence that Thought/Mind/Consciousness is physically manufactured, or even 'stored', in the brain!
Especially with all the evidence (QM to mystics) of that 'extended mind' beyond the apparent physical limitations of a living body.
Yes, I think that it is an especially 'hard problem' for materialists.
By the bye, materialism/physicalism is a long obsolete theory, it's followers plan Elvis' second coming! *__-

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1724
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: On the Extended Mind

Post by Atreyu » March 27th, 2018, 9:49 pm

Namelesss wrote:
March 26th, 2018, 9:46 am
Hahaha!
The 'hard problem' for materialists/physicalists is in ever finding any evidence that Thought/Mind/Consciousness is physically manufactured, or even 'stored', in the brain!
Especially with all the evidence (QM to mystics) of that 'extended mind' beyond the apparent physical limitations of a living body.
Yes, I think that it is an especially 'hard problem' for materialists.
By the bye, materialism/physicalism is a long obsolete theory, it's followers plan Elvis' second coming! *__-
This is simply false. Materilalists/physicalists can easily assert that the "material of the mind" is simply matter beyond detection, much like the idea of "dark matter". In fact, the very idea of "dark matter' provides corollary evidence that there must be some kind of material behind all of our psychological processes. If most of the matter of the Universe is unknown and undefined, i.e. "dark", then it's not fantastic at all to hypothesize that such unknown and undefined matter might be associated with our thoughts and feelings....

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: On the Extended Mind

Post by Namelesss » March 28th, 2018, 2:44 am

Atreyu wrote:
March 27th, 2018, 9:49 pm
Namelesss wrote:
March 26th, 2018, 9:46 am
Hahaha!
The 'hard problem' for materialists/physicalists is in ever finding any evidence that Thought/Mind/Consciousness is physically manufactured, or even 'stored', in the brain!
Especially with all the evidence (QM to mystics) of that 'extended mind' beyond the apparent physical limitations of a living body.
Yes, I think that it is an especially 'hard problem' for materialists.
By the bye, materialism/physicalism is a long obsolete theory, it's followers plan Elvis' second coming! *__-
This is simply false. Materilalists/physicalists can easily assert that the "material of the mind" is simply matter beyond detection, much like the idea of "dark matter".
Those remaining cult members of the materialist/physicalist obsolete theory, can assert all they like.
The last thing that I heard them attempting to assert is that .999... = 1.
(I left them glistening with the holy sweats!)
They had to ignore me when I asked if there were no more 'tangents'.
It was sad.

Dark matter?

https://www.quora.com/

What do you personally think dark matter is?
Stephen Perrenod
Stephen Perrenod, physics degree from MIT and astrophysics Ph.D. from Harvard
Answered May 28 · Upvoted by Jeff Comer, PhD in Physics, Assistant Professor and biophysicist
Personally, I think it doesn’t exist.

I only recently came to this conclusion with the publication of Verlinde’s Emergent Gravity paper last November.

The direct detection attempts for dark matter keep coming up short.

It might be:

WIMPS - least massive supersymmetric partner particle but CERN shows no evidence for supersymmetric particles
Axions - these have never been detected
Sterile neutrinos - ditto
Primordial black holes - but these are mostly ruled out although the two intermediate black hole gravitational wave merger events are interesting.
Aside from that it might be a phantom. Phantom matter refers to what seems to be matter due to gravitational effects, but is really dark gravity, that is emergent gravity -- extra gravity. That arises when one takes into account the interplay of ordinary matter and dark energy.

More on emergent gravity here:

Emergent Gravity: Verlinde’s Proposal

It is still very much an open question, we can not rule dark matter in or out completely at this point.

In fact, the very idea of "dark matter' provides corollary evidence that there must be some kind of material behind all of our psychological processes.

No more than the 'the very idea of a flying unicorn provides corollary evidence that there must be some kind of unicorn behind the clouds'.
Last I heard, there is no 'evidence' of 'dark matter'.
All perceived matter is, ultimately, Mind.

If most of the matter of the Universe is unknown and undefined, i.e. "dark", then it's not fantastic at all to hypothesize that such unknown and undefined matter might be associated with our thoughts and feelings....

Post Reply