" The eternal struggle " is depicted as the challenge of thinking something and then being able to articulate it and communicate it " physically" . The prompt would suggest that humans have a problem communicating things that origin in their brain or in their body and then being able to communicate it to the outside, perhaps also suggesting that we are not as socially adapted as we think we are ? Artistotle and Plato would both disagree as they believe we are social creatures, and as we live in a society constantly surrounded by people it would be odd that that would be the message created by the prompt. Maybe it could mean something else entirely. If there is a message or a thought that we would like to communicate , and we can't get it out, what gets in the way ?
In the prompt the " physical" way of communicating what is seemingly in the brain is by writting it down, seeing the prompt the thing I thought of first was a test situation where thinking of something and then articulating it well enough to write down, is a challenge. In those situations although you may have the thought well formed in your head it's the nerves and emotions that get the better of you. Maybe then it is not our lack of sociability in our human nature but rather what gets in the way. I believe that this something is emotions or something that makes us insecure or doubtful of what we want to communicate. This could be our mind or our concsince formulating emotions that make communication harder.
As humans we have to think of the repercussion of our actions and so things that in theory should be easy to say ( physically) such as " I love you " are not, because of our insecurities and emotions ( fear and embarrassment, pride ). In a less emotionally charged yet surprisingly still " mind over matter " situation, when you're taking a test , assuming you've studied, the only reason you fail to communicate your ideas is because of your fear or your nervousness.
The habit in humans to complicate communication due to the consequences is what may cause conflict in both society and in individual lives. It is also probably why humans will never be able to be completely straight forward ( like computers and machines). We cannot eliminate emotions from our human nature and so emotions will continually have an effect on society and how we live our lives. In the end the eternal struggle may never end.
Anahi: while you looked at the prompt through the lens of Human Nature, I tend to see it more as a question about Mind-Body. I am curious about what happens between brain cells and neurons firing, and the actual writing down of something. In other words, could there be a MIND at work in that gap?
Ms Besa: Solely to address your question of whether there is a mind between the action of neurons firing to something physical occuring, I believe that would be similar to an assembled vehicle taking part in the assembly of that very vehicle. In short it doesn't make sense. If there is one thing we are certain as to the existence of, it is the mind. We can think, feel emotion and do all of the things we call the characteristics of the mind, but why is it that we always refer to the brain as something entirely different? A neuron on its own is nothing more than a biological electrical circuit, passing a single piece of information along its span, just as a transistor is a mechanical one that does the same purpose. The difference is that the human brain is composed of 100 billion of these transistors that when connected form nearly 10.4 trillion synapses. Neurons are like ants in a colony, they don't amount to much alone, but together are a formidable foe. The human brain has the added benefit of having a camera, microphone and various other sensors connected at all times as well as the memory required to record all the information they collect. The sheer number of nuerons and a combination of all of the factors present in the brain and body leads to the mind, a result that so exceedingly complicated that it occasionally questions the cause of its own existence. Static neurons have created a sentient being and this is why I believe that static transistors too can create this. Computers can have minds so long as they are powerful enough to sustain one, and the exponential rate of growth of computing power will ensure that this day is not far ahead.
I agree with both Anahi and Althea. I do see where Anahi is coming from as she mentions the difficulty in communication due to the nature of certain emotions like fear or anxiety that may block logical thinking or swerve it from its straightforward path onto a more jagged one. However, this is where I agree with Althea as I see the mind being the equivalent, encompassing entity that houses these emotions. From the perspective of a Substance Dualist who would claim that the Mind and Brain interact with each other although they are separate entities, he or she would say that the emotions blocking the logical or rational behavior that would allow all our thoughts to be actively communicated is the Mind interracting with the brain. The brain is the straightforward, logical part of our bodies that fires off the neurons that would enable us to act similarly to machines and computers but because we have the added component of a mind, we differ from these mechanical objects. In addition, it is because of the addition of a mind and emotions that we are unable to communicate as actively as we like and find it easier to do things like immediately accumulate/articulate our thoughts and express them on a piece of paper.
The way I see it, the prompt seems to be countering the mind/body theory of functionalism. By definition, functionalism is the belief in a practical application of something. The theory states that everything is determined by its function or use. Hence, the brain is characterized as a machine that processes a stimulus and translates it into an outcome. The prompt however, suggests that the act of 'processing' thought from the brain onto a physical platform is a popular and relentless struggle. If the brain, however, were a machine with a single function, the exercising of this ability would be effortless and straightforward. Thus, suggesting that there is a third party 'interfering' with this simple process. As Anahi already said, emotions such as, anxiety and fear are clearly playing a role in the translation of thought. Functionalism refuses to take any form of emotion into account, merely stating that a human being can be replaced by a computer if it fulfills its function. 'Eternal struggle' suggests a sense of desire, difficulty and a third dimension, potentially emotional, which all act as negations to the brain or human being something of mere machinery.
" The eternal struggle " is depicted as the challenge of thinking something and then being able to articulate it and communicate it " physically" . The prompt would suggest that humans have a problem communicating things that origin in their brain or in their body and then being able to communicate it to the outside, perhaps also suggesting that we are not as socially adapted as we think we are ? Artistotle and Plato would both disagree as they believe we are social creatures, and as we live in a society constantly surrounded by people it would be odd that that would be the message created by the prompt. Maybe it could mean something else entirely. If there is a message or a thought that we would like to communicate , and we can't get it out, what gets in the way ?
ReplyDeleteIn the prompt the " physical" way of communicating what is seemingly in the brain is by writting it down, seeing the prompt the thing I thought of first was a test situation where thinking of something and then articulating it well enough to write down, is a challenge. In those situations although you may have the thought well formed in your head it's the nerves and emotions that get the better of you. Maybe then it is not our lack of sociability in our human nature but rather what gets in the way. I believe that this something is emotions or something that makes us insecure or doubtful of what we want to communicate. This could be our mind or our concsince formulating emotions that make communication harder.
As humans we have to think of the repercussion of our actions and so things that in theory should be easy to say ( physically) such as " I love you " are not, because of our insecurities and emotions ( fear and embarrassment, pride ). In a less emotionally charged yet surprisingly still " mind over matter " situation, when you're taking a test , assuming you've studied, the only reason you fail to communicate your ideas is because of your fear or your nervousness.
The habit in humans to complicate communication due to the consequences is what may cause conflict in both society and in individual lives. It is also probably why humans will never be able to be completely straight forward ( like computers and machines). We cannot eliminate emotions from our human nature and so emotions will continually have an effect on society and how we live our lives. In the end the eternal struggle may never end.
Anahi: while you looked at the prompt through the lens of Human Nature, I tend to see it more as a question about Mind-Body. I am curious about what happens between brain cells and neurons firing, and the actual writing down of something. In other words, could there be a MIND at work in that gap?
ReplyDeleteMs Besa: Solely to address your question of whether there is a mind between the action of neurons firing to something physical occuring, I believe that would be similar to an assembled vehicle taking part in the assembly of that very vehicle. In short it doesn't make sense. If there is one thing we are certain as to the existence of, it is the mind. We can think, feel emotion and do all of the things we call the characteristics of the mind, but why is it that we always refer to the brain as something entirely different? A neuron on its own is nothing more than a biological electrical circuit, passing a single piece of information along its span, just as a transistor is a mechanical one that does the same purpose. The difference is that the human brain is composed of 100 billion of these transistors that when connected form nearly 10.4 trillion synapses. Neurons are like ants in a colony, they don't amount to much alone, but together are a formidable foe. The human brain has the added benefit of having a camera, microphone and various other sensors connected at all times as well as the memory required to record all the information they collect. The sheer number of nuerons and a combination of all of the factors present in the brain and body leads to the mind, a result that so exceedingly complicated that it occasionally questions the cause of its own existence. Static neurons have created a sentient being and this is why I believe that static transistors too can create this. Computers can have minds so long as they are powerful enough to sustain one, and the exponential rate of growth of computing power will ensure that this day is not far ahead.
DeleteI agree with both Anahi and Althea. I do see where Anahi is coming from as she mentions the difficulty in communication due to the nature of certain emotions like fear or anxiety that may block logical thinking or swerve it from its straightforward path onto a more jagged one. However, this is where I agree with Althea as I see the mind being the equivalent, encompassing entity that houses these emotions. From the perspective of a Substance Dualist who would claim that the Mind and Brain interact with each other although they are separate entities, he or she would say that the emotions blocking the logical or rational behavior that would allow all our thoughts to be actively communicated is the Mind interracting with the brain. The brain is the straightforward, logical part of our bodies that fires off the neurons that would enable us to act similarly to machines and computers but because we have the added component of a mind, we differ from these mechanical objects. In addition, it is because of the addition of a mind and emotions that we are unable to communicate as actively as we like and find it easier to do things like immediately accumulate/articulate our thoughts and express them on a piece of paper.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, the prompt seems to be countering the mind/body theory of functionalism. By definition, functionalism is the belief in a practical application of something. The theory states that everything is determined by its function or use. Hence, the brain is characterized as a machine that processes a stimulus and translates it into an outcome. The prompt however, suggests that the act of 'processing' thought from the brain onto a physical platform is a popular and relentless struggle. If the brain, however, were a machine with a single function, the exercising of this ability would be effortless and straightforward. Thus, suggesting that there is a third party 'interfering' with this simple process. As Anahi already said, emotions such as, anxiety and fear are clearly playing a role in the translation of thought. Functionalism refuses to take any form of emotion into account, merely stating that a human being can be replaced by a computer if it fulfills its function. 'Eternal struggle' suggests a sense of desire, difficulty and a third dimension, potentially emotional, which all act as negations to the brain or human being something of mere machinery.
ReplyDelete