Have any of you'all heard of this? The philosophy of extended mind addresses the minds interaction with the environment and where the boundary between the two exists.
http://consc.net/papers/extended.html (http://consc.net/papers/extended.html)
I understand that consciousness actually extends to the limit of our sensory systems (and not just located in our brains) but I hadn't considered that, for example, a notebook as an external store of memory could be considered a part of that.
Was just thinking that this is similar to RAW's ideas about the brain's software being non-local.
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2009, 02:03:32 PM
Have any of you'all heard of this? The philosophy of extended mind addresses the minds interaction with the environment and where the boundary between the two exists.
http://consc.net/papers/extended.html (http://consc.net/papers/extended.html)
I understand that consciousness actually extends to the limit of our sensory systems (and not just located in our brains) but I hadn't considered that, for example, a notebook as an external store of memory could be considered a part of that.
Over the last few years I've been increasingly aware that Google is part of my extended mind. There are things I don't bother remembering any more, because I know I can access the details almost instantly. I think this allows me work through certain types of problems faster than some of my older colleagues, although it's an abysmally poor method when an internet connection is not available, and I expect it doesn't have as much value in other fields. However, since we're trending towards being an always-online society, it seems worth the risk.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm referring to items which I would have previously memorised by rote, and in some cases had already done before allowing the biological memory to lapse - e.g. ideal implementations for certain design patterns, or standard library function parameters. Rather than the ability to use the internet to gather new information, which lies outside the scope of the paper.
i heard this concept used to describe driving a car. i.e. when you want to go left, you don't think to yourself, "turn wheel slightly counter clockwise," you simply think, "go left" - so the car becomes less a machine you control and more an extension of yourself.
Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 03:01:04 PM
i heard this concept used to describe driving a car. i.e. when you want to go left, you don't think to yourself, "turn wheel slightly counter clockwise," you simply think, "go left" - so the car becomes less a machine you control and more an extension of yourself.
I think that may be more along the lines of this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227145.300-brain-sees-tools-as-limb-extension.html
the door swings both ways?
Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
the door swings both ways?
Maybe - it's certainly tempting to wonder if they are both examples of a singular mechanism, by which the mind naturally extends itself outside the body. But I really don't know enough about any of the fields involved to go any further than layman speculation.
why don't you ask your brain?
(not trying to be a prick, i have this obsessive compulsion to tell jokes, and it was the best thing i could come up with after i gave up on trying to use the phrase "half a mind")
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 06, 2009, 03:33:11 PM
But I really don't know enough about any of the fields involved to go any further than layman speculation.
When it comes to consciousness study at that level of emergence, most people are just making it up as they go. What separates the layman from the expert is jargon. Otherwise everyone is at the same level of exploration.
Mental masturbation, the lot of it. :wink:
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2009, 05:43:56 PM
Mental masturbation, the lot of it. :wink:
(http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/spiff_bucket/brain1_small.gif) :1fap:
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 06, 2009, 05:51:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2009, 05:43:56 PM
Mental masturbation, the lot of it. :wink:
(http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/spiff_bucket/brain1_small.gif) :1fap:
:horrormirth:?
ecological psychology ftw
I just wanted to link to a favorite essay on transhumanism Trans-simianism (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/2181/) by Aaron Diaz / Dresden Codak.
I know I certainly hold with the extended mind theory - when people ask if I know some obscure bit of physics or other science, I respond "Let me see if I remember" and go check Wikipedia.
Question: If Wikipedia is part of my extended, external memory, then are the Wikipedia editors part of my extended decision making and cognitive apparatus?
Gods, I hope not.
The paper is blocked at work :sad:
General thoughts on it though, I use, and consider tools like my computers or phone extensions of my Central Nervous System (CNS). The interface may be physical, but I'm using them to perform functions, store data, and sort info more quickly and easily than the meat brain portion could.
Do we (and if so WHERE do we) draw the line between our consciouness / CNS and other's when dealing with shared information in a social setting?
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 06, 2009, 03:33:11 PM
Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
the door swings both ways?
Maybe - it's certainly tempting to wonder if they are both examples of a singular mechanism, by which the mind naturally extends itself outside the body.
I dislike the idea of calling it a mechanism. This is the realm of things like phenomenology...You won't find any "moving parts" that mechanically do what you're describing.
But sure, the identification of a tool as part of your limb and "interfacing" with a car such that it becomes an extension of yourself are both examples of
transparency. That is, neither case requires deliberate reflection, and neither is intuitively grasped in a reductionistic fashion.
Quote from: Anton on September 09, 2009, 08:44:10 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 06, 2009, 03:33:11 PM
Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
the door swings both ways?
Maybe - it's certainly tempting to wonder if they are both examples of a singular mechanism, by which the mind naturally extends itself outside the body.
I dislike the idea of calling it a mechanism. This is the realm of things like phenomenology...You won't find any "moving parts" that mechanically do what you're describing.
But sure, the identification of a tool as part of your limb and "interfacing" with a car such that it becomes an extension of yourself are both examples of transparency. That is, neither case requires deliberate reflection, and neither is intuitively grasped in a reductionistic fashion.
Emergence ftw.
Quote from: Richter on September 09, 2009, 05:44:24 PM
General thoughts on it though, I use, and consider tools like my computers or phone extensions of my Central Nervous System (CNS). The interface may be physical, but I'm using them to perform functions, store data, and sort info more quickly and easily than the meat brain portion could.
Do we (and if so WHERE do we) draw the line between our consciouness / CNS and other's when dealing with shared information in a social setting?
I'd take the traditional transhumanist viewpoint and say that the distinction is arbitrary. We deal with groupings of units of similar size in biology (Kai, if I make any huge mistakes here, correct me because I'm no biologist) -- cells get together to form tissues, tissues get together to form organs, organs get together to form systems, systems get together to form people, and people (eventually) get together to form civilizations. The distinction between something made of cells (us) and something not made of cells but necessary for our functioning as a society-unit (computers and telephones, to some extent, and to a greater extent eyeglasses and pens) is also arbitrary because the division is based on 1) if it is made of cells, and 2) whether or not it can be detached from us. Someone else can use my pen, but probably not my arm. My laptop is a grey area, and if I had a wetwire into the internets, the implanted BCI hardware would be probably closer in 'me'-ness to my arm than my pen.
I'd argue for a model where we talk about people-units, non-person units, and some units that move between people or carry information between people and/or non-person units.
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2009, 02:03:32 PM
I understand that consciousness actually extends to the limit of our sensory systems (and not just located in our brains)
What exactly do you mean here?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 10, 2009, 01:11:15 AM
I'd argue for a model where we talk about people-units, non-person units, and some units that move between people or carry information between people and/or non-person units.
I like your cells / body analogy for the concept. Hard for us as the "cells" to understand the total shape and function of the collective pseudoconscious that our various interacting information creates though.
I'd also include some consideration for different communication methods and venues with however it's discussed, myself. Same way that not all cells have direct address to a blood vessel or lymph node, not all people can read, will watch TV, or use the internet.
Comparing the general vs. controlled distributions in both situations is intersting too.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 10, 2009, 07:01:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2009, 02:03:32 PM
I understand that consciousness actually extends to the limit of our sensory systems (and not just located in our brains)
What exactly do you mean here?
Kai could explain in more detail, but I've got a few ideas. Think about phantom limbs, or how various stimulation to the vagus nerve can affect mood.
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2009, 02:03:32 PM
I understand that consciousness actually extends to the limit of our sensory systems (and not just located in our brains)
Beyond that, even, because we can grasp certain things beyond the scope of our sensory systems (but not beyond the scope of perception).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 10, 2009, 07:01:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2009, 02:03:32 PM
I understand that consciousness actually extends to the limit of our sensory systems (and not just located in our brains)
What exactly do you mean here?
Our consciousness is a product of our whole neural/sensory network, and since that network is located throughout our bodies, consciousness extends that far, and doesn't just sit up in our heads. In other words, your consciousness is in your hands and feet, because your neural network is in your hands and feet too. Nothing metaphysical to it. In fact, you can understand this connection deeper by just focusing on that part of your body. It IS very easy to loose sight of this, since four out of five senses are confined to the head area.
Quote from: Anton on September 10, 2009, 02:13:42 PM
Beyond that, even, because we can grasp certain things beyond the scope of our sensory systems (but not beyond the scope of perception).
I wasn't quite willing to go that far.
Quote from: Kai on September 10, 2009, 02:18:35 PM
I wasn't quite willing to go that far.
I don't mean supernatural powers or anything, I'm just talking about the way we have a sense (not as in detection, but as in lingering awareness) of the space around us, even in areas momentarily outside our field of vision.
Quote from: Anton on September 10, 2009, 10:37:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 10, 2009, 02:18:35 PM
I wasn't quite willing to go that far.
I don't mean supernatural powers or anything, I'm just talking about the way we have a sense (not as in detection, but as in lingering awareness) of the space around us, even in areas momentarily outside our field of vision.
I guess that must be what some psychologists mean by "the skin and slightly beyond" that they add on to the end of the rest of it. You're right, we do have an internal sense of space, based on all the senses put together, of airspace and boundaries, and also by mental imaging.