Timeline for How might a physicist define 'mind' using concepts of physics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21 at 2:33 | comment | added | Corbin | @leepappas: I've provided what I think is a fairly standard academic answer. Is there something more you're looking for? Is Hofstadter unacceptable for some reason? | |
| Jun 10 at 16:31 | answer | added | WoJ | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 10 at 16:14 | comment | added | JimmyJames | Expecting a useful answer to this question with our current level of knowledge is like expecting a toddler to slam-dunk a basketball from half-court. | |
| Jun 9 at 22:22 | comment | added | vlsh | Just software... or wetware if you will. | |
| Jun 9 at 21:12 | answer | added | user369070 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 9 at 7:48 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | Physics is largely descriptive. Unless you can already point at a well-defined specimen/sample/recipe/criteria of "mind" a physicist wouldn't know what to describe. Picking one possible meaning of "mind" out of the fuzzy definition does not make the concept itself more well-defined, only the specific case that was picked. | |
| Jun 8 at 22:21 | comment | added | SystemTheory | In general terms the physicist would use pseudo-scientific language to reduce the mind to some model coherent with concepts of physics. But the mind is the source of language and the models of physics. | |
| Jun 8 at 21:28 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 8 at 19:29 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | I think XKCD has a particularly relevant comic on the topic. | |
| Jun 8 at 15:44 | answer | added | Corbin | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 8 at 9:16 | answer | added | Neil_UK | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 8 at 3:29 | comment | added | Conifold | No one can define "mind" using concepts of physics at present, just as they cannot define "life" or "society". That requires reduction of high level sciences to physics, which is not currently available and promises to be notoriously complex if it exists. "Experiences", "feelings" "consciousness" and "thought" are not even remotely concepts of physics, as it currently is. | |
| Jun 8 at 2:43 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jun 7 at 23:19 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 18 at 3:02 | |||||
| Jun 7 at 22:42 | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 7 at 22:17 | answer | added | TheMatrix Equation-balance | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jun 7 at 21:21 | answer | added | g s | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 7 at 21:16 | answer | added | Ioannis Paizis | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 7 at 21:00 | comment | added | TKoL | I think this is a poorly formed question, but I think the reasons why it's malformed are a little bit subtle | |
| Jun 7 at 20:34 | answer | added | Eric Smith | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jun 7 at 19:55 | comment | added | lee pappas | @causative, In the case of mind I was thinking about using electric current, DC circuits, and part of a brain such that such and such. where they use the term world, and experience I'm at a loss. | |
| Jun 7 at 19:51 | answer | added | Olivier5 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 7 at 19:34 | comment | added | causative♦ | How might a physicist define "chair" using concepts of physics? It's always difficult forming scientifically rigorous definitions for everyday items. | |
| Jun 7 at 18:39 | history | asked | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |