I am not sure how we can talk about "what is a mind" unless we have some notion of what properties constitute "mind" and what "things" might possess it but then it is not so easy to decide what mind is or when and where mind exists? Is it?
I do think i have some
notion of mind-properties: it collects information about the world which it receives through some kind of sense; and then it thinks
about this data - judges how to behave, invents ideas and forms attidudes to these ideas, forms beliefs about the way the world is etc
I can only guess that mind exists in any thing that collects sense-data and has the ability to think about it. So on this basic, abstract, definition any 'living' organism has a mind (bar maybe viruses?). Rocks do not have minds because they cannot perceive anything at all.
Does not the concept of evolution of mind require that it come about gradually and over long periods of time? So when and where did the earliest and most primitive forms or properties of mind emerge in nature?
Yes to your first question but I don't quite see why that is a challenge to any of my assertions. To your second, I'm not a biologist but I thought I gave an abstract guess in my previous post.
Can you have a mind without perception? Without memory? What is "mind" anyway? What are the properties or functionalities that constitute mind? How can we decide what things have mind or primitive minds if we do not know what the properties of mind are?
No mind without perception; perception is the ability to recieve sense-data - and without sense-data a 'mind' would be empty; that is to say, it would be null:
equilivent to the empty set (= 0, of thoughts in this case) and so is absolutely nothing.
Memory is not required to fulfill my definition of mind that I'm kind of assuming now. Memory is required to think about the past, but a mind which only thinks about the present is still a mind.
As to what is mind and it's properties... I don't really know, that's the point of this thread - to investigate that very question.
And it's not necessary for one to explain precisely how to decide which things that he perceives have minds and which do not in order to define a mind. By a weak but relevent analogy: I have my own beliefs about what a moral person is and the way a moral person thinks etc,
but for the most part I cannot judge whether or not another
person is moral or immoral. This is because I'd need to know a lot about their reaction to various events and of their attitudes toward the world and themselves and others; and of course any moral judgement from a third-person viewpoint can only ever be intelligent guesswork. That does not, however, entail that I do not have such and such believe about moral properties (whether my beliefs are true or false).
Replace choice with some degree of freedom of response (non determinism) based on interiority or perception (non sensory)if you prefer.
I believe that all events can be explained in respect to previous physical states (i.e. in terms of structure, form and logic) and that includes my choices and willpower; so I am a determinist of sorts (modulo some quantum indeterminancy but even that 'indeterminany' can be explained physically - using the uncertainty principle - and modeled mathematically with complex numbers, so its not really an exception to my rule).
But I neither deny that conscious subjects like us can chose how to behave (and posit our own ends etc). Humans have more conscious choice than, say dogs and much more than pigeons (behave we can form much more precise judgements and use our language to carry ideas), bacterium probably have no consciousness and hence zero 'choice'.
I don't believe that there exists any
non-sensory perception (you can challenge me there if you want but I don't know how...).
Is your wife or you girlfriend an object or a subject? You probably attribute some degree of interiority similar to your own to that person? But on what basis do you do that? Measurment? Science? More I think analogy and communication? Do you have a pet a dog, a cat, do you view them as an object? It is not so simple to decide which "things" have mind and what you mean when you say something has a "mind".
I'm single (and age 18 but that's irrelevant), but I do have friends.
Yes I do attribute my currently believed properties of a subject to other people - that is precised why I call them people
and not things
(though they are things strictly speaking, the term person
is more respectable).
Yes I guess I do use analogy, but how do I know that that is valid? Analogies are an example of mere educated guesswork.
Just to save time, I am a panexperientialist, also known as a panpsychist; meaning I think mind in its most primitive properties and form is pervasive in nature. Mind all the way down, all the way to the core of reality.
I came across panpsychicism while reading David Chalmer's 'The Conscious Mind' (1996).
Just a question, do you agree you have a mind? Then does your brain, arm, foot and liver all have their own mind or is it united into your body, or further than your body? Does a table feel warn when I set my coffee on it?
I have to go school now. bye