davehora.com

Earlier today Dr. Paul Thagard gave a talk as part of Carnegie Mellon’s humanities lecture series, titled “Minds, Mechanics, and Computers.” My Philosophy of Mind class professor, Dr. Andy Norman, told our class about the talk yesterday, and seeing as it was pertinent to this class and my Cog Sci major I figured I’d attend. From the short bit of introductory email that I’d read about the talk, it was going to discuss some theories of mind, touch on some Cognitive Science topics, and then present an account for the mechanization of the mind.

At first entering I was surprised at how few people were there, but also at how I knew a large portion of the people as previous philosophy or psychology professors or just imporant people from around CMU philosophy and psychology. There were also a few graduate students and a couple undergrads like myself, we were the only ones not in suits or button downs. I guess my Snakes on a Plane shirt wasn’t the ideal choice here, but Dr. Norman got the joke, so all is well.

As the talk starts up, Dr. Thagard sets forth an outline of the talk, and gives a brief history of minds and a quick nod to previous theories, stuff that everyone there already knows. Most of it’s information that I’m even familiar with. Next up he talks about mechanization and a mechanistic account of a machine, as in that of a bicycle. The basic idea is that there are parts (hardware), relations (wheels connected to frame, etc), interaction (moving the chain will make the wheels move) and changes (pedaling to move the chain).

A bit later, he says that the mind operates on multiple levels that are important to us: molecular, neurological, psychological, and social. Combining the 4 basic parts of mechanistic representation of a system across the top (parts, relations, interactions, changes), and these four levels of mind across the left side, he creates a chart and shows what lies in each of these intersections of mechanization and mind functionality (e.g., on the neurological level under the parts heading is ‘neuron’). As it turns out, this is the basic account for the mechanization of the mind that he is trying to deliver. Also in support of his cause, he discusses repeatedly how with fMRI studies we’re now able to isolate areas in the brain for certain emotions and mental states - old news to me, and I’m not any further convinced that this means the mind is a machine, albeit a super-complex one.

He brings up a few slow-pitch arguments against the idea of a mechanized mind, and seemingly bats them out of the park with an authoritative tone and a wave of his hand. Perhaps it’s because my experience with the subject matter isn’t on par with the professors around, but I get confused: I expected an explanation of the idea of this mechanic account of mind, which occurred more or less, but also for evidence as to why this account is the correct one, of which I really see none. The professors in the room seem to understand the topic a bit better, as evidenced by well-constructed and insightful questions at the end of the lecture. And of course, I’m not trying to knock Dr. Thagard here, if you write that many papers I’ll grant that you probably know what you’re talking about.

Perhaps I expected too much or understood too little, but I’m not entirely clear on the the status of the mechanistic account of the mind. All I know is that the goal here is to try and be able to explain the mind in the same mechanistic terms that are used for describing the bicycle, and with the same clarity. I also wonder how consciousness would be accounted for, but I’m not sure if I’m thinking wrong in that it needs to be accounted for, since there was no mention of it in the lecture.

For my first lecture from a visiting professor I’m coming away with some confusion, and also a bit of regret… As I was walking away I saw them pulling out a few bottles of wine and possibly some snack food, I should’ve turned right around and went back to the reception. How expensive is professors’ wine? Do professors actually drink, or is the wine just for show? At least those questions have concrete answers, it’s just too bad I didn’t take the time to find them.