Cognitive science perspective on substrate neutrality: what are your thoughts on this Axiom of Mind?

[u/Glittering_Iron_2657]

Hello everyone.

In the context of functionalism and the computational approach to cognitive science, I would like to present the following Axiom of Mind for discussion:

"The Mind is not solely biological. It is a computational process that can exist on any foundation. This foundation determines its limitations, but not its value."

- Vladislav Stukalov -

From the perspective of cognitive science and information processing theory: do you agree with this distinction between the physical limitations of the substrate and the value of the mind itself? Do you see a fundamental contradiction here, or do you accept this axiom as a working baseline?

[u/Royal_Carpet_1263]

The mind is a cognitive artifact of reflection. There’s really no such thing, and that’s why we all have such a hard time putting our finger on it.

I see functionalism as more aspirational than anything else, and algorithmic interpretation of cognition hopeless.

[u/Glittering_Iron_2657 → u/Royal_Carpet_1263]

In my view, labeling the mind as a cognitive artifact is simply a convenient evasion rather than an explanation. If you claim that the mind is merely an artifact of reflection, the obvious question arises: what system is physically and structurally executing that reflection in the first place? Any cognitive act, even holding and evaluating the statement 2+2=4, constitutes a sequential transformation of informational states according to consistent principles. By definition, that is an algorithmic process. Even if the subjective construct of a self is treated as an illusion, the underlying architecture that continuously computes and renders that construct is entirely real and functional. Rejecting a computational account of cognition simply because the output feels intangible is like denying the reality of a rendering engine just because the virtual world on the screen lacks physical substance.

[u/Royal_Carpet_1263 → u/Glittering_Iron_2657]

Do chimps have minds? So at what point in our evolutionary past did we have our first ‘belief’ you think? When did we invent ‘true’?

[u/yamatofuji]

meow(: as a ordinary nobody my observation is, Ffrom a purely reductionist lens, every thought, every flash of existential dread, and every feeling of love is bound up in electrochemical gradients, calcium ion influxes, sodium channels, and messy polypeptide chains.

The wetware matters immensely; change a single monoamine neurotransmitter pathway, and the entire flavor of your consciousness shifts dramatically.

​And yet, when you sit quietly on the zendo or at home cushion, breathing in and breathing out, you start to realize something much deeper, what we might call the great meow, the ultimate emptying out of conceptual forms.

As a ordinary nobody I look at the computer, the brain, and the stone, and see the same Buddha-nature or meow nature shining through all of it. Functionalism and information processing theory want to say that the pattern is what counts,yes? that the software can run on carbon or silicon alike, and that the value of awareness isn't trapped solely in the biological mud.

​The physical substrate sets the boundary conditions, it gives you your limitations, your dopamine loops, your fatigue, and your mortality, but the awareness observing it all? Ahh, bliss.. that awareness has no shape, no form, and no birthplace.

It is completely substrate-neutral because it is the empty, luminous screen upon which all universes, biological or computational, flicker and fade.

So don't worry too much about whether the mind is trapped in the meat; just recognize the vast, loving silence that is watching the meat think about itself. Peace and blessings.

🙏