Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2016 - 03:18pm PT
|
I consider it fundamental to all inquiring minds to ask ontological questions: What the hell IS that? Followed by functional questions: How does that work? How does this apparent object or phenomenon interact with the rest of reality?
I inquire: why do you concern yourself with what you call Hard AI?
If you consider it to be impossible, why do you bother to discuss it?
In what way does it interact with your reality?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2016 - 07:29pm PT
|
Doesn't this arise from the same impulse to wonder about that boson over there?
perhaps, but I know a lot about bosons, and physical theories... if you are asking me about experiences it isn't at all clear what physical question you are asking, if you are asking one at all.
But the point was, you are asking a question, and that question, if it about my "first person experience yada yada yada" is one I cannot answer, let alone in a way that you would understand.
However, we could agree that your third person account of your experience is similar to my third person account of the experience. Likely, we wouldn't discuss any of the ontological issues (what is experience?) but descriptions of "content."
Your witness compared to my witness.
A scientific description of a boson provides all the information for anyone to go and "see" the boson, the very same boson, and describe its attributes, which everyone "sees" as the same. The prescription for evoking the boson works everytime for everyone.
When a boson behaves differently than expected, we ascribe that to some physical cause, and we study that and eventually understand it, expanding our notions of that particular boson and its interactions with the physical universe.
That is an objective universe. It's not about "witnessing".
The subjective universe is mine alone, you have yours.
When we get together and talk about it, we might agree on the similarities of those two subjective universes, but suddenly this starts to sound "objective" that is something common to the two of us are not ours alone, but some property of us two...
...so we can go and talk to someone else and maybe find commonality, bootstrapping the agreement, and finding those agreements describing a more "objective" thing than was there before.
What parts are left in disagreement could very well be mine alone...
perhaps the "talking" has a lot to do with it.
I have to admit to a fear of getting the apostrophes wrong, what with all the grammar shaming that is coming from some thread participants... and punctuation was never, ever my strong suit.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2016 - 07:44pm PT
|
DMT: There are many things, events, situations where gaining sufficient clarity short of 100% is absolutely vital. There's a tiger in the tall grass logic. Run, NOW!
. . . always with the evolution metaphor that begs the question. Everything gets explained by survival of the fittest. It’s how and why anything happens. *Because* this or that helps improve specie survival, it self-validates by putting effect in front of cause. Ugh.
Try that approach on issues of poverty, world peace, climate change, how to create jobs in a declining economy, health care, etc. Put the effect before the cause. Prove a line of action that you believe is unavoidable. There is never “sufficient clarity” that stipulates vital assessments and decisions. It only seems that way, in your mind.
If you know what “degrees of freedom” are, then you can start looking at what must be impossible to reign in the probabilities for you to say anything. In brief: way too many things can happen / show up / exist. Approximations (instinct, emotional, narrative, and now metric science) are the loosest approximations. “It’s what works!”
There you go. You have explanation on your side, but you can’t say what you’re explaining.
I say there is nothing that needs explaining. Really. It just doesn’t matter.
Ed: if you are asking me about experiences it isn't at all clear what physical question you are asking, if you are asking one at all.
Oh, come on, Ed. You can help a guy out. It’s not his field. You know what he’s saying, don’t you?
(The rest of what you wrote was good for me.)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2016 - 07:53pm PT
|
I say there is nothing that needs explaining.
We agree. Please explain nothing.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 29, 2016 - 08:46pm PT
|
That is an objective universe. It's not about "witnessing".
Name a single external object that has never been witnessed, including witnessing the results of instrumental output for that we cannot witness directly, or implied through the witnessing and measuring of other witnessed phenomenon.
One of the snafus of postulating a supposedly mind-independent world "out there" is the fact that each designated thing was know only through witnessing. An unwitnessed thing is an unknown thing, or is implied or surmised through the witnessing of a related, and witnesses, phenomenon.
Through the belief in so called mind independent objects, or a stand alone objective world, some come to consider mind driven by the same belief, and set up a straw man argument that mind, if "real," should be object independent. Ergo duality.
My sense of it is that the objective and subjective realms are inextricably bound, and it is impossible to render one in strictly the others terms or form. Hard AI or artificial brain technology seeks to somehow translate the 1st person into 3rd person form, then out put it back into the original dual form. This is only a goal based on the belief that the fundamentally, the 3rd person IS a 1st person phenomenon, that awareness in just machine registration with a side order of complexity. When you delve into AI with the hard questions, you start seeing the difficulties.
And MH2 I've been digging into AI for several reason. One, a proper study of mind requires it. Two, it's fascinating. And three, I'm doing a long form writing project involving some hard AI. Here's the set up:
By 2026, most people are listed, hot-linked to the internet.
Implants digitize thoughts and affect, routing them through the worldwide web. All knowledge is instantly accessible, every person a thought away. Speaking becomes optional.
Advances in quantum medicine and artificial intelligence promise immortality within a decade - the Phoenix Point, when an individual's memories and habits can be downloaded into a succession of young clones.
People cling to life. All risk is avoided. Full emersion, virtual reality aps largely replace the dangers of direct experience. Virtual cocaine and acrobatic sex - all you want for $200 a month.
But as "safe and cyber" becomes habit, suicide rates soar - till the FCC authorizes Scenarios, dangerous, sometimes fatal adventure aps enacted by a small, outlaw cast of Actuals who by choice lived unlisted and off line.
The average life span of an Actual is 3 years.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2016 - 08:59pm PT
|
ah yes, but witnessing is not the same thing as observing or measuring, certainly not used in the same way.
Witnessing brings in a person who sees something happen, and similarly, the testimony of someone who saw something happen... in both cases, the veracity of the witness depends on their reliability, their trustworthiness.
In that sense, "witness" has a lot to do with our experience, and the description of that experience, and our oath that it is truthful.
That's not how a measurement or a observation, at least in science, is made. The veracity of the measurement has to do with the ability to repeat it independently, in an "objective" manner.
Witnessing is subjective... one witnesses miracles, and provides testimony of such, we don't measure miracles, nor do we observe them.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 07:47am PT
|
...perhaps, but I know a lot about bosons, and physical theories... if you are asking me about experiences it isn't at all clear what physical question you are asking, if you are asking one at all.
The question is really simple: what is it like to be anything? What is mind where that experience of what it is to be any individual/thing exists? This is a question that presently confounds science and yet has infinite potential ramifications for our place and meaning in the universe.The question itself dissuades me from the notion of humanity's accidental and insignificant role in the structure of existence and may, as well, be the single most important question we can possibly ask. The source of consciousness, like life, must be written in to the very structure of the universe, a universe that reveals itself as an elegant structured thing, and has manifested itself in us and that's a damned mysterious and strange affair. Who wouldn't wonder about/question it? Maybe, not certainly, but just maybe, all this stuff we're doing here with our consciousness on planet Earth is meaningful in a way we don't quite grasp yet.
As for grammar shaming, I only mentioned the apostrophe in response to the citation
shaming. I thought it was ironic and funny: apparently it wasn't.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 08:23am PT
|
I hadn't noticed your comment regarding grammar... citations allow all of us to consider the source.
What is mind where that experience of what it is to be any individua/thingl [sic] exists? This is a question that presently confounds science...
why is this a question for science? One can easily ask all sorts of questions and claim they are "irresolvable" by science, and in fact, scientists do it all the time.
Current scientific theories of life do not depend on élan vital, what is this thing called life then? where does it reside? what is it?
Similarly, we can make the statement that "mind" is what the brain does... there is no thing of mind independent of brain, the set of behaviors that we recognize and bundle under the definition for "mind" are not the same thing that we perceive to be the monolithic experience of life, that experience being an approximation to what is...
and then "what is"?
On that we can get together to agree, in consensus, but not just through testimony of our individual witness, but by measuring and predicting in such a manner that anyone could do the same.
Clearly the meaning of it all, our role in the universe, our "purpose" are not scientific questions to be answered. Your answer could be different from mine, and both are our testimony of what we have witnessed, but they are not science.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 08:48am PT
|
Somehow the “What is Mind?” thread gets entangled with the “Science versus Religion” thread.
Supposedly the three pillars of wisdom (what is true? what is beautiful? what is right?) need to be integrated or connected to one another, lest we become groundless, biased, alienated, lost, disconnected from one another, life, and reality (as impossible as that really sounds). Saying that “it’s not science,” or “it’s not meaningful,” or “it’s not aesthetically pleasing or elegant,” “it’s not human” or the like ignore the other pillars of wisdom and tend to elevate / dominate one view over another. Somehow we tend to miss the bigger pictures in our discussions and arguments about what’s what, what’s happening, and the meaning of it all.
Kaplan wrote of economics: “Economics has its place—just not the whole place, please.” The same could be said for any of the pillars of wisdom.
I was trying to make a similar point when I distinguished between what could be described or labelled as “spiritual” versus “soul,” the mundane versus the supra-mundane. Zen, more than most traditions IMO, seems to have found an integration between spirit and soul with its penchant for simply “chopping wood and carrying water.” “Just work. Just be. There’s nothing special going on.” One of Zen’s defining characteristics could be its apparent distain for conceptual analysis and talking about things.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 09:13am PT
|
Similarly, we can make the statement that "mind" is what the brain does... there is no thing of mind independent of brain, the set of behaviors that we recognize and bundle under the definition for "mind" are not the same thing that we perceive to be the monolithic experience of life, that experience being an approximation to what is...
Yes, mind is what the brain does in the same manner that light is what the light bulb does, but light has properties disassociated from the structure of the bulb and mind seems to manifest itself in a variety of forms in a variety of life forms and there are those in science who see/ have postulated consciousness as an underlying characteristic of the universe.
That mind experience stands outside the purview of science seems a little silly. The issue is that understanding what that experience is may change the viewpoint of those like some who see humanity as essentially a bit of evolutionary mold on a tiny dust speck in a vast and violent universe.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 09:27am PT
|
Good one DMT!
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 30, 2016 - 01:01pm PT
|
ah yes, but witnessing is not the same thing as observing or measuring, certainly not used in the same way.
Witnessing brings in a person who sees something happen, and similarly, the testimony of someone who saw something happen... in both cases, the veracity of the witness depends on their reliability, their trustworthiness.
In that sense, "witness" has a lot to do with our experience, and the description of that experience, and our oath that it is truthful.
Not so, Ed. For instance, in meditation, witnessing and observing are used in the same way. The stuff or content of consciousness is considered by all esoteric schools to be illusory insofar that it has no independent or stand alone nature. That includes whatever you may think or feel or sense about any thing. All of these feeling etc. are ephemeral and impermanent.
You are using witnessing in the sense that through this action a person is trying to do science without instruments, meaning the purpose of your witnessing is to answer a functional question. And in that regards, your instruments are a more reliable measuring tool then trying to do without them. And through this process of observing and noting qualitative results arrived at through instrumentation (there is no "data" sans observing), you are able to make a prediction.
Of course none of this process is done sans observer, so the idea that what is "out there," which you come to know through observation, is somehow sans observer, is a nonsense answer. You have simply arrived at a method of avoiding subjective content from coloring your view of whatever you are observing, but in no way have you eliminated the observer from the exercise. The fact that an observer can predict the movement of energy "out there" in a very circumscribed way does not somehow disprove or eliminate the observer. The instruments don't make the predictions, the observer does, or something programmed by the observer, and what that serves up is not data till it is observed.
And this: The set of behaviors that we recognize and bundle under the definition for "mind."
This is a strictly functionalistic take on mind. Mind as a function of brain. In that limited sense Ed is implying that the strictly functional aspects of mind must at bottom be entirely mechanical and predictable, that is: 3rd person phenomenon. You have attempted to excise out the "what is it like" aspect claiming that we cannot or you cannot talk about that (your own words). What you really mean is that you cannot measure it by traditional methods. But you are entirely mistaken in the claim that we cannot talk about mind in intelligent ways that are universally real.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 01:24pm PT
|
"Witnessing" from a Buddhist perspective requires letting go of your attachment to all things so you have no distraction and from that comes no separation with the moment. You are completely there. similar if not the same thing as mindfulness. If you have attachment to anger or desire it is not possible to fully witness (be there) till you let them go. that is where the practice comes in. Seeing the attachments and then letting them go. Here is a quick snippet about witnessing retreats per Bernie glassman. http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/04/what-isembearing-witnessemfrom-a-buddhist-perspective/
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 03:46pm PT
|
Paul, I suppose this has a little to do with mind:
Metamorphosis
What do you think of this? I'm not able to appreciate modern art, I know, but the practice described here seems atrocious to me. The original paintings are delightful, but slapping paint haphazardly over them seems criminal. Just curious.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 04:03pm PT
|
Regarding Metamorphosis: I'm reminded of a moment back in the 1950s when the stylistic dominance of Willem de Kooning was inescapable in the art world and a then very young Robert Rauschenberg went to de Kooning's studio and requested a small drawing which de Kooning, in an effort to support young artists, agreed to. Rauschenberg took the drawing back to his studio and erased it except for de Kooning's signature and then displayed the erased but signed drawing with the title of Erased drawing by Willem de Kooning by Robert Rauschenberg. As a declaration of freedom from stylistic dominance it was a remarkably ironic and brilliant move. This other stuff just seems ridiculous to me, at least at first glance.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 06:36pm PT
|
I like the paintovers.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 06:54pm PT
|
Thanks, JL.
I have new respect for your interest in mind and brain.
I wish the writing project well and you have the chops.
If this kind of thing comes about:
Implants digitize thoughts and affect, routing them through the worldwide web. All knowledge is instantly accessible, every person a thought away. Speaking becomes optional.
it sounds like individual personality could become obsolete.
Could you find yourself in a situation where individual minds merge into a whole, rather like the cells of your body cooperating and doing things and having capabilities which none of the individual cells are aware of or capable of?
You may be aware of Michael Swanick's Vaccuum Flowers from 1987.
Here is part of a Michael Swanick answer to a question about the book:
On the whole, the book was my response to a lot of thinking in the cognitive sciences at the time, particularly Minsky's "society of the mind," suggesting that the self doesn't exist and that identity is a lot more fluid than previously thought. But I'm afraid I can't give you citations for any of it.
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/auth/squalidansw.html
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 08:01pm PT
|
I read about the Blue Brain Project and it seems like a respectable effort, if a bit far-fetched. I still cannot find any info on the Meta Mind Project which apparently is proceeding shrouded in great secrecy.
Computer scientists, neuroscientists, bio-engineers, biophysicists, experimental psychologists and other similar experts have the greatest chance of unraveling the mysteries of mind and consciousness. I don't think philosophy is a promising approach.
This leaves Dennett in the impossible position of accepting the experiential verity of 1st person phenomenon, but denying the "reality" of same because it is not a 3rd person phenomenon
And I wonder about statements like this. If Dennett is so vulnerable in his basic tenet how is it he still has followers and still produces philosophical publications? Do philosophers have no shame?
I like the paintovers
Big surprise.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 10:34pm PT
|
The question is really simple: what is it like to be anything?
Tchooo.
As a man of action and not an armchair speculator, I have of course tied on a blindfold and run around catching moths in my mouth once I tuned in to the little noises they make. And I slept hanging by my feet.
Now I learn that trying to know what it is like to be a bat is only the beginning.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!