Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 11, 2017 - 08:43am PT
|
Dingus: Probably good stuff in debate class. But out here in lala land my iPhone can detect and understand semantics.
Healje says:
Largo: Put differently, information is the value a conscious mind can extract from data.
Actually, it is the subconscious mind that does almost all that value extraction / creation. By the time you're conscious mind gets the information it has already been extracted and assembled from the data, monitored for threats and dangerous environmental conditions, and more or less fully contextualized and associated with existing information - all by the subconscious...
...with no subjective experience or involvement by your conscious mind - how can that possibly be (inquiring minds and all)?
-----
Both of these speculations strive to preserve the belief in an observer-independent process whereby "understanding" is gauged by the appropriateness of the output. That is, both Healje and Dingus are building a case for a purely mechanical zombie, based on the long-ago scraped behavioralist model (revised into functionalism). But in this case, the zombie does not merely register an input and respond with an output determined by a program or algorithm designed by a conscious observer, rather the zombie now "understands" what the input means.
Rather than bicker over terms and definitions, it might do well for both Dingus and Healje to try and differentiate between the process of a syntactic engine like the motion sensor (programmed by a conscious observer) in my backyard that can register an input (movement) and switch on a light, and a conscious person who sees movement and flips on the light.
One (the sensor) is lacking what the other (human) has - conscious understanding of what "movement" means. Both Healyje and Dingus are trying to ascribe "understanding" by virtue of a so-called 3rd person objective evaluation based on what a sensor or an iPhone DOES - that is, by virtue of a physical process we can get hold of by way of sense data. In this way they can crow hop over the internal conscious process through which humans understand anything.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2017 - 09:08am PT
|
Call out the intimacy police! DMT is getting semantic with his iPhone!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2017 - 09:58am PT
|
Way to look into this stuff, Yanqui. First of all, it does seem likely that the marine altruism is mainly learned. Kin selection does a better job of explaining tribalism. As far as this
As an aside comment, E.O Wilson believes groups play a role in the evolutionary scheme of things, and Dawkins denies this (only genes, says Dawkins). Personally, I don't see any reason to accept one over the other or even to deny the possibility that both might play a role. There just doesn't seem to be enough testable evidence in any of this to make any kind of reasonable decision. I've read quite a bit about this, mainly from Dawkins, but also from Wilson and some other researchers. It is a difficult but interesting subject. The question amounts to who is driving? There are three possibilities; the gene (actually collections of genes), the organism, or the group. The analysis involves a lot of game theory. As you say, it may well be that all three could play a role. It's been a while since I really studied the arguments, but I was convinced that group selection, while it sounds plausible, is not likely be a major driver in evolution -- at least the evolution of humans.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 11, 2017 - 10:58am PT
|
Missed this whopper:
Largo, do you get it? At 7 bits conscious awareness can not do shite of the task you artitraily assign to it. Get a clue?
---
You are making a rookie mistake there, amigo, by conflating awareness with processing. That's what we call the processing trance.
We're not talking about the data that the brain unconsciously processes in order to generate an automatic response (which happens all day every day), rather the fact that we are AWARE of reality as it unfolds, and that this awareness leads to understanding which influences and guides our decisions - to lesser or greater degrees.
So far as getting a clue - perhaps this will help you flush out your blind spot per the active force of being aware.
Imagine yourself in a class room that is being taught by Wallace Stevens, who is talking about poetry. Is your understanding enhanced by being aware of Stevens? By paying attention to Stevens? By remaining consciously focused on what Stevens is saying? Or could your brain automatically process the inputs (Steven's drift) just as well and in the same manner if you were fiddling with yoru iPhone or dozing off.
In the above scenario, what is awareness/attention/focus achieving that would not otherwise be happening without them?
Again, awareness is not processing. You could only arrive at such a conclusion by looking at a computer model of awareness, or deriving your misunderstanding of awareness by contrasting it with machine registration, how a machine intakes data and stimulus. One thing for certain is your notions about awareness are not derived from investigating awareness itself.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2017 - 12:12pm PT
|
That's what we call the processing trance
The Royal "We" no doubt.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2017 - 12:18pm PT
|
Largo,
DMT mentions: the old motion sensor detector.
A detector is worthless without actuators.
external and going internal: The cochlear implant replaces a person's non functioning hearing organ of the ear and hooks to the nerves leading to sound signal receiving part of the brain.
You now can get analog sound waves converted to the mind's "digital" signal processing recognition format with this device for deaf people whose cochlea has quit working. The external device is located next to the ear lobe and has a group of wires that goes into the head. The wires from this A to D converter hook to 22 nerves that the cochlea has used to send an iconic form of sound signals to the brain.
The brain use icons to represent things not things in themselves to store info. It is layers upon layers of icons. No fascination here with conscious awareness -- it slows down my thinking and is unnecessary.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2017 - 12:41pm PT
|
laro: That is, both Healje and Dingus are building a case for a purely mechanical zombie...
I'm not building 'a case' for anything, but rather simply stating the facts of the matter that your conscious mind benefits from the massive amount of work done by the subconscious. Work done without any conscious experience or participation. And let's be excruciatingly clear - we're not talking zombies here, philosophical, mechanical or otherwise - you'd literally have no subjective experience at all without the continuous external and internal contextualization and integration provided to your conscious mind by the subconscious. None, zip, nada.
But I do get that the subconscious mind is highly problematic to your your binary philosophical logic which dictates there can be nothing between the extremes of machine and mind.
yanqui: As an aside comment, E.O Wilson believes groups play a role in the evolutionary scheme of things
Newly discovered brain network offers clues to social cognition
Most intriguingly, the team discovered that additional areas of the brain, far removed from those face- and body-selective areas, also lit up in response to social interactions. Digging deeper, the researchers even identified a portion of the network that responded exclusively to social interactions, remaining nearly silent in their absence.
"That was both unexpected and mind-boggling," says Freiwald, who explains that no other study has shown evidence of a network in the brain going dark when denied its preferred input.
This socially sensitive network is located in the same areas of the brain that are associated with theory of mind in humans -- areas that are similarly activated only when we reflect on the thoughts of others.
As a result, says Sliwa, it could represent an "evolutionary precursor" to the neural network that produces theory of mind in our own brains. And we humans, in turn, might not be quite as unique -- or as far removed from our primate cousins -- as we like to think.
The real rationale for magical "dude, where's my mind?" thinking...
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2017 - 05:25pm PT
|
Bvb's death got me thinking even more strongly in the direction of minds, not mind, Bvb's was a particular mind, never to be experienced again.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2017 - 05:47pm PT
|
A short story on Marines.
The Combat Center in 29 bussed 100 Marines over to clear litter from 640 acres here in JT.
I saw one Marine standing to the side. Something painful both to see and painful to be, so I went over and said, "There isn't one of you guys I would choose to have a serious discussion with."
His reply?
"Tell me about it."
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2017 - 06:45am PT
|
Healyje has said what I feel, too. For Largo the discussion must break down to light sensor switch versus human consciousness. If there is a middle ground, that would threaten the uniqueness of the human mind.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2017 - 03:00pm PT
|
For anyone who doubts the intimate connections between brain and mind:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/health/brain-memory-dementia-epilepsy-treatments.html
"Experts said the new report gives scientists a needed blueprint for so-called closed-loop cognitive stimulation: implanted electrodes that both monitor the functional state of memory areas, moment to moment, and deliver pulses only in the very microseconds when they’re helpful. The hope is that such sensitive, timed implants could bolster thinking and memory in a range of conditions, including Alzheimer’s and other dementias, as well as deficits from brain injury."
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2017 - 04:51pm PT
|
MH2 wrote
Healyje has said what I feel, too. For Largo the discussion must break down to light sensor switch versus human consciousness. If there is a middle ground, that would threaten the uniqueness of the human mind.
Something rather interesting about the light switch is that it is a tool, designed by humans, and can be considered an extended phenotype (as opposed to a genotype or 'regular' phenotype like a nose) of the human species. A classic example of extended phenotype is the dam built by beavers. It is as much an expression of what it is to be a beaver as their big front teeth. The 'extended' prefix means that it is something projected into the world outside of the actual body of the organism. Come to think of it, the Anthropocene might be as good and comprehensive a summary of humans' extended phenotype as any other term I can think of.
So, although, on one hand, it would be nonsensical to put a light switch and a human on a continuous evolutionary path (as opposed to a light-sensitive organism and a human), if you broaden your definitions a little bit, you could conceivably have a "continuous" path from light-sensitive organism to light switch.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2017 - 04:55pm PT
|
Alzheimer’s comes from all the poisons you stoopid scientists invented to make our so called lives better.
Same with cancer,
Then you tax the poor people with astronomical medical bills and astronomical research bills to figure out which poisons you invented are killing everything in sight.
What a fuking joke .....
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2017 - 05:35pm PT
|
Werner, why would God create us humans with such inquisitive minds only to condemn them for that very inquisitiveness?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2017 - 06:13pm PT
|
Why would god create such a miserable being?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2017 - 08:57pm PT
|
Why would God create men who dominate a forum?
Well, it's obvious: to irritate women.
;>)
(What do you think of the new TNT series "Will", Sycorax?)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2017 - 10:08pm PT
|
The Bots beat us. Now What?
'...These twin pillars of intellectual competition — chess and Go — aren’t the only games that have appeared in the crosshairs of the engineers, of course. Checkers, Othello, Connect-Four, backgammon, Scrabble, shogi, Chinese chess and poker have all been the subject of serious computer scientific study. Human intelligence is no match for the artificial kind in any of them anymore. This is partially thanks to advances in the theory of AI...
...“In certain kinds of positions, the computer sees so deeply that it plays like God,” Kasparov said...
...Every single computer scientist who works on games whom I’ve ever spoken to has uttered to me, often with a twinge of contrition, the phrase “test bed.” It’s not about the game, man, it’s about what comes next...'
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2017 - 04:24am PT
|
The discussion in the link from Ed's reference is interesting:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-forget-humans-created-the-computer-program-that-can-beat-humans-at-go/
Andy: AlphaGo is a creation of humans, but the way it plays Go is not.
Matt: The point that I think is important is that AlphaGo plays Go differently than we do. I think that in general, the natural domains of competence of man and machines are different, which is good news for both of us. Only games appear (currently) to be approximately equally amenable to both sets of skills.
In relation to It’s not about the game, man, it’s about what comes next:
Jonathan: Yes, the research in this area will not GO away. The next “big” AI challenge is to build a general game player. This program would take the rules of a game, go off and learn, and then come back and play at a high level of skill. There already is an annual competition in this area. This is an application where the AlphaGo technology might excel.
After some more discussion about how Alpha go works, they get on to creativity:
Oliver: One thing here really interests me, and I’m hoping y’all can help me understand it. There seem to be some really deep philosophical — or at least linguistic — issues swirling around here. AlphaGo has been called creative, especially after a rare move it made in Game 2. But we don’t really mean creative, do we? What do we mean when we call a computer creative?
Matt: I don’t know if that is a meaningful question. I think that creative means, “If a human did this, it would be an indication that the human was likely to do interesting and surprising things in the future.” I think that calling a computer program creative may be sort of meaningless.
Jonathan: Computers are not “creative.” They maximize some numeric function. Calling a computer creative is a form of anthropomorphism.
Matt: That AlphaGo is doing interesting things when playing Go is no indication at all that it will do anything interesting in any other domain.
David: Of course it is unlikely that AlphaGo will do much of anything else well. It was trained to do this one thing.
Later on:
David: The media seem to want this to be “man vs. machine,” a big theme since John Henry, and the result is eventually always the same. What the media misses is the people driven to build and improve the machine until it is our new workhorse. The machine is helping itself learn, but it is still people who build and program it.
The closing comment:
David: It should not be about being better than any machine out there. It is all the things Andy said and the willingness to open up your mind and have some fun. I doubt that AlphaGo has any real fun.
Also, the guy who wrote the article Ed linked, wrote an article related to the field of math that is my specialty (in particular about difficulties with media attention over the Atlas Project). In case anyone wants to see something about group representations:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/math-has-no-god-particle/
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!