Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 02:37pm PT
|
Well if you've gots another credible happenstance candidate, other than 4000 gods floating on the Ganges, then I'm all ears.
The point is not the reality of evolution. The point is extrapolating from that the unimportance of human existence. Reread please. Oh the illusion of low hanging fruit.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 15, 2017 - 02:52pm PT
|
I am in awe of consciousness, and have been since the start of my scientific career, it is an amazing natural phenomenon, and like all those things in nature, a result of natural processes.
----
What this says to me is the belief that a mechanism, the brain, itself evolved from "natural" (determined, mechanistic) forces, "created" awareness and consciousness. Pretty standard physicalism, which is pretty famous as a typically entrenched POV by most true believers.
Trying to expand a physicalist's data base beyond his mechanisms (not my intention but we his Homeric resistance is there for all to see) is like trying to talk a monkey out of the banana he clutches in his hands. It's what he has. It's what he knows. And apparently he can know no other, no matter the man his own experience delivers to his very feet - if he'd only shut up, stop calculating for a sec, and look carefully at how he or she goes about the business of living. Asking the question: How does this consciousness play in this world of ours.
I think an homage to the God-like computer is telling. Because someone seems to only see a world of laws and mechanistic outputs, which are fully determined, so a game like chess, governed by proscribed rules (laws) represents a kind of computator's Holy Land, and the genius machine who "plays" chess and "sees" into it so deeply, is the Savior our Lord. Tastes differ ...
But the sad part is that many such folk - often razor sharp and scientifically educated - tend to believe that the mechanistic - sans observer - take on consciousness is not only the sole, verifiable take on sentience, but that everyone should - or better yet, would - share this philosophical belief if they only had the wherewital to fathom the calculations.
It's worth noting that every example that Ed has furnished has the aspect of a task you might feed to your laptop, have it crunch the data
in real time (if your are driving or playing a game), and spit out a determined output(s). Sure, the way ahead is not determined before other machines or physical objects/forces blindly and mechanically do their bidness, block the path of the robotic lander, or move a Queen on a board divided up like an X/Y axis. But the decisions are fully determined.
Problem is that life is not a task. No body knows exactly where they are going and the laws change and morph as we go. As we go, if we watch carefully, we'll slowly see a few things. First, how much we ARE determined. Second, we can eventually see how awareness and consciousness skillfully work the determined deck of options in a task this is in perpetual revision, and where working on autopilot will never get you far.
In light of this, it might be interesting to know what are Ed and other's take on the question I've asked many times - without answer.
What is the difference between the conscious process of a person, and the processing of a machine?
And what can the machine do that the conscious human can never do (or do comparatively poorly), and vice versa.
In terms of a task that has to be done, how does your own conscious process differ from that of the most advanced computer in the world.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 02:55pm PT
|
that human achievement is but the happenstance of evolutionary processes
So am I to conclude that the author of the above finds evolution a palatable idea but not the tracing of human achievement to evolution?
And I hope you did not think I regarded your entire post as low hanging fruit-- I only considered the bit about Rousseau as such.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 03:06pm PT
|
So am I to conclude that the author of the above finds evolution a palatable idea but not the tracing of human achievement to evolution?
"that human achievement is but the happenstance of evolutionary processes and will eventually vanish as impotent and inconsequential"
This was the sentence. Again, the problem is not evolution but evolution as a device for discrediting human achievement. You assume too much.
Well then let's take the bit about Rousseau: I didn't credit him with saying the ideas I mentioned, I suggested they had his taint: the superiority of natural man, the corruption of civilization, etc. Had he lived long enough to read Darwin I'd speculate he would have been enthralled.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 03:50pm PT
|
the superiority of natural man, the corruption of civilization, etc. Had he lived long enough to read Darwin I'd speculate he would have been enthralled.
Now look who is assuming too much. Privately, as an intellectual, Rousseau might have been a bit gobsmacked by a detailed description of evolutionary processes and the theory in general. But publicly he most assuredly would have been highly defensive to say the least; due to the fact that it would have represented quite a challenge to integrate his insincere romanticism with Darwin's relatively inflexible (empirically-based) ideas.
Again, Rousseau was a brilliant parlor trickster who appealed to a thin veneer of aristocratic dowagers in powder-wigged 18th century Europe. His ideas survived him primarily because they offered a bit of a refuge from the turmoil of the industrial revolution and its aftermath into the current era.
Moreover there were plenty of Rousseau adherents still scrounging around during Darwin's time and no visible attempts were made to hijack Darwin's ideas in order to add a new luster to the old noble savage. Instead we got the incipient stirrings of Social Darwinism which clearly bares no facial resemblance to Rousseau's ideas.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 04:10pm PT
|
which clearly bares no facial resemblance to Rousseau's ideas.
Perhaps not, but the worship of nature sure does. A worship that touches, at least on this thread, the clarity of science.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 05:28pm PT
|
I feel all warm and fuzzy with Ed back with some meat. Damn, like Ward Trotter's last post too!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 05:44pm PT
|
How does mass outweigh rarity with regard to importance. What is more rarer in this solar system than awareness? The galaxy? The universe? Affordable insurance. And, as a nod to sycorax, shouldn't that be just "rare".
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 06:16pm PT
|
I feel all warm and fuzzy with Ed back
Ed is a huge part of what makes this thread interesting.
Damn, like Ward Trotter's last post too!
I agree! This post seems, well, different from the other posts I've seen from Ward Trotter and exhibits an unexpected (by me) cultural savvy.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 06:27pm PT
|
What is the difference between the conscious process of a person, and the processing of a machine?
When you are mathematician, or perhaps a game player, or someone organizing a specific event, then perhaps you will consciously try to process information, much like a machine. As I mathematician, I've had to do this from time to time (but so not often as some people might think). Beyond that, I don't think anyone really knows the answer to your question.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 06:44pm PT
|
What is the difference between the conscious process of a person, and the processing of a machine?
The person's conscious process includes biochemical algorithms -- emotions and such -- that are acting in concert with the information processing and that are associated with that process. The information is almost always accessed and stored with this emotional content. Even I, cultural philistine that I am, often find myself crying when the fat lady sings. Or, say, when I hear the first line of Neil Young's Expecting to Fly.
A man (or woman) and a robot walk into a movie theater and watch Old Yeller. I'm thinking that they will have quite different experiences.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 07:02pm PT
|
Affordable insurance. And, as a nod to sycorax, shouldn't that be just "rare".
Whoa! you're right. You should give up your job as minion for becoming an editor.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 07:05pm PT
|
Aw shucks Paul, I feel more like a responsible citizen.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 07:29pm PT
|
I agree! This post seems, well, different from the other posts I've seen from Ward Trotter and exhibits an unexpected (by me) cultural savvy.
It's winter down yonder in Argentina. Take every opportunity to increase sun exposure in order to maximize dopamine/melatonin production and you'll begin to notice even more wonderful things.
Perhaps not, but the worship of nature sure does
The worship of nature? Where?
Wha? Wha?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 07:36pm PT
|
What is the difference between the conscious process of a person, and the processing of a machine?
A machine has no soul.
It is stoopid and static.
The living entity is fully dynamic and has transcendental capabilities, although the gross materialists never use their transcendental capabilities.
The gross materialists are in concrete sinking in quicksand while blathering they are advancing .......
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 07:43pm PT
|
What is the difference between the conscious process of a person, and the processing of a human?
Well for one thing humans are carbon-based and machines are based upon other elements, like silicon.( and others).
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 07:44pm PT
|
As much as many on this thread seem to have a distaste for the computer metaphor, I find it absolutely fascinating how reality can be approximated with stuff I do every day in the course of doing my job.
For instance, I find it easy to imagine a link between the purely information processing part of an algorithm and a flesh-and-blood object that has emotional and historical attachments to the algorithm. It all comes back to the flesh-and-blood organism having a personal history that it is invested in and a goal, which is basically to live. That is what sets it (us) apart from a machine, in my opinion.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 07:46pm PT
|
Ward
You didn't describe one thing about consciousness.
All you did is described the stoopid static machine.
This shows you are clueless and on top of it can't read.
You people are stuck on the machine and the material body and are clueless to the living being itself.
We are NOT the hardware ......
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 07:50pm PT
|
Prove my statement wrong Werner. Just the statement , nothing more nor less.
I have not stated that the soul does not exist, nor have I refuted your beliefs.
One is carbon-based and the other is not. Period.
Consciousness on planet Earth expresses itself through carbon-based structures. It has chosen that element, or that element has chosen it. Either way it is carbon-based.
Machines are created by carbon-based man. We have chosen other elements to structure our machines.
I regard this as introductory consciousness . Consciousness 101.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2017 - 09:24pm PT
|
Ok .... good job ward, very good .....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!