Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
don't make fun of word games Woah man! I was a philosophy major. At one time word games were my forte, my raison d' etre. Take two ontological arguments, add one cosmological argument. mix in a transcendental deduction and serve that up with a categorical imperative and you'll see just what I mean!
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Take two ontological arguments, add one cosmological argument. mix in a transcendental deduction and serve that up with a categorical imperative
fMRI has a ways to go before it catches up with you.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
Mikel
Again, what IS consciousness? Describe what it IS, not how it works. Anyone?
here is Giulio Tononi's description of what consciousness is about and how its workings arise from a purely physical system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
The ability to perform this jump from phenomenology to mechanism rests on IIT's assumption that if a conscious experience can be fully accounted for by an underlying physical system, then the properties of the physical system must be constrained by the properties of the experience.
there is a little math involved in this description
Christof Koch wrote the ScAm article about Making a consciousness meter. from the wiki: Neuroscientist Christof Koch, who has helped to develop the theory, has called IIT "the only really promising fundamental theory of consciousness".[13]
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
there is a little math involved in this description
The mathematics involved in working with the Phi function can be formidable, and intractable problems arise. Heuristic methods may find a way around those difficulties eventually. The whole concept seems a little spacey to me.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Again, the ability to experience and know are in fact behavioral capabilities - experiences and knowing are artifacts of exercising those capabilities and knowing and aspects of experiencing are in fact memorizing. If you're brain didn't 'memorize' an experience and what you took away from it then you would have no knowledge of the experience (and having knowledge of experience is an advanced behavior).
Again, you broaden the definition of behavior to an absurdity in that it, behavior, then applies to everything there is: the behavior of all things, but if behavior is all things then it is nothing. What in the universe is not behavior?
One can memorize what they don't know. Knowing is an epistemological issue and tied to the experience of realization. There is a unique gratification in knowing. I can memorize a sonnet by Shakespeare without knowing it and I can know that same sonnet without memorizing it. You over simplify the complexity of understanding and in doing so dismiss a remarkable human gift: the ability to know.
Really! If consciousness is sourced external to the brain then an unavoidable issue becomes exactly how does consciousness find brains? How does it inhabit brains? A
Consciousness finds the brain in the same way light emanates from a source of power. It doesn’t “find" anything it simply emanates from its source.
Well, I personally don't talk about limitless possibilities of [human] consciousness. That's because I believe our brains and subconscious / conscious minds are always optimizing for maximum efficiency with little to no unused capacity or capability
You may not talk about limitless capabilities, but the implication of a continuum of intelligence, which is exactly what we find here on earth, is exactly that. If there are creatures with less intelligence it seems appropriate, does it not, to speculate there are creatures with more. Science is already touting machines with more intelligence than humans, well, what is the limit of that intelligence and when or at what point does it reach the level of the divine?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Need to clarify the meaning of "voluntary" and "internal". Gets into a bit of a recursive definition.
Internal referring to a change in internal state. Voluntary as in say choosing between feeding or sex when the impetus for both are present.
...then I think Waymo self-driving vehicles meet the definition.
Automatons are driven by a code and basically represent artificial organisms operating on genome-based instinct. Re-run the identical scenario and you'll get identical behavior no matter how many times you run it.
We might come to realize that humans are more constrained rule-following machines than we like to acknowledge.
I would say all organisms display genomic- or epigenetic-based instinctive behavioral responses. But organisms displaying conscious behavior also have the ability to weigh and override some of those instinctive behaviors depending on both past outcomes and a risk/reward evaluation of available behavioral options. Fight-or-flight comes to mind in this regard as does suicide.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
If you are saying that science shouldn't even try to understand consciousness because, in your opinion, it is not a science question, well, you haven't provided any evidence to support your contention.
Well I didn't say that but you read what you want. I do think it's a science question, but as well and equally I think it's a philosophical question based on a careful examination of personal experience, and that there is validity/efficacy to that personal experience. I also think that the issue needs to be undertaken with a sense of the unique gift human consciousness is and the remarkable potential it offers.
You have only said what consciousness isn't, but offered nothing about what consciousness is... except to say it's a mystery.
Well if you know what it is and you've developed a testable theory of some sort there's some Scandinavian country that wants to offer you a prize: congratulations.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Automatons are driven by a code and basically represent artificial organisms operating on genome-based instinct. Re-run the identical scenario and you'll get identical behavior no matter how many times you run it.
Fascinating; I would never refer to my toaster as an "artificial organism" and what is a self driving car but a bit more complicated toaster. I swear, humanity is losing its mind. Is this how scientists talk? Artificial organism? Are you kidding?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Artificial organism? Are you kidding?
Simply a metaphor in the context of the part of this conversation that revolves around programmed (instinctive) vs. conscious behavior. Automatons do not exhibit conscious behavior.
What in the universe is not behavior?
If living organisms do it, then it's behavior. Something exhibiting behavior defines life - no behavior, no life.
One can memorize what they don't know. Knowing is an epistemological issue and tied to the experience of realization.
I would put it differently. You can persist what you can't contextualize. Knowing is successful contextualization.
You over simplify the complexity of understanding and in doing so dismiss a remarkable human gift: the ability to know.
I don't consider knowing a gift or a capability unique to humans; we just have a far greater capacity for contextualization.
Consciousness finds the brain in the same way light emanates from a source of power. It doesn’t “find" anything it simply emanates from its source.
So then you're agreeing the brain is the source of consciousness, but just by means of magic?
You may not talk about limitless capabilities, but the implication of a continuum of intelligence, which is exactly what we find here on earth, is exactly that. If there are creatures with less intelligence it seems appropriate, does it not, to speculate there are creatures with more.
Sure, but I personally suspect there are necessary limits to organic intelligence.
Science is already touting machines with more intelligence than humans, well, what is the limit of that intelligence and when or at what point does it reach the level of the divine?
This is again a case where the moniker 'artificial intelligence' is grossly unfortunate. It's not about 'intelligence', but rather machine learning: discovery, learning, retention, recall, repeatability and the resulting reliability over humans who are subject to numerous limitations and foibles computers aren't subject to. There is no sentient 'intelligence' or conscious behavior involved nor will there ever be.
Define 'divine'.
there are many interesting ideas regarding this issue of "qualia"...
I agree, but in the end throw my hat in the ring with those who believe it an unnecessary conceptual veil with little utility beyond raising the issue; that there is no hard problem.
And there is no qualia independent of physical systems processing and contextualizing a synthesis of past and and present sensory inputs and cognitive results. Further, the qualia of subjective experience only exist after substantial subconscious processing which produces contextualized qualia before it is delivered up to the conscious mind to experience. Language is a good example of this - when subjectively experiencing someone speaking the word 'red', your conscious mind isn't recognizing the sound of 'red' and then doing a search to contextualize it as meaning a color - that's all done under the hood. Ditto taste, smell, touch, etc. - the point being qualia are always the product of significant subconscious processing. I would argue that subconscious processing is happening by way of tissue-based processes in the brain. One could no doubt argue that there is no physical basis for the subconscious mind, but I suspect that argument would become problematic in a hurry.
[ P.S. I personally think of consciousness as a kind of standing wave of contextualization ]
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 07:39am PT
|
There is no sentient 'intelligence' or conscious behavior involved nor will there ever be.
What is the logical or physical barrier that machine learning cannot get past?
I may misunderstand your point, but it sounds far-seeing.
Although if I had been here at the time, and I were a science-fiction silicon-based intelligence, I might have concluded the same about the local biology of 3 billion years ago.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 08:14am PT
|
Simply a metaphor in the context of the part of this conversation that revolves around programmed (instinctive) vs. conscious behavior. Automatons do not exhibit conscious behavior.
A poor metaphor insofar as car parts are not living things. Like the “grossly unfortunate moniker” AI it implies a falsehood.
If living organisms do it, then it's behavior. Something exhibiting behavior defines life - no behavior, no life.
If only conscious behavior (human or living) defines life then instinctual behavior doesn’t? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth here. If programmed and instinctual behavior are the same then how is your toaster not a living thing?
I would put it differently. You can persist what you can't contextualize. Knowing is successful contextualization.
I don't consider knowing a gift or a capability unique to humans; we just have a far greater capacity for contextualization.
This is a remarkably anemic definition of knowing that completely ignores the natural, inherent gift of reason among other things. Is there knowledge outside sensory experience? If not what is the source of reason? When Socrates demonstrates the inherent knowledge of the Pythagorean Theory in a young boy who had never heard of such a thing, what does that mean?
“We just?” What is it in science that wants to diminish the unique gift that it is to be human?
So then you're agreeing the brain is the source of consciousness, but just by means of magic?
Magic? A gross/ridiculous assumption on your part. I suggested the ultimate source of consciousness is, as in the case of light, energy. Like light consciousness needs to be released/manifested but we think of it as a separate phenomenon in itself, appearing in a variety of complex ways.
Sure, but I personally suspect there are necessary limits to organic intelligence.
You can suspect anything you want but nevertheless the implication of a continuum of intelligence is a supreme intelligence. I know science wants to dismiss such a notion as woo or magic but that is the implication outside the realm of religious thought and science should consider it.
This is again a case where the moniker 'artificial intelligence' is grossly unfortunate. It's not about 'intelligence', but rather machine learning: discovery, learning, retention, recall, repeatability and the resulting reliability over humans who are subject to numerous limitations and foibles computers aren't subject to. There is no sentient 'intelligence' or conscious behavior involved nor will there ever be.
Define 'divine'.
Divine: in this context a metaphor for an ultimate intelligence having nothing to do with magic..
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 08:33am PT
|
Joe H -- I personally think of consciousness as a kind of standing wave of contextualization
100% proves you are totally clueless and to what consciousness is and are a total guesser all while making absolute claims earlier to "plants have no consciousness".
Thus proving you are insane ....
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 08:35am PT
|
This is again a case where the moniker 'artificial intelligence' is grossly unfortunate. It's not about 'intelligence', but rather machine learning: discovery, learning, retention, recall, repeatability and the resulting reliability over humans who are subject to numerous limitations and foibles computers aren't subject to. There is no sentient 'intelligence' or conscious behavior involved nor will there ever be.
From the wooist Healyje. Why it's almost magic.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 08:54am PT
|
This is again a case where the moniker 'artificial intelligence' is grossly unfortunate.
It's not about 'intelligence', but rather machine learning: discovery, learning, retention, recall, repeatability and the resulting reliability over humans who are subject to numerous limitations
and foibles computers aren't subject to.
There is no sentient 'intelligence' or conscious behavior involved nor will there ever be.
You have this one 100% correct and are NOT insane on this one :-)
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 08:59am PT
|
What is it in science that wants to diminish the unique gift that it is to be human?
There is no innate property in science that diminishes the unique gift of being human. If anything science illuminates what it is to be human in ways hitherto unrecognized and unknown.
The avowal that science can be somehow construed to stand in opposition to human uniqueness is born of a type of overwrought desperation and lack of knowledge; to say the least.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 09:33am PT
|
And this business of 'sentient intelligence' is wooburger stuff all the way.
NO, it isn't.
It is to YOU because you are ultimately clueless to what consciousness and sentience is.
YOU have no clue yet make st00pid mental claims (guessing) ......
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 09:39am PT
|
The avowal that science can somehow be construed to stand in opposition to human uniqueness is born of a type of overwrought desperation and lack of knowledge; to say the least.
Well it's certainly true that science as a discipline has no bias in this regard, but repeatedly on this thread that dismissal has been repeated by those advocating for science. Over wrought desperation and lack of knowledge are my middle names and I cherish them.
I think the dismissal of human cultural achievement and likewise what it is to be human which goes like this: we are but a product of accidents within the structure of evolutionary processes and no more than a temporary byproduct of that process and so what we achieve in this life is essentially meaningless, as the earth is but a dust speck in the infinite vastness of the universe and soon we will suffer the heat death and all our culture and achievement will vanish into the oblivion of nothingness, that is we really are insignificant and we should be aware of the insignificance of our position in context; this is a product of two things: the vestige of Christianity that declares the eternal as necessary to meaning and the Romanticism of nature worship that filled the vacancy of that defeated Christianity. And I say this with all the desperation and stupidity I can muster.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 09:45am PT
|
we are but a product of accidents within the structure of evolutionary processes and no more than a temporary byproduct of that process and so what we achieve in this life is essentially meaningless, as the earth is but a dust speck in the infinite vastness of the universe and soon we will suffer the heat death and all our culture and achievement will vanish into the oblivion of nothingness, that is we really are insignificant and we should be aware of the insignificance of our position in context You're finally beginning to make some sense of it all. I would only change the word "soon".
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 - 09:57am PT
|
Well it's certainly true that science as a discipline has no bias in this regard, but repeatedly on this thread that dismissal has been repeated by those advocating for science. Over wrought desperation and lack of knowledge are my middle names and I cherish
I thought this would be your position but nonetheless it would be better to make the necessary distinctions on behalf of clarity.
My middle name is also "lack of knowledge". Maybe we are distantly related? When "overwrought desperation" takes place is when maxing-out on a screamer runout lead trying to get the right piece of pro in. Unfortunately this is a circumstance I definitely cannot cherish, try as I might.
Okay I lied. It's momentarily forgetting the correct chord changes on stage in front of an audience.
Damn, come to think of it I got a lot of overwrought desperation in my life. No wonder I'm getting my ass kicked.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
ability to self-locate relative to the environment
Let us know!