Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
When Cozmo gets together with his robot buddies and they invent a religion to give meaning to their place in the universe, then I'll have to agree that robot minds and human minds are not so far apart.
Their behavior already looks close to human.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
No doubt they still have distance to travel.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
It apparently never occurred to Dingus that awareness might not be a classical phenomenon, ergo there IS NO definition of the kind he insists we don't know.
of course, it might be...
What we have here seems to be a cadre of people holing onto the philosophical belief that awareness MUST be a phenomenon that lends itself to a classical causal definition, and that if you can't furnish one, you simply don't know. That is, you go into the investigation with assumptions that have to be met.
interesting rhetorical flourish to turn a "might be" into a cadre of people stating that it "MUST be a phenomenon that lends itself to a classical causal definition..."
The point being that you haven't anything to bring to the table that addresses this issue, and more over, you cannot bring anything to the table, you just don't know.
And this is your point, which is as valid a criticism of your position as it is to that cadre's... whoever they may be.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: According to Polanyi, a great scientist ... who happens to have produced some work that MikeL agrees with and therefore can be considered a reputable expert, as opposed to those who have produced work that MikeL does not agree with...
1. I simply reported he was a polymath. He was recognized in different fields by peers. The Nobels of his students and son indicate something.
2. Your characterization can reasonably be applied to any recognized work and to any reference of any recognized work.
3. I never said Polyani was “a great scientist.” However, he seems to have been a seminal thinker who suggested that we know more than we can say. THAT might answer DMT’s complaint and claim that since Largo cannot say what awareness is in terms that satisfy DMT, then he must not know it.
4. What is YOUR contribution to this conversation about awareness other than a snarky criticism of my chosen reference?
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Their behavior already looks close to human.
Cozmo said "uh-oh" when it got tipped over. That was cute.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
From what I read, Cozmo has been made to show emotions. The tricks and the talent behind the robot are the same as have been applied to hugely successful animated films to make the characters come alive.
It is fascinating how readily children will attribute an inner life to dolls, pets, imaginary companions, and cute robots. Adults are tempted to do it, too. There is something about our minds that responds to this kind of illusion.
It should make you wonder whether the inner life you experience in your own heads is playing tricks on you.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Cozmo has been made to show emotions.
Programmed artificial sterile dead emotions, not real life type from a living entity.
Just keep eating dead plastic food you make in your sterile factory and you'll be nourished ... rolls eyes .....
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
It should make you wonder whether the inner life you experience in your own heads is playing tricks on you.
ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
MikeL, I quoted what you posted... maybe you should review that post.
As for my contributions, aside from being snarky, I did link to the Fodor interview which I found quite interesting if for no other reason that Fodor essentially said that the whole business was far from being understood.
He avoided discussions about consciousness because he "didn't have anything new to contribute." After 18498 (and counting) posts to this thread there is very little new I have to add.
My snarky-ness has to do with the fact that everyone else here has mostly been rehashing what they have said, elements of which all show up in Fodor's interview.
Perhaps you missed that, or perhaps you have reason not to listen to it. I even bought Fodor's explanation why philosophers have anything to say at all on the subject.
Fodor even discusses the original OP question of whether science provides an appropriate avenue for understanding mind, provides a thought that there are phenomena which are "mysterious" and may be inappropriate for scientific discussion, that consciousness and all that may be a perceptual illusion, that considering psychological phenomena must likely be at a "messo-level" physically (not at the microscopic level of fundamental particles), and any number of topics touched upon in this thread. He mentions Hume and Kant et al., and Dennett, and stakes out his own territory. Woven in there is the observation that science is unlikely to provide any solace to those who seek more personal understanding.
And the interviewer managed to cover it all in less than a half an hour, less time then just viewing every page of this thread without clicking on any of the links.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ
alas there is no modern Delphi, we are left on our own to find a way
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: I quoted what you posted... maybe you should review that post.
Wow, Ed, I just did. Yikes! You’ve taken the words out of context. The complete sentence in the post does not say that Polyani IS a great scientist, but says what Polyani *says* is a great scientist. Here it is:
According to Polanyi, a great scientist not only identifies patterns, but also chooses significant questions likely to lead to a successful resolution.
The rest of your response seems to suggest that I’m using Polyani as a basis for proof. I wasn’t. I was providing a better articulation than I could write about what Polyani had to say.
My snarky-ness has to do with the fact that everyone else here has mostly been rehashing what they have said, elements of which all show up in Fodor's interview.
Ed, one could say that same thing for writing in the journals. Should we be snarky about them, too? Perhaps your experience is different than mine, but in 35 years of teaching, I found that folks often require repeated declarations, especially naive and novice subjects. Very often they also need various and different kinds of explanations or descriptions to apprehend notions. Perhaps you’re hanging out with much smarter and experienced people. In every event, patience can be helpful.
Fodor has his views, and I somewhat remember that we studied some of what he had to say in a “knowledge representation” seminar I was a part of in grad school. I seem to remember that he strongly favored a computational view of cognitive representations. I can tell you that there were other cognitive scientists who had other ideas, and as far as I’m concerned, the “embodied cognition” folks have better ideas and approaches to understanding knowledge representation. (But, it’s only my opinion.) Fodor *was* an important seminal thinker, IMO.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Thanks for the link, Jan. I wonder if we have any number theorists on ST?
Ed: My snarky-ness has to do with the fact that everyone else here has mostly been rehashing what they have said, elements of which all show up in Fodor's interview
MikeL: Ed, one could say that same thing for writing in the journals
You may simply be pointing out a huge difference between science and social science. For instance, articles in math journals simply rehashing what 'they have said'? Ridiculous.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
jgill,
It’s a matter of perspective and detail (and the expertise to distinguish the difference). What looks to be a world of difference to your mind might look like the same old sh* t to someone else.
I should take offense at your characterization of social science, but I will assume that you can’t distinguish the difference.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
I should take offense at your characterization of social science
Actually, it's your characterization since it's coming from your perspective and your experiences. You attempted to paint all journals with the same brush.
Never mind, it's a minor point compared to the 18K posts on this thread and the conflicting beliefs of some of the posters (me and JL included).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
the conflicting beliefs
Beliefs are ultimately useless.
Beliefs are basically mental speculations, which means one ultimately doesn't know.
There should absolute facts.
The absolute fact is the living entity is never material nor has it ever been material nor will it ever be material.
The material energies are only the coverings of the living entity .....
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
I just had a beer-infused insight for a new angle for this thread. What if we introduced the SAT-type pattern of a is to b as x is to y? Maybe we could flush out Largo's meaning of awareness in this way. For instance, I would say that this would basically be true, Awareness is to consciousness like the all-electric car is to car. Hey so, why don't you give it a go, Largo?
Edit: The thing about the all-electric car is that it is a car but with changes from the original car; it is a descendant of the original car.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Empty awareness is to consciousness as the aether is to neurons.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Great story, Jan. Thanks for posting.
I'd been wondering about
Shinichi Mochizuki
and how his work is considered, now, for the last couple years.
He said, about the difficulty mathematicians were having understanding his proof, "You have to first re-wire your brain."
Nice to see him mentioned in your link.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Thanks Jan. Cool stuff about "What is "Mind?"". When I was a graduate student, Witten's work (looking for a geometry of string theory) was all the rage, so the link between mathematics and (theoretical) physics doesn't seem so strange to me. In their search, the physicists developed something called "mirror symmetry", that the mathematicians didn't understand. The physicists could use mirror symmetry to count rational curves on geometrical objects called Calabi-Yau manifolds (considered a difficult problem in enumerative geometry). The funny thing is that some of the physicist's results disagreed with published results by mathematicians that were based on rigorous algorithms and fed into computers. Well it turns out the physicists, using their unrigorous and physically-based ideas were actually correct in their calculation. On checking, the mathematicians found errors in their code.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
per Largo,
the root of awareness we feel comes from the subconscious -- prove me wrong?
Hence, in my investigations I can easily see and experience that whether in meditation or wakefulness conscious awareness is merely a feeling added to the root awareness which arises out of the subconscious. This relationship has been stated by Damasio as conscious awareness is the feeling of knowing a feeling.
This condition/scenario is Damasio's axiom? What are Largo's axioms?Largo has not given me any legitimate argument against it for a rebuttal but merely rambled endlessly on the particular attachment he has to his ideas. Largo's axiom likely is that his 1st person account is as science? is valid. I say hogwash ......... Suchness as it may be in the world of samsara.
PSP
Buddhism calls this being attached to feelings.
As you step back from the feelings you arrive at a place where your POV is not attached to the thinking or feelings.
Here we see part of the Zen/Buddhism narrative that for 3100 years has advanced the science of mind no further into what is mind.
As you step back per PSP the last feeling is the awareness feeling and when this goes you are likely either asleep, dreaming, anesthetized or maybe intensely focused? I add intensely focused, experientially, because this condition of brain use is much different than meditation and when I am for example skiing moguls non stop the feeling of awareness vanishes as I am stuck in a task where I must let the subconscious perform the flow of muscle work. Absolutely no disturbing feelings arise while this muscle work is happening, almost all of which I have little or no awareness of in the conscious awareness experience sense. This state of mind has been called Flow.
Powerful therapy and opposite of meditation therapy in that it occurs while in action. Largo try getting into flow -- you will have to rid of the Lard. And get this: my experience while in Flow, Which is not Buddhism, holds equally valid 1st person experience of mind and awareness as you get of awareness while sitting. So Largo, go F*#k yourself and your cling-some ideas as I also have 1st person experience. You and the Buddhists have no monopoly on the rightness of 1st person experience.
Largo,
because his basic premise about awareness being a feeling is flat wrong
Largo's quote expresses an attachment to one's belief. From the Buddhist narrative we hear attachments keep one from becoming enlightened. But ask me if I care? I will take Flow over Enlightenment.
In case this article has not been posted on this site. I came across this link post suggested by Mark de force,
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3247680
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!