Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 08:26pm PT
|
that may have been operative at that time. If tests show a plausible connection between "C"
and the development of defensive modes among specie- maybe we have conclusion.
Conclusion? I gotta think before any defense systems were set up. Their was first some offenses. Like getting to know his own species. You know friends, and girl friends. And they prolly ate before they became aware of being eaten. I would use birds or wolves as an example.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 09:03pm PT
|
Whatever "C" is, it is something widely possessed. We have to await the tests to see if "C" is learned and when it is learned.
This is where the battles of the tongue start. Consciousness is fundamentally awareness of being alive. Ok? A baby is conscious. And i would say, a baby is already conscious of being a human being from the get go. At 52 I am conscious of living to a ripe ol age of 112. I can imagine that in my minds eye. But the fact is I'm only AWare of living 52 yrs. Babies are conscious of needing to eat. But they aren't aware of where it comes. At first they cry to get the boob. But after a year or two they start pointing at the boob.
I wish I were sure where JL's Sentience falls in all this?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 09:22pm PT
|
Sentience is the key that unlocks everything.
It is the original source of everything .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 10:03pm PT
|
Steven Pinker...
"People like us who are passionate about ideas often find ourselves mystified that there are people out there who are not. But we need to keep in mind that half the population is below average in intelligence (funny how that tautology sounds so politically incorrect), and that a good proportion of the rest are congenitally low in personality traits like openness to experience, need for cognition, and intellectance -- the interest in ideas for their own sake, as opposed to tangible and practical concerns."
http://www.parlio.com/qa/pinker/
"Economic historians tell us that new technologies at first often fail to deliver on their promise, because it takes time for users to figure out how best to deploy them. This seems to be happening with on-line discourse. In theory it ought to elevate the level of discussion from what we see in monopolist, one-way punditry, but in practice it’s been polluted by the griefers, trolls, and dittoheads. I like to think that Parlio will begin a process of adapting and fine-turning digital forums so that they can realize their promise of multiplying our collective intelligence."
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 10:37pm PT
|
^^^ don't you find it a bit ironic you highlight that? LOL
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 09:28am PT
|
Blue, you really should read about east Asia, but particularly Japan, where people think very differently than we do but have much better outcomes on many things.It may seem obvious to you living in a diverse individualistic society that everyone needs laws and that God would naturally be a law giver. However, other societies operate differently. Japan has few laws, it is considered a disgrace to go to court, and they have 1% (one percent) of the lawyers that the U.S. does. Needless to say, life is different and much more agreeable as a result. They also have far fewer policemen per capita and most aren't armed.
The average Japanese is not religious but observes religious customs from at least three different religions. Nobody is concerned with heaven or hell, yet their crime rate is miniscule compared to ours. A woman can walk anywhere at night alone. Public nude bathing including of mixed sexes has been the norm for centuries, and sex is considered just another bodily function. Of all the societies I've lived in, Japan is composed of the kindest, most polite and considerate people I've ever met. The Japanese truly live by the Golden Rule rather than a set of laws.
Rather than trying to please a judgemental God, the Japanese are concerned with living harmoniously with their family and neighbors and not bringing shame on their group. They clearly recognize that rules are made up by humans to benefit society and are not laid down from heaven. Different societies, different rules and the rules can be changed as the circumstances evolve. They naturally think their customs are best for their own situation, and point to their pleasant and well ordered society as the measure but they don't expect other people to be like them. If you learn and follow their rules, you are considered civilized by their standards, not righteous by some religious standard.
All of east Asia follows these precepts more or less, though it becomes harder, the more diverse and individualistic the society is and the Japanese are the masters. Though totally different than us, you can not deny that their different values have resulted in the same or better success. Though they have no natural resources, they are the world's number two economy, they have one of the lowest crime and addiction rates, they score higher than almost everyone on education levels, and 80% of the people consider themselves middle class. Contrast that with America, particularly the Bible Belt, and then seriously think about whose values are better and which values you should be trying to spread.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 10:34am PT
|
Paul, it is as if... the girl asking Dawkins her question at 57:10 in the Dawkins Pell discussion was speaking on your behalf...
Not at all... the statement was that religion poisons everything; there is no good in religion and that's simply not true. You want truth, well, the truth is that religion very often helps in a situation where nothing else can.
Dawkins' quest for truth is commendable, let's hope he finds it, but what religion offers is consolation. Religion offers sense in the face of what is overwhelming experience: this existence will end, my friends and family will be no more as they were. Science offers only the cold reality of that fact, its truth. Fine. Religion offers a consoling understanding, rituals that placate our grief, metaphors that offer insight into the strangeness of our conscious nature and what is inevitable in our lives. Let science prove the truth of our insignificance... to what end?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 11:03am PT
|
Oh boy.
First off, the statement? The post concerned the question the girl posed to Dawkins at 57:10. Did you listen to the question? Do we have to go back and retrieve it? Her question concerned what seems to be your issue: Accepting God even if God isn't real for consolation / comfort purposes. The post from which you drew your latest quote didn't concern Hitchens' "Religion poisons everything" at all.
Second... " Religion offers a consoling understanding, rituals that placate our grief..." Yeah, both offerings based on supernatural fantasy. Really, is that what you want? The world's changed. It's certainly not what millions of others living today want.
Third... "Let science prove the truth of our insignificance... to what end?" It goes with the process, it's part of the total package. Besides "the truth of our insignificance," science reveals, or points to, many other truths. Currently reading Faith vs Fact by Jerry Coyne. Here is one more in a long list, if more is needed, besides one's own everyday experience, that clearly illustrates the benefits that derive from knowing about these truths.
Here's the link, once again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA
57:10. It's a question (not a statement) by a girl posed to Dawkins, just as I said. It seemed to remind me of your position or sentiment, just as I said.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 11:16am PT
|
Yes, a very refreshing, remindful post by Jan.
.....
re: AI and its dangers
John Lilly: "Silicon Valley techies are divided about whether to be fearful or dismissive of the idea of new super intelligent AI. The fearful say that AI sentience is inevitable & dangerous. The dismissive say we know so little about how we think ourselves that it’s crazy to say that sentience is inevitable, let alone dangerous. How would you approach this issue? How do you think about it?"
Steven Pinker: "Sentience is a red herring here -- stupid and simple creatures can be sentient, and super intelligent ones could be zombies; we have no way to tell. So let's concentrate on intelligence. I think it's a fallacy to conflate the ability to reason and solve problems with the desire to dominate and destroy, which sci-fi dystopias and robots-run-amok plots inevitably do. It's a projection of evolved alpha-male psychology onto the concept of intelligence. A huge proportion of the population--they're called women--exercise high intelligence without applying it to mass murder or world domination.
Of course an evil genius could use AI to design killer bots, but the number who do so is the product of two small numbers: the number of geniuses and the number of homicidal maniacs. The latter number is obviously greater than zero, but the fact that we don't have Tsarnaev-like attacks every hour in every American city, when the technology to carry them out is already available at any Walmart, shows that they're not hugely plentiful either. And if a genocidal technologist did arise, he'd have to overcome the countermeasures of the worldwide community of anti-genocidal technologists.
So I don't think that malevolent robotics is one of the world's pressing problems."
http://www.parlio.com/qa/pinker/
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 12:27pm PT
|
Thanks Jan,
The Japanese truly live by the Golden Rule rather than a set of laws.
Sorry for being Inadequate I'm back to typing on my iPhone :(
Inside my description of Love and Laws, I didn't mean primarily written laws. And along with love I assume hate be credited. My impotent point was trying to establish that when a person interacts with society, and society interacts with a person there are conscious, and unconscious "rules" engrained to direct behavior. Be it written, ethic, moral, etc. these "laws" are presumably instilled for the "good" of the person, or the society.
My intent was to magnify the coherence with these [laws, rules, ethics, morals] and that of [love and hate].
The laws and rules in something like physics are virtually unbendable. Thus requiring no love or hate. (Gravity isn't hating you when your climbing up ElCap.)
But inside a living/dying organism such as the human who internalize's his external actions through rational free thinking. Love or hate are the predominate motivators for free-will.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 12:37pm PT
|
Steven Pinker: "Sentience is a red herring here -- stupid and simple creatures can be sentient, and super intelligent ones could be zombies; we have no way to tell. So let's concentrate on intelligence."
Not an unwise way to preceed on this thread. Forget about sentience or let the meditators deal with it to their hearts' delight. This would also eliminate quantum woo.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 12:49pm PT
|
Seems like just keep watching pinker vids and you'll be a zombie in no time ; )
and super intelligent ones could be zombies; we have no way to tell. So let's concentrate on intelligence."
Irony?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 12:57pm PT
|
jgill, and yet you're the first to fire it up
when there's an absence of either no-thing woo or lgo.
a close second, BASE.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 01:36pm PT
|
Woo can't compete with prancercise. You won't have me to kick around on this thread any more.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 01:38pm PT
|
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines (RWE)
Hey, It's not my fault. I am but a product of mechanistic processes.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 02:26pm PT
|
A mind with intelligence and without sentience is hardly a "mind" at all. Pure intelligence without self aware discretion regarding that intelligence leaves only a rote subservience to given algorithms, and though a machine might produce and even "learn" to produce information, said information can produce understanding only through sentient interpretation.
What is information worth without understanding?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 02:49pm PT
|
On come'on now Stannard. I thought you were really go'in somewhere with your "C" project!
Isn't refutal, skepticism, alternative views and humor a part of the scientific method?
Prancercise seems much better than this;
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 02:53pm PT
|
. . . said information can produce understanding only through sentient interpretation
No argument here. But you can banter with JL and MikeL about what sentience is as much as you wish, and keep us informed if you reach any conclusions. I've already stated my opinion about what JL needs to accomplish to gain any credibility outside woo circles.
But I hope he and his cohorts make a breakthrough in metaphysics.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 03:05pm PT
|
Oh boy.
First off, the statement? The post concerned the question the girl posed to Dawkins at 57:10. Did you listen to the question? Do we have to go back and retrieve it? Her question concerned what seems to be your issue: Accepting God even if God isn't real for consolation / comfort purposes. The post from which you drew your latest quote didn't concern Hitchens' "Religion poisons everything" at all.
Really? You don't think Dawkins was arguing that same position, favoring scientific truth, no matter what it presents, as opposed to the woo of theology?
I stand somewhere between the girl and Dawkins. I would say scientific truth is vital and important to human understanding, but so is religion. The problem is religion must keep up with the nature knowledge presented by science or it (religion) falls as it has into disrepute and silliness.
But if you read the symbols of religious thought as the psychological metaphors they are, they can easily conform to that nature knowledge revealed by science and a religious understanding is often very helpful to people.
The two (science and religion) are compatible and should be..
Problem is, you, in the same manner as a believing Christian, read these symbols as reality and you can declare that a burning bush must be consumed and snakes can't talk!
Bravo!
In doing so the wisdom of those stories is lost and the metaphor consumed by a myopic certainty based on an understanding of nature that ignores what is truly important in human understanding: the ability to live and live well in this strangeness where we find ourselves.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!