|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mind reading | |||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well as it happens, the discovery by Luigi Galvani that electricity could and would be conducted by frog nerves, in conjunction with work by Alessandro Volta, both brought about the electrical age and cut against "divine spark" arguments for animate life. It's highly probable Shelley was familiar with this work, IIRC. Her book is authentic science fiction.
quote: My highlight: IF emotions are different. Are they? Do we have reason to think they are? Memories are different, but you would recognises an angry person's anger even if you knew nothing about their culture or language. Similarly, you could recognise, and even join in, their laughter, perhaps without even understanding the joke. Emotions, it seems to me, are a platform-level protocol.
quote: Actually, thats not going to be the interesting question. A living machine, like an animal, takes inputs from the world and processes them to determine actions. So the machine will have its own experience of red, and its own memories of its life time. I am not talking about making a machine that duplicates a human. I'm talking about a machine that is itself conscious on its own terms.
quote: Yes. Our programmes are already bigger than we can directly comprehend.
quote: You have confused emotion with experience. By analogy, you might encounter a computer with a chip (pardon the pun) on its shoulder from negative experiences of keyboard cleaning fluid
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
contracycle writes:
Yeah, I probably coulda guessed. Most people do. Seems to be the prevailing mantra around here.
I regard that is completely impossible. ...for them to be experienced in the first instance they must have been materially expressed.
So what? Who said that the material expression is the whole of the experience? Seems like you're begging the question here.
If they can be materially expressed in one brain, they can be materially expressed in another.
Again, so what? Your statements seem to carry a hidden presumption of ontological materialism which -- since it is this ontology being challenged -- begs the question. Look at it this way: The only reason we believe that the objective, material word exists outside of our own respective individual consciousness is because we presuppose a priori that solipsism is false. There are no experiences that are incompatible with solipsism so we must simply assume a priori that the external world exists. Your argument that descriptions of external states capture all of the facts rides upon this assumption. In other words, the idea that there is any externality at all lacks any non-circular basis in external reality. The presupposition that the entire universe exists as a manifestation of your individual consciousness has just as much basis in reality as the presupposition that other consciousnesses exists outside your own. It's just as valid. That's the essence of the zombie argument. Every individual in the entire universe might in fact be a zombie lacking all subjective experience and there'd be no way to know it. Since there is no objective difference between a zombie and a conscious human, there must be real facts about consciousness that are not describable in objective terms, namely, qualia.
... which are in turn merely chemical and electrical interactions. That is what you feel - just as a computer would.
Unsubstantiatled assertion, and in fact contrindicated by the anti-computationalist arguments of Lucas, Penrose, Chalmers, Seager, etc. I'll concede that it is true to say that objectively thoughts and feelings are expressed as chemical and electrical interactions, however objectivity ignores the subjective experience -- and it's THOSE facts that functionalist explanations sweep under the carpet as though they weren't real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
Glordag writes:
I suggest visting here: Can you give me any websites or books to read on that subject? It seems pretty interesting, and I'd like to read up on it and see if my view changes at all. http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
contracycle writes: I never disagreed with this. I as well believe that AI may be a possiblity in the future. edit typo. I am not talking about making a machine that duplicates a human. I'm talking about a machine that is itself conscious on its own terms. This message has been edited by 1.61803, 07-23-2004 02:02 PM "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well, we have not the slightest indication that there is, or could be, or would be or should be, any other dimension to these reactions. If you have a claim in regards these, by all means propose an experiment by which we could confirm or refute your hypothesis.
quote: Actually, I'm a dialectical materialist, but by all means challenge away. I am claiming the basis of such a challenge requires assumptions not in evidence.
quote: To which I say "nonsense". Even if all the world and the voices in it are properties of my imagination, its still a valid process to investigate the origins of those voices within the internally consistent content of my imaginings. that is, even if the world is illusory, its displays illusionary consistency and can still be methdologically interrogated. But even worse for your argument, if its true that the world is a property of our opersonal delusions, then that delusion is a lie carefully sculpted to give the impression of material dependancy. You end up in the same box as theists trying to show why god should not be blamed for creating a world that tesmpts us to sin. The solpisitic defence is basically anti-knowledge. I can;t believe any adult takes it as a serious aregument.
quote: They are not real any more than a pop-up message box on your computer is "real". This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-26-2004 04:49 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
entwine Inactive Member |
contracycle says:
if its true that the world is a property of our opersonal delusions, then that delusion is a lie carefully sculpted to give the impression of material dependancy. You end up in the same box as theists trying to show why god should not be blamed for creating a world that tesmpts us to sin. Your Marxist tendencies are showing through. If all is delusion, then even material delusions are illusion. And you find yourself in the same coffin as the theists. God can't be blamed for your thoughts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
entwine Inactive Member |
To indulge you a bit, the universe is as conscious as you are. And yes, I realize as you do this is a bit off topic. As far as all you do, it is recorded in this universe we call home. A step on the lawn, a shout to a friend, and a kind thought, all recorded and sent out for all to know who can. A sesmic footfall, a burst of sonic information, and an electrical impulse borne of whatever emotion are all recorded in this universe. Will we ever be able to read these recordings? You know the answer to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: They have never been concealed.
quote: My highlight. I'm not the one advocating such a delusion - the Essentialists are those calling for an immaterial 'spark'. I merely claim that such an immaterial spark requires more assumptions than not.
quote: I'm not 100% sure I understand your point, but if your thrust is that my interest in materialism may be mistaken on the basis that gods design may give that impression, then I concede the point but riposte that this deliberate misrepresentation makes god culpable of deceit and the kind of bastard most theists refuse to accept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I'll concede that qualitatively, but not quantitatively.
quote: I do; the answer is "no" becuase signals degrade the longer the distance over which they are transmitted. Time counts in a rather similar way. Information requirtes ordering and like anything ordered, it is prone to decay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
entwine Inactive Member |
this deliberate misrepresentation makes god culpable of deceit Why do you think God even cares??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
entwine Inactive Member |
Using the Hubble telescope we already have a good idea of a few things that happened millions of years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well, I don't think god is even there to care. That god cares is a theist claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, because space is about as good a transmission medium as you get. Nonetheless, we had have got more info out of any observation had we been nearer to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
contracycle writes:
Nonsense. Dream experience, for one, hints at the deeper qualities of consciousness. There we have experiences of totally convincing realities that, while appearing as real and as valid as normal waking reality, have no substantiation in the external world.
Well, we have not the slightest indication that there is, or could be, or would be or should be, any other dimension to these reactions. If you have a claim in regards these, by all means propose an experiment by which we could confirm or refute your hypothesis.
You misunderstand. I'm dealing with a priori knowledge, not any type of testing of external reality. The point is to show that there is a priori factual knowledge accessible to conscious individuals that is unassailable through empricial discovery. To insist that one should empirically discover that which is posited to be beyond the reach of empirical discovery in order to demonstrate that the discovery is indeed beyond empiricism is to reveal a flawed understanding of the principles involved.
I am claiming the basis of such a challenge requires assumptions not in evidence.
Such as...?
Even if all the world and the voices in it are properties of my imagination, its still a valid process to investigate the origins of those voices within the internally consistent content of my imaginings.
This is not the point. The point is merely that there are facts which are known but which cannot be empirically discovered and validated. This does not invalidate things which ARE empirically validated, but simply acknowledges certain things which are factual and real yet outside of empirical reach.
But even worse for your argument, if its true that the world is a property of our opersonal delusions, then that delusion is a lie carefully sculpted to give the impression of material dependancy.
Again, I'm not saying that anything in reality is false, I'm simply arguing that there is more to reality than materialism. The material world is what exists "on the outside of things," so to speak, but I'm arguing that there is a valid realm of knowledge "on the inside of things." I think it is obvious that such exists when one considers the primacy of individual consciousness as it regards experience, and that was where the problem of solipsism became relevant.
You end up in the same box as theists trying to show why god should not be blamed for creating a world that tesmpts us to sin.
I have no idea how this is relevant. Maybe it would make sense to me were I a theist.
The solpisitic defence is basically anti-knowledge. I can;t believe any adult takes it as a serious aregument.
To be frank, I'm not certain that you grasped the argument because the introduction of solipsism at the start of that paragraph was meant as a prelude to the zombie argument that you snipped and didn't even address. Regardless, I'm disappointed that you seem reluctant to actually face the problem of solipsism since it is a real problem, and instead can only offer strawmen and handwaving coupled with a thinly-veiled insult. You obviously have not contested that solipsism is unfalsifiable, which therefore means that you do not contest that the notion of there existing any reality at all independent of your individual consciousness is an a priori postulation lacking all basis in objective reality. For that reason, the so-called "zombie world" or "solipsist's world" -- the world wherein there are no other conscious individuals but only organisms which behave as though they were conscious -- is objectively indifferentiable from a world where consciousnesses exist separately from yours. Therefore, if we *are* to suppose that there exists an external reality and separately existing consciousnesses, we must admit that there are real facts about those consciousnesses that we cannot assail empirically. This conclusion follows because the two worlds are objectively identical, and the only difference is that one contains consciousness. We can't objectively differentiate one world from the other, therefore we must conclude that the differentiating element -- consciousness -- is not objectively assailable. Do you dispute the points that I made regarding the indifferentiability of a world full of zombies vs. a truly conscious humans? If so, on what basis? And please, try to withold any more rebuttals that trail along the lines of "This is why it would suck real bad if what you say is true."
They are not real any more than a pop-up message box on your computer is "real".
If you mean that you think my computer has conscious experiences, I don't really disagree with you. If you think that the computer's conscious experience is fully described by it's formalized circuitry, I do disagree. This message has been edited by ::, 07-26-2004 06:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Nonsense. We know that items in recent experience are mst likely to be represented in dreams. I submit this is directly analogous to a computers disk compression process, in which recent data is filed in more convenient places. Sometimes, old data has to be picked up and relocated to get the optimum fit, which matches the occasional appearance of odd, forgotten memories in dreams. Dreams look a lot like disk compression to me. Our brains are designed to construct a temporal story for its inputs so it makes sense these are interpolated into an "experience".
quote: I definitely did not misunderstand the point; that is why I asked you for an experiment to perform. Without an experiment, all you have is speculation, which I can freely discard. Until such time as you can demonstrate there is an issue that CANNOT be solved by empiricism, empiricism remains the favourted tool.
quote: Such as the very concept that there is anything OTHER than the world as we experience it.
quote: And I say again: what is the basis for this claim? On one of the links recently provided to the philosoiphy of AI, reference was made to psi powers. Yes, if psi powers were demonstrable, then that would support your argument (a little), but failing that there is no "engima" to address. Materialism is all there is.
quote: Actually, I have frequently discussed solipsism, on this board and others. I'm happy to do so again, but it is IMO an intellectually vacuous position. The fact of the matetr is you recognised your mothers teat well before you were a conscious human being able to conceptualise the very idea that the world might be imaginary; and unless ALL experience is imaginary, the world as a material reality must be the default premise. And IF all experience is imaginary, then you might as well give up arguibng with me, becuase I am merely a piece of your own psyche giving you lip. All of which is far too hubristic for me to take seriously.
quote: True, except that this position is exemplary of philosphy for its pwn sake rather than anything to do with understanding or exploring the world. It's a wholly fictitious problem.
quote: Nonsense; that is your assumption not in evidence again. There is no reason for considering the zombie world as plausible in the first place, and thus no indication that there is anything to the walking talking beings before me than what they appear to be. To take that seriously requires first the assumption that an immaterial existance is even possible, and secondly the assumption that intellect forms spontaneously and fully developed in this notional space. Both of these are completely baseless.
quote: Why? Merely becuase your mind can conceptualise that possibility? Thats not a valid basis at all; we can also conceptualise a moon made from green cheese.
quote: By no means; becuase that problem is solved by allocating mind to a physical vehicle. If mind is a property of physicality, then it is inevitable that such a physical being will experience its own consciousness as an absolute primacy. There is no mystery to solve.
quote: Yes. I require you propose some reason I should take the hypothesis seriously.
quote: There is nothing else for it to be described by. That is what there is. That is what it does. This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-27-2004 05:16 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024