An Intellectual’s Spiritual Narrative – a not-completely materialist alternative (myth, versus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My observation over many posts in many threads is that you consistently make broad claims that you rarely, if ever, support with any reasons or evidence. And you are literally the only person I'm aware of who seems to have this opinion of me, which leads me to think that there is some sort of personal grudge or quirky personal bias at work here. As usual, I will once again invite anyone reading this to step up and agree with you concerning my "glaring lack of knowledge, lack of regard" etc. In general, when someone states their impression of me or my writing, I suspect that there must be others who share that impression. There almost has to be, right? But, so far, I see no confirmations at all. If I really am displaying a glaring lack of knowledge about anything, it ought to be easy enough to demonstrate with evidence contrary to my statements. But specific evidence is exactly what you consistently fail to produce (which is unfortunate because it is almost certain that I am, in fact, wrong sometimes, and when I am, I'd like to know about so that I can learn something new).
I'll take that challenge. You write great and know your stuff. I can tell you don't have an engineering mindset, but hey, nobody's perfect. I don't like you because you write better than me and probably are taller than me. Two big no's no's
No, they are not mimicking learning, they ARE learning.
Yes, I see this as significant. And, I think even more significantly, the learning machines have neural net dynamics, which is a form of self-organizing dynamics. And this, I think, is definitely one of the necessary properties of any system that can become truly intelligent, and it is probably one of the necessary properties of any system that can become sentient. (I think it could also turn out that true intelligence requires sentience, but that would be a highly speculative and controversial claim, and I just don't know, so I'm not going to place any bets on it, either way.)
By now you should be wondering: Why should self-organizing dynamics be a necessary component of sentience? What is the connection between them? This is a great question to which I don't really know the answer; it's mostly just a gut instinct that I have. This gut feeling probably stems from another gut feeling, which is my belief that the primordial nature of Reality is, ultimately, a self-organizing chaotic system of qualitative "stuff" - which I have recently begun to think of in terms of "fields" - more or less roughly in conformance with the notion of fundamental fields in physics (and extremely similar to MPhD's concept of the One Stuff, although I am more likely to see energy (intrinsic dynamics) as an aspect of the One Stuff, rather than saying that the One Stuff "is" energy).
One place where MPhD and I definitely agree is on the notion that the One Stuff is fundamentally qualitative. Where we disagree is that he keeps pushing the notion that it is fundamentally conscious (basically, it's God, in a loosely Christian sense), whereas I see it as fundamentally unconscious - thus, even if there is a God, what I'm tinkering with is the primordially unconscious dynamics underlying God's conscious experiences.
Phenomenologically, consciousness always emerges via unconscious processes. "I" don't consciously "tell my neurons" to "fire in such and such a pattern so that I will experience love, and then from there, shift to this other pattern so that I can think about what I'm going to have for breakfast," etc.. No, the detailed underlying dynamics that govern which patterns will emerge, and thus what experiences will emerge, are unconscious - my neuronal firing patterns are essentially rule-governed activities below my conscious awareness. I don't have a formal mathematical proof to offer, but I strongly suspect that it is logically incoherent to think that a high-level conscious being can, even in principle, have conscious control over the micro-details of the micro-dynamics that constitute the macro-patterns of its own conscious experience. In other words, what I'm saying is that the micro-details of the micro-dynamics of all conscious experiences - even of any possible God's conscious experiences - are, by logically necessity, not consciously governed by the conscious experiences that the micro-details, themselves, constitute at the macro-scale. Somehow, when the wheel of logical dependence stops spinning, it has to stop at unconscious micro-dynamics. The really truly ultimate ultimate primordial nature of the One Stuff has to be unconscious, not conscious.
What irks theists is that, if I'm right about this then, technically, we would not necessarily need God (at least not a conscious God) as an explanatory element in order to explain the emergence of consciousness from the primordial "One Stuff". If all consciousness - by the very nature of what consciousness is - is logically required to emerge from an underlying qualitative chaos, then God's consciousness would have to do this too. But if God's consciousness has to do this, then human consciousness could just as well do it too - directly, without necessarily needing God to serve as a middle-man in the process.
So, getting back to my gut feeling: This "emergence from unconscious qualitative chaos" business appears to be super-duper-ultra-Supercalifragilistically fundamental to any sort of conscious experience. So if we can somehow manage to build a machine in such a way that its intelligence stems from a self-organizing chaos of information-grounding elements (which is what a true-blue "neural-net-style" machine would do) then, if it is possible for any machine to become sentient - that is the type of machine that will do it.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 06-13-2018 at 07:09 AM..
Y So, getting back to my gut feeling: This "emergence from unconscious qualitative chaos" business appears to be super-duper-ultra-Supercalifragilistically fundamental to any sort of conscious experience. So if we can somehow manage to build a machine in such a way that its intelligence stems from a self-organizing chaos of information-grounding elements (which is what a true-blue "neural-net-style" machine would do) then, if it is possible for any machine to become sentient - that is the type of machine that will do it.
the only problem I have gray is that at the big bang, or shortly after, we had a lot of complexity in a very small volume, relativity speaking that is, so nothing here, now on earth, came from less complexity. Everything on earth only can from more complexity. that's just empirical, you call brute fact.
I have no way of accepting that much complexity in that small a volume will not be, is some way shape or form, alive. I certifiably don't see "not alive" as more reasonable. how do you come up with "not alive"?
the only problem I have gray is that at the big bang, or shortly after, we had a lot of complexity in a very small volume, relativity speaking that is, so nothing here, now on earth, came from less complexity. Everything on earth only can from more complexity. that's just empirical, you call brute fact.
I have no way of accepting that much complexity in that small a volume will not be, is some way shape or form, alive. I certifiably don't see "not alive" as more reasonable. how do you come up with "not alive"?
Complexity, by itself, is basically meaningless. Complexity is necessary, but not sufficient, for intelligence and, presumably, sentience. Complexity is only meaningful if it is the right kind of complexity for a given type of function. What makes self-organizing dynamics so "magically delicious" is that, so far as I can see, any logically possible (or, at least, any mathematically model-able) type of complexity can, in principle, emerge via self-organizing processes. But, of course, just being "self-organizing" is not, in itself, sufficient either. A living brain in dreamless sleep is complex and self-organizing and, of course, it is "made of the right stuff" and, yet, it is still not conscious.
Additionally, I would mention that the early nano-moments of the Big Bang may have been* highly complicated, but it was not necessarily complex. The "snow" on a TV screen that does not have an antenna is highly complicated (it would take an enormous amount to data to track every change in every pixel), but from a complexity point of view it is relatively simple (every square inch of the screen is, FAPP, just like every other square inch, so it is essentially uniform - not much to describe in terms of evolving/interacting patterns). Same with a dead brain that has been soaking of formaldehyde for several months. It is still highly complicated - lots of data would be needed to document the detailed properties of every neuron - but it would not amount to much in terms of dynamic complexity.
"Complicated" is basically irrelevant; it is complexity that matters, and not just any complexity - it has to be dynamic complexity of the right kind.
*BTW: I'm not even sure that the early phases of the Big Bang - when the universe was, say, the size of a pea - were all that complicated, since most of the detailed properties of force and matter particles had not yet "condensed out" of the hot mess. From one region to another within the universe at that point was probably fairly uniform from a descriptive point of view - it was still in a relatively unified phase, so not even much to count as "pixels" on the snowy TV screen. In any case, whether the pea-sized universe was complicated, or not, doesn't make must difference to the central point I'm trying to make concerning the distinction between complication and complexity.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 06-13-2018 at 08:55 AM..
Complexity, by itself, is basically meaningless. Complexity is necessary, but not sufficient, for intelligence and, presumably, sentience. Complexity is only meaningful if it is the right kind of complexity for a given type of function. What makes self-organizing dynamics so "magically delicious" is that, so far as I can see, any logically possible (or, at least, any mathematically model-able) type of complexity can, in principle, emerge via self-organizing processes. But, of course, just being "self-organizing" is not, in itself, sufficient either. A living brain in dreamless sleep is complex and self-organizing and, of course, it is "made of the right stuff" and, yet, it is still not conscious.
Additionally, I would mention that the early nano-moments of the Big Bang may have been* highly complicated, but it was not necessarily complex. The "snow" on a TV screen that does not have an antenna is highly complicated (it would take an enormous amount to data to track every change in every pixel), but from a complexity point of view it is relatively simple (every square inch of the screen is, FAPP, just like every other square inch, so it is essentially uniform - not much to describe in terms of evolving/interacting patterns). Same with a dead brain that has been soaking of formaldehyde for several months. It is still highly complicated - lots of data would be needed to document the detailed properties of every neuron - but it would not amount to much in terms of dynamic complexity.
"Complicated" is basically irrelevant; it is complexity that matters, and not just any complexity - it has to be dynamic complexity of the right kind.
*BTW: I'm not even sure that the early phases of the Big Bang - when the universe was, say, the size of a pea - were all that complicated, since most of the detailed properties of force and matter particles had not yet "condensed out" of the hot mess. From one region to another within the universe at that point was probably fairly uniform from a descriptive point of view - it was still in a relatively unified phase, so not even much to count as "pixels" on the snowy TV screen. In any case, whether the pea-sized universe was complicated, or not, doesn't make must difference to the central point I'm trying to make concerning the distinction between complication and complexity.
I suspect self organization only appears to come out of nowhere.
Something at the root of the universe is in operation.
Yes, I see this as significant. And, I think even more significantly, the learning machines have neural net dynamics, which is a form of self-organizing dynamics. And this, I think, is definitely one of the necessary properties of any system that can become truly intelligent, and it is probably one of the necessary properties of any system that can become sentient. (I think it could also turn out that true intelligence requires sentience, but that would be a highly speculative and controversial claim, and I just don't know, so I'm not going to place any bets on it, either way.)
By now you should be wondering: Why should self-organizing dynamics be a necessary component of sentience? What is the connection between them? This is a great question to which I don't really know the answer; it's mostly just a gut instinct that I have. This gut feeling probably stems from another gut feeling, which is my belief that the primordial nature of Reality is, ultimately, a self-organizing chaotic system of qualitative "stuff" - which I have recently begun to think of in terms of "fields" - more or less roughly in conformance with the notion of fundamental fields in physics (and extremely similar to MPhD's concept of the One Stuff, although I am more likely to see energy (intrinsic dynamics) as an aspect ofthe One Stuff, rather than saying that the One Stuff "is" energy).
One place where MPhD and I definitely agree is on the notion that the One Stuff is fundamentally qualitative. Where we disagree is that he keeps pushing the notion that it is fundamentally conscious (basically, it's God, in a loosely Christian sense), whereas I see it as fundamentally unconscious - thus, even if there is a God, what I'm tinkering with is the primordially unconscious dynamics underlying God's conscious experiences.
Phenomenologically, consciousness always emerges via unconscious processes. "I" don't consciously "tell my neurons" to "fire in such and such a pattern so that I will experience love, and then from there, shift to this other pattern so that I can think about what I'm going to have for breakfast," etc.. No, the detailed underlying dynamics that govern which patterns will emerge, and thus what experiences will emerge, are unconscious - my neuronal firing patterns are essentially rule-governed activities below my conscious awareness. I don't have a formal mathematical proof to offer, but I strongly suspect that it is logically incoherent to think that a high-level conscious being can, even in principle, have conscious control over the micro-details of the micro-dynamics that constitute the macro-patterns of its own conscious experience. In other words, what I'm saying is that the micro-details of the micro-dynamics of all conscious experiences - even of any possible God's conscious experiences - are, by logically necessity, not consciously governed by the conscious experiences that the micro-details, themselves, constitute at the macro-scale. Somehow, when the wheel of logical dependence stops spinning, it has to stop at unconscious micro-dynamics. The really truly ultimate ultimate primordial nature of the One Stuff has to be unconscious, not conscious.
What irks theists is that, if I'm right about this then, technically, we would not necessarily need God (at least not a conscious God) as an explanatory element in order to explain the emergence of consciousness from the primordial "One Stuff". If all consciousness - by the very nature of what consciousness is - is logically required to emerge from an underlying qualitative chaos, then God's consciousness would have to do this too. But if God's consciousness has to do this, then human consciousness could just as well do it too - directly, without necessarily needing God to serve as a middle-man in the process.
So, getting back to my gut feeling: This "emergence from unconscious qualitative chaos" business appears to be super-duper-ultra-Supercalifragilistically fundamental to any sort of conscious experience. So if we can somehow manage to build a machine in such a way that its intelligence stems from a self-organizing chaos of information-grounding elements (which is what a true-blue "neural-net-style" machine would do) then, if it is possible for any machine to become sentient - that is the type of machine that will do it.
you frequently use the term "self-organizing"
the self that is organizing
is the thinker that is thinking
the thinker that is thinking
organizes the "basic stuff" to make things and build stuff and create worlds and computers and novels
back of everything physical is a thought
and that thought is generated by a thinker
you as a human being create on a smaller scale, you create houses and novels and paintings.
you build a "computer" that has lots of little parts that work together to be a functioning computer.
you as a human being are the thinker behind the thought that created the computer. and all its little bitty parts that comprise it.
a being of greater intelligence, skill, scope, mastery creates on a larger scale.
it creates planets, species, galaxies
it builds systems that have lots of little parts that work together to be a functioning ecosystem.
that greater being is the thinker behind the thought that created "nature" and all its little bitty parts that comprise it (including the pebble in your driveway that you are so enamored of)
thought is behind all that is created
and a thinker is behind all thought
using free will to choose what thoughts to think, and thus what to create
that is the principle and process of creation.
that is how things work.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-13-2018 at 10:15 AM..
the self that is organizing
is the thinker that is thinking
back of everything physical is a thought
and that thought is generated by a thinker
....
And here is the crux of the matter. Why should this be the so? Why should not appropriate organization be a part of the chaos surrounding it and simply because of its superior value in maintaining continuity have imposed itself to be discovered by the thinker that results?
I suspect self organization only appears to come out of nowhere.
Something at the root of the universe is in operation.
Yes. The root you are pointing to is logic, in the form of "computablity." (Later on we can talk about the qualitative roots of logic itself, but first I'd really like ya'll to try something...)
For anyone who is not familiar with cellar automata, I'm going to beg and plead, please, please, pretty please take a look at the cellular automata called "John Conway's Game of Life." Here is a link to a version of the automata that gives you a quick, easy feel for how The Game of Life works:
Literally just 3 or 4 minutes reading the automata rules and running a few samples is all it takes to get a simplistic feel for how self-organization happens. Once you have run a few samples, let's talk about the sense in which self-organization does or does not "come out of nowhere". Once you spend just a few minutes getting a hands-on feel for what's happening, you can see how the underlying logic works.
The Game of Life (GoL) is just one simple type of model, but despite its incredible simplicity (with rules that are about as complicated as the rules of Tic-Tac-Toe), it has been mathematically proven to be a "universal computer" - meaning that, given the right initial patterns, it can calculate anything that it is logically possible to calculate, which means that it can simulate any system that is computable, no matter how complex. It would be highly inefficient to use GoL to do complex calculation or simulations, but what's fascinating is that such a simple system can do any calculations at all, let alone calculations more complex than the human mind can even think of doing.
Also, of course, what you will be playing with on the site is just a toy model automata that simply models the underlying logic of self-organizing activity. It teaches you how to think about the underlying logic for how self-organization happens, but the automata is not, in itself, an actual self-organizing system. Examples of actual self-organizing systems would be frost on a window, the growth of a quartz crystal, weather patterns, whirlpools in rivers, the formations of galaxies, animal nervous systems, etc.
BTW: On the GoL site, if you look down in the lower left corner of the game grid, you will see a small box that says "clear" and it has a drop-down arrow that allows you to pick various pre-loaded configurations. (I think the "Gosper Glider Gun" is especially fun). I also suggest making up you own initial patterns by clicking in the grid and creating your own patterns of yellow dots to see what happens. The "Next" button lets you step through the dynamics one moment at a time, but that gets tedious, so experiment with the "Start" button and the slide bar to pick a speed at which the computer can do the work for you. That way you can see the evolution of 100s of generations in just a matter of seconds.
Also: You will notice that some patterns comes to a stable state quickly and appear to be doing nothing. That's because, in a sense, they are doing nothing, but it is actually a highly dynamic sort of "doing nothing". These static patterns are modeling something that MPhD is very fond of talking about - the phenomenon of "standing waves."
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 06-13-2018 at 11:18 AM..
What you are missing is the qualitative difference that occupies my and Gaylen's musings. Alive is subjectively experienced.
Yes, I keep forgetting you are this great, intellectual guru who tries to explain to us mere ..., sorry, I can not go on, my wife does not like it when I laugh at my own jokes.
Yes, I see this as significant. And, I think even more significantly, the learning machines have neural net dynamics, which is a form of self-organizing dynamics.
Yes, my back propagation neural networks have, for some strange reason, neural net dynamics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
By now you should be wondering: Why should self-organizing dynamics be a necessary component of sentience?
Perceptive sentience already exists. Other forms of sentience are demonstrated to some degree, although it is done with software, whereas we use chemicals as part of the process. The fact that both man and machine can be sentient although the method to achieve this is different is a clue that our sentience is a product of our brain.
And this is not mimicry as Mystic asserts. The method used, yes. A neural network mimics how the brain works. But the learning, the classifying, the perception is not mimicry, the machines are actually doing these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
So if we can somehow manage to build a machine in such a way that its intelligence stems from a self-organizing chaos of information-grounding elements (which is what a true-blue "neural-net-style" machine would do) then, if it is possible for any machine to become sentient - that is the type of machine that will do it.
We do have machines that learn to walk, to categorize objects (even when the image is partially damaged), to find hidden patterns in data (this is part of my work), all using neural networks. The problem is that our brains have specialized areas, and processes information in parallel; whereas a neural network is basically just one big brain that processes serially, so there is a limit to what we can achieve with a robot.
One could use several networks for different functions (walking, seeing, thinking), but again parallel processing will still slow it down to some degree. But then again, maybe we do not really want robots that are anywhere near as complex as us. After all, look at what we have done with our 'superior' brain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
