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.
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, for one, see this was already being addressed.... I really ought to keep up too.
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.
This triggered me, to use the trending snowflake terminology. It occurs to me that the titles of our two threads, Gaylen, evoke myriad negative tropes simply by the use of the word "intellectual." We both proceed from extremely similar philosophical and empirical grounds pursuing opposing objectives. You are supporting the atheist/agnostic view of our Reality. I am supporting the theist view. We have both been attacked by both sides largely using ad hominem and emotional rhetoric designed to undermine our character, knowledge, and credibility.
My thread sought to target those among the Christian community who were intellectually troubled by its reliance on myth, magic, primitive and often barbaric memes in the narrative of Christ. My experience DOES color my approach to that objective since I believe that the Christ narrative (correctly interpreted) is the Good News of our Reality and has plausible extrapolations from the existing science. This should be really good news for those intellectuals who resonate with the love of Christ and God. So I am more than a little taken aback by all the vitriol and backlash.
I have given this much thought. When combined with Tzaph's reactions to your marvelous explanatory attempts and her focus on the mental health ramifications, I began to suspect the real issue. This forum is frequented by people who have cognitively adjusted to the vicissitudes of our Reality in myriad ways. Our logical, rational, philosophical and empiricist approach is hardly the societal norm. Tzaph sees our focus as detrimental to the mental health of those who have adjusted using different memes. I suspect she is correct.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This triggered me, to use the trending snowflake terminology. It occurs to me that the titles of our two threads, Gaylen, evoke myriad negative tropes simply by the use of the word "intellectual." We both proceed from extremely similar philosophical and empirical grounds pursuing opposing objectives. You are supporting the atheist/agnostic view of our Reality. I am supporting the theist view. We have both been attacked by both sides largely using ad hominem and emotional rhetoric designed to undermine our character, knowledge, and credibility.
My thread sought to target those among the Christian community who were intellectually troubled by its reliance on myth, magic, primitive and often barbaric memes in the narrative of Christ. My experience DOES color my approach to that objective since I believe that the Christ narrative (correctly interpreted) is the Good News of our Reality and has plausible extrapolations from the existing science. This should be really good news for those intellectuals who resonate with the love of Christ and God. So I am more than a little taken aback by all the vitriol and backlash.
I have given this much thought. When combined with Tzaph's reactions to your marvelous explanatory attempts and her focus on the mental health ramifications, I began to suspect the real issue. This forum is frequented by people who have cognitively adjusted to the vicissitudes of our Reality in myriad ways. Our logical, rational, philosophical and empiricist approach is hardly the societal norm. Tzaph sees our focus as detrimental to the mental health of those who have adjusted using different memes. I suspect she is correct.
when someone walks into a room and announces "look at me I am so beautiful, see how beautiful I am, I am soooooo beautiful look at my measurements look at my hair look at the clothes i wear look at how beautiful I am," what she is demonstrating is her vanity and ego. people are put off by it. they are apt to think regardless of how a person looks, the behavior of telling people at every turn how beauuuuuuutiful she thinks she is, makes her appear, well, ugly.
when someone walks into a forum and announces "look at me I am sooooooo smart, I am soooooo intellectual, I am sooooo brilliant, look at my degrees look at the letters after my name look at the big words I use look at my IQ, I am soooooooo smart" it has the same effect. it is a demonstration of vanity and ego. people are put off by it. regardless of how smart a person is, the behavior of telling people at every turn how brilliant he considers himself, it makes the person appear, well, dumb
your own behavior is what "undermines your character, knowledge, and credibility"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-13-2018 at 03:11 PM..
when someone walks into a room and announces "look at me I am so beautiful, see how beautiful I am, I am soooooo beautiful look at my measurements look at my hair look at the clothes i wear look at how beautiful I am," what she is demonstrating is her vanity and ego. people are put off by it. they are apt to think regardless of how a person looks, the behavior of telling people at every turn how beauuuuuuutiful she thinks she is, makes her look well ugly.
when someone walks into a forum and announces "look at me I am sooooooo smart, I am soooooo intellectual, I am sooooo brilliant, look at my degrees look at the letters after my name look at the big words I use look at my IQ, I am soooooooo smart" it has the same effect. it is a demonstration of vanity and ego. people are put off by it. regardless of how smart they are, the behavior of telling people at every turn how smart they think they are, makes them look, well, dumb.
being put off and the person being wrong might be two different things.
being put off and the person being wrong might be two different things.
it's a simple concept.
if they can't get simple concepts like why this puts people off,
then their credibility for grasping more complex concepts is lacking.
if someone can't understand and do simple tasks of basic logic, rationale, and common sense, such as "not putting people off"
then it is doubtful they have the ability to explore and integrate and understand more complex concepts.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-13-2018 at 03:07 PM..
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.
leave out 'complicated", I stricky mean complexity. And i really mean complexity/volume ratio. We can use rx/s x in^3 (reaction per sec dot in^3) as a estimate. Use the brain's 88in^3 and 10^14, if memory serves me? so although not concretely a yes, we have a calculation and a measurement supporting the claim "universe is going from more complex to less complex", that I can't ignore. Its just common sense. And the brain would be very high, I suspect an amoeba would be much lower. but we classify the ambia is alive.
I am actually looking at past 1 second, i am not even quite sure how far past. before that is just past what we know. i am ignoring 10-32 ish stuff to 1 second. we don't know so insert your qualia, mystics field, and high complexity vs volume ratio (very high) in there. After that, qualia and field probability drops just d to lack of observation and the universe going from more complex to less complex becomes more observationally supported. I use 'entropy".
so back to the early 'verse, well, we have an unknown number, of not only sheer volume of interactions, but we have a significant % of those interactions being of different types of interactions. toss in the small volume and we have a more complex system(not more complicated) in a small volume.
yes, you are correct, obviously we need the right types. The problem i can't ignore is that the right types of interactions are there. infact, its more reasonable to say they were there than they were not there. IE, lots of them, all interconnected, and affecting each other. Also, the universe is quantum computing right now, that's how it formed us. A more complex processor forming a less complex region within the processor ... Our brains.
The neurons branchout and exchange information. Not that it is evidence, but the cosmic web is an information highway using hadrons. Like c-14 dating, its not a stand alone, but at some point we have to admit what it looks like. 'branching"
It looks like the universe is going from more complex to less complex today. So its a reasonable claim. just like backing up to "big bang" is reasonable. Both are not set in stone either.
so i would say your counter argument doesn't match observations. There is no reason to assume the universe is doing something different than going more complex to less complex.
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.
Are saying that sentience "already exists" in machines?
Just to be clear: I am using the word 'sentient' to get at the idea of subjective, qualitative "raw feels" as in "what is like to experience a toothache" or "what it's like to see red," etc. As far as I know, sentience only applies to animals with reasonably complex nervous systems, although some people will argue that a fly is sentient, some will say that plants are sentient, and most panpsychists will say that things - even rocks and atoms are "sentient" to some very minimal degree. Personally, I don't know at what level of complexity we begin to find sentience, but I would take a wild guess that the minimum is at least in the tens of thousands of neurons - or whatever is required to acquire a minimal representation of "self" vs. "not-self". But that's just a guess.
Anyway, my main question is whether or not you and I are using the word 'sentience' in the same way. And, given my meaning of the term, would you say that current machines are sentient?
it's a simple concept.
if they can't get simple concepts like why this puts people off,
then their credibility for grasping more complex concepts is lacking.
if someone can't understand and do simple tasks of basic logic, rationale, and common sense, such as "not putting people off"
then it is doubtful they have the ability to explore and integrate and understand more complex concepts.
no, I don't agree at all tzap. A person can be arrogant and correct. That's why I say "that dude was a real jerk. What he say again?"
I have often said, because of that dern method again. After you like/dislike a person list just the facts they used and the conclusion they drew. Along with that, list the adjectives they use in describing the "enemy". Its amazing what graphing does to opinions.
Yes, my back propagation neural networks have, for some strange reason, neural net dynamics.
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.
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.
this isn't totally on point harry. We use circuits to "flush" electron down conduits while our brains "pass" electrons down. We give up speed to reduce heat. Our brains made up for speed by adding number of pathways.
Think of it like dragging a iron pot down a driveway versus people lined up passing the pot along down the drive way. then measure the temp of the pot. Then to get the same number of pots down per unit time add people pathways.
also, "software" is using machine langue, or binary (1's and 0's). We do not know the machine langue of the brain. think of watching a football game without sounds. the players move around in predictable ways but it looks like there is something more. or watching interaction in a foreign culture, we see them doing something but we aren't sure what they are saying. thats what the chemistry in the brain is.
When we can say "hey, those reactions are mary's red", we will know a lot more. lmao, I know how that just sounded.
There isn't 'chemistry" in a cpu yet. but they will move to it, they have too, way to much is generated with what we use today.
no, I don't agree at all tzap. A person can be arrogant and correct. That's why I say "that dude was a real jerk. What he say again?"
I have often said, because of that dern method again. After you like/dislike a person list just the facts they used and the conclusion they drew. Along with that, list the adjectives they use in describing the "enemy". Its amazing what graphing does to opinions.
"i am sooooooooooo smart and brilliant and intellectual" no, smart people don't talk that way.
it's about credibility of a source and that includes the ability to think and speak and behave and interact with others in a rational, logical, intelligent manner.
it isn't about liking or not liking someone.
it's about their credibility.
if someone does not act in a rational manner, then it shows they do not think in a rational manner.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-13-2018 at 04:40 PM..
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.
