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.
Then why would you and your sidekick shoot down or ignore reasonable claims at all cost?
or not offer reasonable suggestions to them that are consistent with the standard model?
The conclusion that we are in a system better describe as "alive" (quotes just meaning I don't know the proper grammar to point it out as a word) is nothing but a classification of the system we are in that best matches observation.
alive is a descriptor that offers a mechanism, bla bla bla, i said it all before, and if you're 1/2 of what you claim you know I am right.
Why would you do everything in your power to shut down such a simple concept knowing full well we can support the claim in every area of science?
Matadora and I and others, I suppose, consider your claims and arguments - if sense can be made of them. We even try to find the sense in them. But it seems that reasonable discussion isn't what you want - not even unquestioning agreement. You want a battle.
You are not going to get one from me, because your system is not original, and not as well argued as some similar ones, so we don't need it, or you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
you do care, that's why you stick with the answer "natural" knowing full well its a lame answer.
You also do care, so much so that you have to accuse me of "self serving" when you know full well I don't do "self serving beliefs" I only do how the universe works. If your claim matches observation I say it does. when they don't, I say they don't.
We are in a system that explains what we see people experiencing. We can use descriptors that will offer a mechanism, make predictions, and be independent of personal beliefs. We can use physics to describe why we are totally interconnected and there are no isolated 'self' anywhere. we can use chemistry to offer pathways for these connections and experiences. And we use biology to sum the system up and classify it properly.
the question i have for you is "why are you so afraid of just being open and honest?". the science behind the answer is sound. why do you deny the science?
you care so much, you will toss out "natural" and cling to it knowing full well its a lie when you claim its the most reasonable descriptor.
mystic sides with you knowing he is siding with milli-mentals. why should I side with mentals again? why should I step aside and let dishonest people lead the way again?
Wrong And I think you are keeping the wrangle going so I'll make this the last until you start making sense (Mystic siding with me? good grief). And it's a pity.
I care about the subject, getting it right as much as I can, and about about the terms I use -sometimes. But I don't care what you think.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-01-2017 at 01:38 PM..
I think it is safe to say the programmed machines will never be sentient. But self-organizing networks - even if not biological...maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
So far there is no supporting evidence for your "maybe".
True. I won't argue with you there. But some of the fairly plausible proto-theories floating around would allow it. Roger Penrose's "gravitational collapse" theory, for example, wouldn't necessarily require organic cells. Approaches involving consciousness rooted in information flow also do not care what the circuitry is made of, so long as the cells perform the right kinds of information flow, and are flexible enough to adapt for the purposes of learning. But, yeah, no one has really built any proto-types to serve as proof-of-concept for any of these ideas, as of yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
The trick is to identify the minimal necessary design requirements for a minimal level of sentience, then specify how to ramp up these minimal requirements in such a way that you can eventually, in principle, account for human consciousness and, perhaps, beyond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Seems about as easy as figuring out the minimal necessary design requirements to build a time-machine or a space ship that warp speed around the Universe.
Your choice of examples suggests to me that you think building sentient machines is probably impossible. Perhaps so, but I won't be betting against it.
And BTW: Just to re-ground this discussion back to the thread topic: As I see it, everything I been saying about the nature of consciousness and qualia feeds into my core assertion related to the topic of "life after death." I could be wildly wrong, obviously, but I really would bet (if there were really some way to follow up on the bet) that when I die, I will experience a transition to other conscious experiences. Based on the premises I've been discussing, I strongly suspect that consciousness is like a "weed" in the sense that it is really hard to keep it from taking root, and it is really hard to get rid of it once it gets established. And more importantly for our purposes here, individual ego-life-histories are probably also a lot like weeds. Any given life-history narrative (taken in broad-brushstrokes) is probably a higher-than-average probability for physical systems because most of the life-narratives experienced on Earth today are probably structured, to a significant extent, by "attractors" in the chaos of physical Reality. A quale is probably a finite process, and systems of qualia forming life-history narratives are finite processes, so even without taking the dynamics of attractors into account, there is a good chance of reincarnations for any given life-narrative in a FAPP infinite Reality. Taking attractors into account increases the odds to near certainty for most life narratives.
For me to feel the transition to these new narratives as a transition, all that is required is a transitional narrative that fills in the gaps. All there really needs to be is one such transitional narrative (which, again, will be a finite process within a FAPP infinite Reality that is probably structured by attractors). I think that the chances of there being zero suitable transition process in FAPP infinite Reality is vanishingly small, which means that, upon my death, I am virtually certain to experience a more or less smooth transition to a new life narrative that more or less smoothly picks up where my old life left off.
Chances are good that there are millions (billions? trillions?) of transition narrative that will work for any given life history, and I will experience every single one of them - although, of course, I won't experience them as being "all at once" - I will experience them as "this narrative now" just as I experience my current life as "this narrative now" with little or no interference or overlap with the multitude of parallel life narratives that I am probably living "right now" to whatever extent such a blatantly temporal term makes any sense in a multiverse structure. I suspect that people who have "past life memories" or "alternative reality" experiences, or pre-cognitive experiences, etc. are probably all experiencing interference/overlaps with other life-narratives that are similar enough to their current narrative so that the overlaps feel like they make some sense - i.e., they feel like a "past live" or a "remote-viewing" experience, etc.
And none of this needs to have anything to do with any theistic God who has some grand plan in mind for me, or for the whole shebang. There could be a God, but Divine-guidance is not really necessary for the type of system I'm describing, and I frankly think that Divine creation or guidance is highly unlikely. Sill, I keep an open mind. I wouldn't even be surprised if some people have a "God's Eye view" somehow associated with some multitude of their life narratives, whereas others, perhaps, don't. Maybe "God" is something that some of us somehow "create" in our personal grand schema, whereas others do not.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-01-2017 at 02:47 PM..
That for sure answers "How will you relate this to topic?" And for sure that doesn't really mean a Theism, though it does approach what would be called fringe science theory (hypothesis) and the kind that easily become a religion (it doesn't need to have a God - just something science doesn't agree, just yet), nut believed as fact, not just probably so on the basis of reasoned argument.
I don't know if you ever saw the cartoon of a Physicist with a long row of formulae and in the middle "Then a miracle happens".
My feeling so far is that the complex argument begins and ends ok and in the middle "Then a philosophical card shuffle happens". I'm still looking to see how the connect works and gets over all the concecptual problems or queries I mentioned. Because I want to know how plausible it really is, not just accept or reject on the basis of what I might prefer.
In fact I'm in two minds about continued consciousness - as I am about an afterlife. It sounds attractive but another century of talking to people with fingers in ears would do my quales a mischief.
Matadora and I and others, I suppose, consider your claims and arguments - if sense can be made of them. We even try to find the sense in them. But it seems that reasonable discussion isn't what you want - not even unquestioning agreement. You want a battle.
You are not going to get one from me, because your system is not original, and not as well argued as some similar ones, so we don't need it, or you.
True. I won't argue with you there. But some of the fairly plausible proto-theories floating around would allow it. Roger Penrose's "gravitational collapse" theory, for example, wouldn't necessarily require organic cells.
I would not put much stock into what Penrose is claiming.
Quote:
The Penrose–Lucas argument about the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem for computational theories of human intelligence has been widely criticized by mathematicians, computer scientists and philosophers, and the consensus among experts in these fields seems to be that the argument fails, though different authors may choose different aspects of the argument to attack.
Marvin Minsky, a leading proponent of artificial intelligence, was particularly critical, stating that Penrose "tries to show, in chapter after chapter, that human thought cannot be based on any known scientific principle."
Approaches involving consciousness rooted in information flow also do not care what the circuitry is made of, so long as the cells perform the right kinds of information flow, and are flexible enough to adapt for the purposes of learning. But, yeah, no one has really built any proto-types to serve as proof-of-concept for any of these ideas, as of yet.
And I doubt they will be able to. AI is not the same as human consciousness. In fact humans are poor data taking devices...this is where machines are much more reliable and accurate in performing this function...however machines are not capable of emulating human consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Your choice of examples suggests to me that you think building sentient machines is probably impossible. Perhaps so, but I won't be betting against it.
I am not betting for or against it. I am simply applying what we know about human physiology and human consciousness.
Matadora and I and others, I suppose, consider your claims and arguments - if sense can be made of them. We even try to find the sense in them. But it seems that reasonable discussion isn't what you want - not even unquestioning agreement. You want a battle.
You are not going to get one from me, because your system is not original, and not as well argued as some similar ones, so we don't need it, or you.
Wrong And I think you are keeping the wrangle going so I'll make this the last until you start making sense (Mystic siding with me? good grief). And it's a pity.
I care about the subject, getting it right as much as I can, and about about the terms I use -sometimes. But I don't care what you think.
dishonest. I am not going tit for tat with you. you guys always tos the first condescending comment.Moderator cut: delete
The "not making sense" is rhetoric. It demonstrates my point very well. You will do anything to keep your belief system in tact. Just like that other group you rant against.
And the claim we are in a system that is best described as alive must be good because you refuse to answer or address it directly, openly and honestly. You know full well 'natural" is not the most valid answer and you don't care because you are maintaining a belief system. what are your so afraid of?
no you care what I think, that's why you have to try and blurry a reasonable claim with as many posts as you can. never addressing the point directly because you know your stance fails. hmmm, what other group does that?
you brought up mystic ... not me ... good grief.
the simple fact is, the system we are in is best described as "alive" then any other single notion we have. It is based on chemistry, physics, and biology.
repeating "natural" is you running away, avoiding, dismissing ... knowingly doing so too ... just like that other group of fundy mentals you rant against.
atp is the cord from the sun to us. Well, what is the system supporting the delivery/disseminating method? whats it doing? Life. you can't chow me one separated part, or isolated system, on planet earth.
so your flat out wrong.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-01-2017 at 05:34 PM..
Reason: Stop referencing Matadora's brother. He is not the subject of the op
I would not put much stock into what Penrose is claiming.
I don't have any confidence in Penrose's specific quantum mechanism, but I do think that, in a broad-brushstroke sorta way, he is probably right about the problem of self-reference interfering with a mechanistic model of consciousness. The problem of intentionality (i.e., how a physical system is able to refer to, or "be about" something) is a giant puzzle and source of great debate in cognitive science and philosophy of mind. When that which is referenced is, itself, the system that is doing the referencing (i.e., when the intended "object" is, itself, the subject), the problems of intentionality are even harder to get a grip on. I'm fairly confidence that Roger Penrose and - taking a different approach - Douglas Hofstadter are both barking up the best tree, even though, perhaps, neither has yet targeted exactly the right branch for best effectiveness. (To anyone who has never read Hofstadter, I would recommend "The Mind's I" (co-authored with Dan Dennett - is flat-out fun to read, but also insightful). Godel, Escher, Bach is fascinating too, but you really need to be a super-nerd to wade thought that. I Am A Strange Loop has some great stuff, but I just can't recommend it as highly.) Anyway, for what it's worth, paradoxes of self-reference play an important role in my own theory of consciousness. When I point to the logical limits of objective science, I have these guys in the back of my mind.
yeah. right, you guys get challenged and cry foul.
When we say something back you say we started it.
how is the interactions, taken as a whole, we are in best described:
nonlife : (f0/fi pump, motor protien, cell starnds, atp, or whatever you want to compare it too)
virus: self explanatory
life: (keep it simple: Cell)
A "mixture" of life and non life doesn't apply because we are a "mixture" of life and non life too and we are alive.
physics: we are a set of interacting fields. no isolated self.
chemistry: our existence is based largely on valance shell electrons and the functionality set up by proteins shapes
biology: the net effect of the interactions in a given volume is what we call/classify 'life", non-life, virus
no there is no combative nature to that claim.
defending "natural" as a reasonable answer is what?
I think you guys stay with qualia because its easier to say "not known" and maintain the illusion of fair play while keeping up your assault on believers.
^^^ The problem you keep missing is that there is no challenge from you. Nothing Nada Zilch.
Most of what you post is has nothing at all to do with the discussion. Same with the absurd assertions you make against others.
You simply make no sense most of the time and/or all you are looking for is to belittle and battle others who won't play your nonsense games.
There is nothing at all challenging about anything you post.
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.
And I think you are keeping the wrangle going so I'll make this the last until you start making sense (Mystic siding with me? good grief). And it's a pity.
