Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2016 - 07:43pm PT
|
Yes, Jan, an interesting article on whether evolution can have a purpose. I have now read the article, and was not surprised to find that I had read it before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sirens_of_Titan
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2016 - 08:06pm PT
|
Thanks, Ed.
Nice post, Fruit Spirit.
Thinking of Zeno's Paradox, is there anything in the universe that is absolutely still and has no moving parts? I think not. If I write the equation of the path of a projectile, inserting "initial velocity" and other parameters, like air resistance and directional data, is that V(0) really accurate? On a very small time scale the powder must ignite and produce gas pressure to propel the object and this does not happen in an instant. Is there even an "instant" when the whole process is put into play? Or, starting from a hypothetical zero moment, how is motion possible?
This is a little like Zeno's dilemma of an object in motion approaching an end point, each second going half the remaining distance. Turn that around and we have a projectile going from zero to some positive velocity as it begins at zero and launches. What does "begin" mean when there is always motion of some sort as we backtrack?
Deep waters, here, comrades. Is JL correct that everything is in states of flux, down though quantum levels? Would it be possible that an object have absolutely no moving parts no matter how deeply one looks? Would this void the concept of time? If this could happen would space-time be disrupted?
After dinner, drowsy musings . . .
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2016 - 08:15pm PT
|
Would it be possible that an object have absolutely no moving parts no matter how deeply one looks?
Could you re-state this in the context of General Relativity?
;>)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2016 - 09:24pm PT
|
No
;>)
Know anything about “path dependency”
Well, in complex analysis a contour integral depends only upon its end points for its value, provided the integrand is analytic in the area of interest. If it's not analytic, then the value depends upon the path of integration. Not what you're talking about, as I Wikied the expression!
The "butterfly effect" occurs when a system is SDIC - sensitive dependence on initial conditions. I play with this not infrequently as I locate and explore "repulsive fixed points" or singularities of functions in the complex plane. Exp(1/z) has an "essential" singularity at z=0, although for the Re(z)<0 , surprisingly, it's not badly behaved.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 07:20am PT
|
Jan,
It’s interesting that “interesting articles” these days revolve around or are based upon the core narrative that science provides us. Whether there could is a purpose to evolution *is not discussed* in that article (or in many other articles) from literary or dramatic points of view, from new religious points of view (other than primarily Christian), from mythological points of view (ala, Greek or Roman), from artistic points of view, etc. As wildly speculative as some of the theories are in the NY Times article, it is noteworthy that all potential narratives were, or apparently needed to be, scientifically legitimate to be considered or discussed.
The requirement for explanation seems to overwhelm the very experience of living for moderns. The notion that there must be development in human experience, in the universe, in what and how things are, could just as easily be a myth that we feel compelled to hold dear. The point of view is instrumentally oriented, to progress, to being and getting better, to ways of “saving ourselves” from problems and difficulties that we want to avoid even (if we aren’t able to do so in our own lifetimes). It’s comforting to know that we are a part of a project structurally oriented to getting and being better. It’s what almost all of what therapeutic psychology is oriented to: “we’re broken, but we can fix ourselves; we can improve who and what we are, in all ways possible.”
What makes us think that view of progress is not a myth?
"We need faith and hope in our lives. We cannot seem to live with pain and suffering. Perfection is reachable."
What is Mind? would seem to have much to do with that.
Good post, HFCS.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 13, 2016 - 07:31am PT
|
how do you know that "Ed" has feelings, dreams, fears, desires and so forth?
We can look at this question from an epistemological vantage (philosophy of knowing) and just spin around. But knowing – however you define it – that you DO have an inner life is a basic assumption of living in the world, just as there are basic assumptions in physics. I suppose you can argue that point but it doesn’t further the discussion. We simply get bogged down.
Fact is, the commonality of sentience is an essential and primal aspect of all humans, and when a person lacks the internal cues and innate knowing what others are thinking and feeling in general terms, that person is abnormal and is labeled as autistic or other names.
But this is inadequate for several reasons. A person can argue that one, that innate knowing (that Ed has feelings etc.) is based on physical cues and body language, and two, this could possibly be explained in terms of signal theory, that this innate knowing and recognizing could be nothing else but brains relating to each other, sans awareness.
But what makes this whole study so slippery is that sentience, our very awareness of experience, is not observable as a 3rd person external object. Nor can you ever detect or observe sentience through 3rd person means.
The most brilliant machine from a billion years in the future could never detect sentience, only objective functioning. Only sentience can find and interface with sentience itself, though sentient beings might some day build a machine that can replicate sentience and still not have it. To discover the difference you need to probe the AI model to find out why and how. I’ll get to that once I get over this jet lag (just got to Zurich. Going to Cerne soon).
Lastly, we can’t look at sentience ITSELF with convincing metaphorical or figurative language, or frame it in other terms because sentience is not LIKE anything else, or any thing.
I’ll develop these thoughts later when I can think straight, or straighter than now.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 08:14am PT
|
they don't understand that they're going to have to do this all again, and again, and again
Reminds me it's time to walk our dog.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 08:30am PT
|
But knowing – however you define it – that you DO have an inner life is a basic assumption of living in the world, just as there are basic assumptions in physics.
we question the basic assumptions of physics everyday... as a part of doing physics...
your entire post is rather flaccid... based on your argument regarding the separation of 1st and 3rd personhood, the answer is that you cannot know that I have "an inner life."
My "inner life" is a suspect as that of the machines I would claim have "an inner life," a notion you find absurd.
However, the only way you know I have an "inner life" is precisely the same way we can say a machine has one, that is through behavioral clues. The difference being that our "theory of mind" requires the other be like us, that is, human. In the past, this meant being of the same local human culture...
Great strides in expanding our view of who has a mind (the acceptance of all humans as "human") has been accomplished relatively recently in human history. But even now there is great resistance to the idea that this be expanded to non-human species, at least in philosophical circles.
As I have said upthread (multiple times) you can define "mind" as being possessed only by humans. Then this topic becomes a literary one.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 13, 2016 - 10:41am PT
|
However, the only way you know I have an "inner life" is precisely the same way we can say a machine has one, that is through behavioral clues. The difference being that our "theory of mind" requires the other be like us, that is, human. In the past, this meant being of the same local human culture...
------
Not at all, Ed. My "flaccid" answer wasn't one because I have't gone into explaining how "behavioral clues," or 3rd person "evidence" is a dead end for finding out the difference between sentience and signal registration. I don't expect you go give up this view because apparently it is the only vantage that you know or consciously trust. You unconsciously trust awareness throughout, but the task is to get you to see that clearly. I'll start working in that direction, but it might not ever be enough if you are looking for 3rd person physical proof of sentience.
DMT, if you believe that a machine could ever detect sentience in another thing or being, how would it so and what would give it away in terms of physical markers? What's more, what data would it be able to cull from a data processor to imagine or even logically postulate signal registration as opposed to 1st person experience.
The reason I have repeatedly asked - no answer so far - asked about Dennett's Folly ("we only think we have experience"), and what criteria would have to be met to establish experience as genuine - is bore out in the ungraspable nature of awareness, as a phenomenon we cannot objectify in the normal way (measuring). Unless people have grappled with this question directly, they will continue to imagine the day that this "mechanical function" can be imparted or programmed into a machine.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 11:14am PT
|
your entire post is rather flaccid... based on your argument regarding the separation of 1st and 3rd personhood, the answer is that you cannot know that I have "an inner life."
This statement is predicated on an assumption of certainty regarding what it is to" know." Likewise you could say just as easily we cannot know anything, unless you define knowing as simply an observed repeatability. The assumption that you have an inner life is based on an intuition from personal experience that is again based on a human sensitivity for understanding that has a practical validity. What is lost here is an understanding of the difference between information and knowledge. Without that understanding we descend into circular, solipsistic misunderstanding. Without the "I" there is no knowledge, there is only information.
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 12:48pm PT
|
A Pattern for Prayer
Matthew 6:7-15
In Matthew 6:7, Jesus cautioned against meaningless repetition when talking to the Father. Just two verses later, He left a pattern to help us pray. However, in using this passage, which is known as the Lord’s Prayer, we’re often guilty of the very thing Jesus warned against: Instead of thoughtfully praying each line, we run through the words mindlessly. But if we take time to carefully examine Christ’s words, we’ll find the pattern that can transform our prayer life.
Adoration of the Father (Matt. 6:9). God the Father is the focus of all our prayers. We should never forget what a privilege it is to bend our knees on earth and reach almighty God in heaven.
Submission to His Will (Matt. 6:10). Prayer should reflect a desire to align ourselves with God’s goals and purposes, not to get Him to follow our plans.
Petition God for our needs (Matt. 6:11). We are dependent upon the Lord, and He wants us to come to Him with our requests.
Confession of sins (Matt. 6:12). When we repent and forgive others, we maintain fellowship with God. But if we hold grudges, that fellowship is broken. God loves to answer our prayers when the lines of communication are not disrupted.
Deliverance from evil (Matt. 6:13). Our enemy is too strong for us, but Christ has already won the victory over him.
Jesus ended the prayer where He began—with praise to the Father for His kingdom, power, and glory (Matt. 6:13). Next time you say this prayer, concentrate on each verse. Then, following this pattern will result in a more dynamic and effective prayer life because it will be God-centered.
https://www.intouch.org/read/magazine/daily-devotions/a-pattern-for-prayer
...Mind + Heart = Gratefulness!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 03:56pm PT
|
Unless people have grappled with this question directly, they will continue to imagine the day that this "mechanical function" can be imparted or programmed into a machine
By "grapple" I assume you mean hours of philosophical argument. Or do you mean the meditative experience of "open awareness?" Or do you speak of frustrated neuroscientists who can't quite quantify subjective experience?
HBO's Westworld points the way to the future.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 05:04pm PT
|
Artificial Intelligence and the King Midas Problem...
"Very simple robots with very constrained tasks do not need goals or values at all. Although the Roomba’s designers know you want a clean floor, Roomba doesn’t: it simply executes a procedure that the Roomba’s designers predict will work—most of the time. If your kitten leaves a messy pile on the carpet, Roomba will dutifully smear it all over the living room."
http://futureoflife.org/2016/12/12/artificial-intelligence-king-midas-problem/
"Our experience with Chernobyl suggests it may be unwise to claim that a powerful technology entails no risks. It may also be unwise to claim that a powerful technology will never come to fruition. On September 11, 1933, Lord Rutherford, perhaps the world’s most eminent nuclear physicist, described the prospect of extracting energy from atoms as nothing but “moonshine.” Less than 24 hours later, Leo Szilard invented the neutron-induced nuclear chain reaction; detailed designs for nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons followed a few years later. Surely it is better to anticipate human ingenuity than to underestimate it, better to acknowledge the risks than to deny them. … [T]he risk [of AI] arises from the unpredictability and potential irreversibility of deploying an optimization process more intelligent than the humans who specified its objectives.”
Stuart Russell
...
Jerry Coyne's takedown of Robert Wright...
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/robert-wright-in-the-nyt-evolution-could-have-a-higher-purpose/
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 08:11pm PT
|
asked about Dennett's Folly ("we only think we have experience")
it is possible that the thing you perceive as "experience" isn't what you are experiencing, a behavior adaptation that conveys a survival advantage... as MikeL referenced way up thread...
you perceive the world as a continuous experience, though you know that you do not have a continuous sensation... for instance, you are staring at the screen reading this post and are totally unaware of two rather large blind spots where the optic nerve attaches to your retina, different in both eyes.
yet you believe that the thing you are seeing is continuous...
the thing you take to be the monolithic mind might be, very different in reality, but your perception pieces it together, smoothing over the gaps and bumps and even giving it capabilities that do not exist...
in that sense, you would only think you have experience... the thing you actually have is different from what you think, just as your vision is different then the continuous scene you appear to see.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2016 - 08:46pm PT
|
The assumption that you have an inner life is based on an intuition from personal experience that is again based on a human sensitivity for understanding that has a practical validity.
Are you talking about the assumption that people other than yourself have an inner life, or the assumption that you yourself have an inner life?
Are you aware of the Hogan twins, who share parts of their brains? The Hogan twins show that one brain can communicate directly to another. They raise the possibility, at least for twins, of a range from one brain to two separate brains with varying degrees of connectedness in between.
Your left brain hemisphere communicates with its right side counterpart through a narrow strip of axons called the corpus callosum. If we were looking for a way to connect the brains of different people, the corpus callosum would make a good place to start. You would need a recording/sending device and a receiving/stimulating device, and they could be the same, and would not be hard to make. The risks of surgery would outweigh any benefit I can think of, but this sort of approach is of interest in cases of lengthy coma where there is a question of whether the coma patient still has a working brain. In such cases, fMRI has been used with occasional success.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/headtrauma/40947
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147439/
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2016 - 08:37am PT
|
Ed: [T]he thing you take to be the monolithic mind might be, very different in reality, but your perception pieces it together, smoothing over the gaps and bumps and even giving it capabilities that do not exist...
This seems to be my experience and my understanding from the literature in cognition. There would seem to be plenty of evidence that anyone could observe that supports the notion that there is not one, monolithic mind that belongs to a person. Or if there is, it can’t be described; it seems to be beyond our grasp.
The spiritual notion that there is experience qua experience (without content) seems apparent as a baseline (“alaya” in Tibetan terms). One can experience it with practice, but focusing on that alone may bring a single perspective that is unbalanced and incomplete—and for those reasons, false.
My understanding of experience is becoming more complex than I can see and articulate. There’s science (yay!), there’s religion, there’s spirituality, there’s aesthetics, there’s ethics, there is everyday work, there are emotions and feelings, there are relationships that I seem to have with all that appears around me, there is the unconscious and subconscious, there is my ego, there is an overall flow of mindstream (which seems to be out of my direct control), and so on. Spirituality points up, soulfulness points down to mundacity, the body is a compilation of sensing and activity (much of which we don’t seem to be conscious of), we live in a material world (we think) but much of it if not all of it is constructed and understood through the assistance by an innumerable set of processes psychologically sociologically anthropologically, and there is what we refer to as interiority (thinking, feeling, emotions, sense of identity, etc.).
Piecing all of these different dimensions and ideas together appears to be beyond us. The pieces (as conceptualized and articulated) don’t fit together; they are incommensurate. They use different terms, concepts, metrics, base philosophies, etc. (Ed and maybe Jgill think, however, that there could be universal languages that can unite all views, but . . . .)
Depth psychologists argue that there is nothing but imagination. It generates myths everywhere in everything. Archetypes from the collective unconsciousness structure our worlds, especially our interiorities. Their advice psychologically is to get in touch with all of the archetypes, to see them as imaginative templates and frameworks, rather than to fight them, avoid them, or “fix” them. Those interior templates and frameworks (complexes, archetypes) are symbolic and cannot be interpreted; rather they should be recognized, met, lived in, and lived with.
Put all together, it seems inadvisable to argue for any one point of view alone . . . not spirituality, not just materialism, not just science, not just aesthetics, not just the body, not just thoughts, not just feelings, not just myths, not just physical narratives, not just historical fact, not just ethics, etc. Not just one view seems to describe all that we experience, all that we are, all that we imagine, not even all that we can see—or not see.
I’ve written this post this morning as an exercise to expose and clarify my experiences and understandings these days. I’ve been reading James Hillman’s writings. I’m seeing limitations of all views.
I wonder what one calls it when one has gone beyond nihilism and solipsism?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2016 - 02:39pm PT
|
The mind is usually associated with thinking and not necessarily with instinctive reacting. Therein lies the possibility of a distinction between awareness and consciousness. But that's a trifle. The mind as assembler or organizer might be more appropriate. So many things happening in the brain in so little time, there must be a controller of sorts. In everyday affairs we put together so many sensations that the mind as organizer, sorter and planner is paramount, then when we move into a stronger contemplative thought mode the input from the senses is pushed further from our consciousness and what we think of as mind becomes focused on internal dialogue and perhaps, at the time, more abstract problem solving.
All this has been said before and philosophized ad nauseam. But as MikeL as pointed out there are so many things going on simultaneously within and around us that there must be a Chief of Staff in our Oval Offices, ready for the allocation of our time and effort.
I wonder what one calls it when one has gone beyond nihilism and solipsism?
Unemotional scientific inquiry?
Probably not. Maybe just normal, everyday existence.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2016 - 05:07pm PT
|
An enjoyable, informative, thought-provoking read on AI...
In two parts:
Part I: The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
Part II: The AI Revolution: Our Immortality or Extinction
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html
"Before the prospect of an intelligence explosion, we humans are like small children playing with a bomb. Such is the mismatch between the power of our plaything and the immaturity of our conduct. Superintelligence is a challenge for which we are not ready now and will not be ready for a long time. We have little idea when the detonation will occur, though if we hold the device to our ear we can hear a faint ticking sound." -Nick Bostrom
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2016 - 06:58pm PT
|
There would seem to be plenty of evidence that anyone could observe that supports the notion that there is not one, monolithic mind that belongs to a person. Or if there is, it can’t be described; it seems to be beyond our grasp.
Or it could arise from the sort of simple interactions that likely operate in a school of fish, a flight of birds, or a herd of zebra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence
But if you prefer deeper thinking:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kandmind/
For the moment, I will follow Alan Thicke:
"...his platform, his philosophy, is really all about self interest, selfishness; if you do what’s right for you, it’ll end up being right for other people."
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/listen.html?autoPlay=true&mediaIds=828018243600
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!