Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
as I've said before, a scientific theory of mind, consciousness, whatever, necessarily implies that the theory could be used to create the same thing, presumably without a biological brain.
that's what a scientific theory does, it predicts the outcome of a situation, so it can be used to "simulate" the same system precisely and accurately.
in many ways machines do what minds once did alone, imagine doing all the calculations that are now done, but with pencil and paper (or "in your head"). Hard to imagine, but that's the way calculations were done once upon a time. once you understanding how to calculate then building a machine to calculate is a natural application.
there are many more things that machines do because we figured out how we do them and then built the machines to. and you cannot tell the difference between a machine and a person if the question is: "what is 2+2?"
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
as I've said before, a scientific theory of mind, consciousness, whatever, necessarily implies that the theory could be used to create the same thing, presumably without a biological brain. That's what a scientific theory does, it predicts the outcome of a situation, so it can be used to "simulate" the same system precisely and accurately.
I would say a scientific theory might imply a lot of things, but we have no capability to create an artificial brain. That's because even an exascale supercomputer is essentially a simple and crude hack compared to any given cubic millimeter of brain tissue. And, as it is, we haven't even cracked the basics of brain anatomy or chemistry let alone architecture, functional design or a 'theory of mind' (scientific or otherwise).
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jan: . . . it's their interpretations that are so drastically different.
+1
. . . trained people with high clearances can't keep their mouths shut, especially when drinking around young girls!
Great story, and full of truthfulness.
Paul: Is there anyone who has posited a testable theory as to what consciousness is or what a thought is?
Ha-ha. That seems like a dumb question, until one reads some of the posts here.
First, one needs to describe consciousness. . . you know, like some attributes or characteristics? Then folks could generate theories to test whatever concept they think most represents what consciousness or mind is.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
You confuse genetically programmed behavior with consciousness.
You have no way of being certain as to which is which. After all you can't define consciousness itself.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
there are many more things that machines do because we figured out how we do them and then built the machines to. and you cannot tell the difference between a machine and a person if the question is: "what is 2+2?"
I like this because in it is the notion that belief defines reality: If I believe that machine is conscious then it is. Poor reality, sacrificed on the altar of science.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Paul: Is there anyone who has posited a testable theory as to what consciousness is or what a thought is?
As Mike alludes, we can't even define the word 'consciousness', much less develop a theory. But I have doubts a plant is conscious (and I have my suspicions about Ducks).
Is there a connection between remote viewing and meditation?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I like this because in it is the notion that belief defines reality: If I believe that machine is conscious then it is. Poor reality, sacrificed on the altar of science.
not what I said, but then it is easy to turn around too,
"If I believe a machine is not conscious, then it is not."
how do you tell the difference between these two statements?
I suspect you will say, essentially, "well it's obvious"
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You can hook a meter up to a plant and come near it with a thought to destroy it and the plant will react.
The meter will jump in it's scale.
Another person will have good thoughts going near the plant and the meter will not jump.
The test has been made repeatable with the same results.
You people just throw out bullsh!t. You're no scientists.
Do the actual experiments.
But you don't ... it's all talk and no go here .....
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Plants are not only conscious, they have ESP. How are they at remote viewing?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
You have no way of being certain as to which is which.
We actually do have quite good methods for determining which is which in less complex organisms and even in humans we have plenty of good methods for determining which behaviors are conscious and which are purely programmed / instinctual.
After all you can't define consciousness itself.
But we fortunately can define and identify lots of genetically-based behaviors so being able to define consciousness isn't necessary. For instance, we know that a Venus Fly Trap closing on an insect is a genetically programmed response and does not represent a conscious behavior.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
being able to define consciousness isn't necessary
It is 100% necessary because it defines life and is the source of life itself.
But since you're insane Joe you try and steer around it .....
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
No, in this case it's not necessary at all and consciousness certainly doesn't define or source life regardless of your vedic and wizard hat beliefs.
P.S. No one has ever published or produced peer reviewed research suggesting telepathy or any kind of empathic response in plants.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
I don't know about remote viewing although the view from the top of a hundred foot tree is pretty spectacular, but here's an interesting article on plants and consciousness (however you define that) which takes a middle of the road approach and is pretty interesting.
https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/66/2/425/2893254
I like to contemplate how plants communicate through chemicals they send to each other when under attack by insects. It really raises the question of what is language. If sign language is a form of language in addition to speech, why not chemicals transmitted from tree to tree? And haven't we always said that in humans language was an important part of consciousness?
Whatever else is going on, it is really hard to think outside the limits of our own sense perceptions. We can't even imagine what a dog gets out of its sense of smell even though we have a a similar though inferior sense organ ourselves.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Well, a degree I do have is in horticulture and plant genetics and what I will say is that all but a very few humans throughout history have underestimated the sensory capabilities of plants, the speed and variety of their responses, and their ability to communicate collectively (bacteria do it, so it shouldn't be a big surprise). There is a genetic basis for both those sensory capabilities and the behavioral responses.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
We actually do have quite good methods for determining which is which in less complex organisms and even in humans we have plenty of good methods for determining which behaviors are conscious and which are purely programmed / instinctual.
Much of what happens in the conscious mind is instinctual as well. There is no clear distinction between the two, instinct and consciousness. Perhaps if plants fool us into believing they're conscious they will be.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
There is no clear distinction between the two, instinct and consciousness.
There are endless clear distinctions between the two. Your heart doesn't beat consciously. You don't breathe voluntarily, porpoises do. You don't choose to hear or not hear. Many human behavioral responses happen at speeds faster than conscious awareness (cue Werner...).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You haven't said one thing about consciousness itself yet.
You're still even more insane ....
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Yes, I have: that consciousness emerges as an identifiable and observable behavior on the continuum of behavioral capabilities of extant species and on the evolutionary tree of species - i.e. that consciousness developed as an inevitable behavioral response to ever more sophisticated predation scenarios.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
What is consciousness ? Is it thinking i.e. the dominant internal dialog? If so what is it when the dialog is not going? When the dialog is not going there are feelings without dialog what are those?
? Are they consciousness? What is this "I" that is relating to feelings and the new arrivals into the five senses. What is the relationship between "I" and the senses? Do the feelings control you or do you have some freedom and work independent of the senses? As a rock climber we all had to learn how to work with fear and work independent of it,but also recognize when it it was telling the truth and then deciding what to do.
So what about sadness , anger,joy where do they come from? what are they? What's our relationship?
It is the relationship with these moments that interest me not the definitions of where they are in the neurochemical net.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
At the moment consciousness falls under the heading of not being able to quite put your paw on it, but you know it when you see it. Check in with the nearest jumping spider and tell me it isn't conscious.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!