Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
And how would the super computer "know" or detect said "so-called" subjective states having never had contact with a sentient being? That would by definition have to be the criteria if you claim that sentience could be detected strictly by mechanical means. You would, perforce, have to eliminate a subjective entity cuing the dummy (machine) what to look for, lest the subjective entity would be doing the machines heavy lifting.
The machine has to detect and explain sentience all by itself, from the very workings of it's own bucket of bolts. And that, my friend, ain't happening no how because sentience can only be "know" by a subject, once sentient instant at a time.
Again, now you are expanding the scenario from your original post in which you merely had the machine objectively examining the brain.
Now apparently our machine has had no prior contact with a sentient being?? wTF?
Even Uncle Fred's Cadillac had her tuning tuned up by a sentient human.
There is nothing mysteriously unknowable about so-called human subjective states per se.
The Artificial Intelligence has no problem understanding that they exist, what and where they arise, what part of the brain they light up, and the effects of these states upon the external world.
Can the computer actually partake in these rarefied states?
No.
Because a computer is inorganic.
Subjective states do not have to be mandatorily experienced first hand to be known and recognized by an intelligent cutting edge machine, in a purely objective manner.
So -called subjective states are like a hand or an eyelid. They are organic constituents of human life. Nothing arcanely exalted going on there beyond the ordinary and yet miraculous thing we call Life.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
But maybe you could be a tad more specific and dial in your question a little more, keeping it close as possible to what you are most curious about, as opposed to what you think or imagine is most suspect.
I wouldn't want to limit it to what I'm curious about, don't want to make it about me. So, just anything and everything that has noticeably changed in consequence of working to develop this attentiveness, perspective, broader range of experience, the "other side of the coin." Things that language should be able to convey, since it's clearly not the appropriate medium for exploring the Real Deal. For example (but not limited to) interpersonal relationships, day-to-day ups and downs, climbing at high levels, whatever might offer an insight into the worldly outcomes of time spent at sangha versus not.
|
|
Byran
climber
Yosemite
|
|
Can the computer actually partake in these rarefied states?
No.
Because a computer is inorganic.
Why do you assume that when a carbon/nitrogen/oxygen based brain sends electrical signals across itself that it creates "consciousness", but when a silicon/copper/silver based computer chip does more or less the same thing, it doesn't result in consciousness?
"Life" in the biological sense, is only necessary for consciousness insofar as the neurons in our brains have to be alive to work properly. A computer doesn't require cellular metabolism to function, so the fact that it's inorganic shouldn't exempt it from experiencing consciousness.
Carl Sagan wrote a lot about looking for alien life in the universe and how we go about it in a very anthropocentric way - always looking for "earthlike" planets which would support carbon life similar to our own, when in fact alien intelligence could very well be silicon based or something even stranger.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
"Life" in the biological sense,
I like Ed's definition from way back; to be alive it needs to reproduce.
As far as my computer, until it humps my iPhone and gives me a watch. It ain't alive!
As far as consciousness, what happens to it when you turn the on switch off?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Why do you assume that when a carbon/nitrogen/oxygen based brain sends electrical signals across itself that it creates "consciousness", but when a silicon/copper/silver based computer chip does more or less the same thing, it doesn't result in consciousness?
I didn't say that. I said , and implied , that a computer cannot experience those particular subjective states in question, like love, for instance , because such states are organically based.
A computer has no need to experience "lust " for instance, unless you've discovered a recent Apple product or app that I am not aware of.
Could humping computers be the next thing on youporn?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
The problem, Ward, is that you confuse subjective and objective, and when I said the objective cannot detect the subjective, you have simply gone into the standard default mode of saying detection of physical markers of consciousness is the same thing as subjective experience itself. My sense of it is you are such a staunch physicalist that you would go so far as to consider the subjective life you actually live and experience to be less of a real phenomenon that the material you believe "creates" you, and all you will be know. But let's look at what you have said.
-
Again, now you are expanding the scenario from your original post in which you merely had the machine objectively examining the brain.
-
The intention of the original post was to show the simple fact that a machine, in and of itself, cannot detect subjective experience, having no capacity and no reference to know or recognize what human experience actually is. The best a machine can hope to ever recognize is objective functioning.
Now apparently our machine has had no prior contact with a sentient being?? wTF?
If a machine can detect subjectivity mechanically, why would it need input from a sentient being to do it's mechanical work?
Even Uncle Fred's Cadillac had her tuning tuned up by a sentient human.
Sentience is handy like that.
There is nothing mysteriously unknowable about so-called human subjective states per se.
What I believe you mean by this statement is that you believe subjectivity is entirely mechanistic and brain based, and every facet of conscious is quantifiable. If so, quantify raw awareness. What is it? And by means of what experience and what empirical data have you arrieved at your beliefs?
The Artificial Intelligence has no problem understanding that they exist, what and where they arise, what part of the brain they light up, and the effects of these states upon the external world.
Explain to the world how a machine would, in and of itself, "understand" how subjective sentient experience would exist. Note I am not asking for the machine to point out objective functioning. This false argument, assuming the two are selfsame, has been decided decades ago. And where does consciousness arise? And how?
Can the computer actually partake in these rarefied states?
No. Because a computer is inorganic.
---
Subjective states do not have to be mandatorily experienced first hand to be known and recognized by an intelligent cutting edge machine, in a purely objective manner.
-
This statement is a contradiction and a total confusion of terms. First, we need to acknowledge a coin has two sides and they are not selfsame. Anyone can see this as a simple fact. Likewise, we humans, while living in a subjective space from birth to death, we also have a physical body, but few of us confuse objective stuff with our person experience. You keep insisting that a machine can "know and recognize" subjectivty, but these are human attributes specific to sentience. A machine can only detect and resigster/record so-called objective functions it has been programmed to detect, which are associated with subjectivity. No machine can detect sentience itself. Only objective functioning. Only by conflating the objective and subjective can we say "heads are also tails," but every schoolboy knows better.
So -called subjective states are like a hand or an eyelid. They are organic constituents of human life. Nothing arcanely exalted going on there beyond the ordinary and yet miraculous thing we call Life.
|
|
MisterE
climber
|
|
The stupid dog says -- "unlike religion, which is merely a state of mind"
Then why are you stating your mind.
Instead of scientifically giving your mind.
Man, .... are you ever stupid ......
States of being are much more expressive in this regard.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Largoid :
Right now I'm headed to my local sang-gaga ( Starbucks) to sit in the downtown environment , check out the passing babe-a-thon, and talk to my old Spanish friend (if he shows up) whose family knew and worked for Salvador Dali.
Dali at work in his office:
Okay. Lets hear it for 5.4 climbs
Mannnnnnnn--tel . Lol
Just look at the " exposure"
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
squish
Are your posts, your posts? Or jus cut and pastes? Do you have legit questions?
Either way you certainly don't have any understanding of the bible.
I would be just as naive as you if I posted Hitlers recipes on how to BBQ Jews.
What point are you trying to produce?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Largo the vid you linked is one of the best I've watched from this forum.
A machine can only detect and resigster/record so-called objective functions it has been programmed to detect, which are associated with subjectivity. No machine can detect sentience itself.
Resoundingly it was the 16th century when man proposed nature is no more than a machine.
How any climber could agree with this I can not fathom. But it does bring me awareness to why people here can't connect with their souls..
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
I like Ed's definition from way back; to be alive it needs to reproduce.
Then explain the difference between a virus and a computer (or any other common item really). A virus lacks a formal reproductive system; if you have it in a test tube all by itself it will just sit there. Add a host (factory) and you will soon end up with millions of copies.
Similarly, computers don't (yet) reproduce on their own, but given a factory with sufficient resources and capabilities it will be reproduced and eventually evolve into a more efficient form
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Hey, it's not that I can't see Ward's point. But in all of these arguments you will find that physicalists fall back to insisting that your uncle is your aunt and "so-called" subjectivity IS in fact, objectivity. If you believe that anything is no greater than the parts imagined to create it, you believe this with all your heart.
But as with all things like this, we can ask, if the machine can detect subjectivity, can look into our brains and say I detect a person sensing a stunning girl with fine form, what the machine will perforce point to is not the experience itself of said feline, rather a bunch of neural activity. And if you can't tell the difference between this and experience, no one is going to talk you out of it.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Potemkin Village
|
|
You know who...
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
Why won't the God of Abraham heal amputees?
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Bluey, what is gained from connection with soul?
A personal connection with such stuff does not need to be dragged around in some sort of pious display.
The auto response by many in the Christian community to label "un-saved" and then condescend and/or attempt to save through conversion is vile...
... believe what you need and and respect others inner realms as private unless they wish to discuss those realms.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
MH2. Put down that beer bong. Go to the corner. Sit yourself down. Keep your back straight. Soft focus, but eyes open, gaze downward at a 45 angle or whatever is comfortable. Watch your breath and ignore whatever comes up, moving neither to nor away from any thought, feeling (however fuzzy), insight, horror, or memory. Report back in five years, when you have something to say.
I'm calling you out on this. People thrown that argument out there all the time and it is not supported by any empirical evidence save that if you screw with the meat brain - shoot it, pour whiskey on it, drug it, introduce pathologies - that our perception is directly effected.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Bluey, what is gained from connection with soul?
I'm understanding my problem is, I give people way to much credit for having any understanding of the bible. I wish people could get past all the negativism and read for themselves what the only book that proclaims to be authored by the creator of the universe and the creator of you. To seek out what His wishes are for you, and understand His plan for salvation. Sure anybody can have a certain connection with their own spirit/soul and go along seemingly happy and content though the years. But when you can afford to drop the ego and ask God for advice toward the experience of spirit. ( His intercession will only be met with a wholeheartedly approach) and with that meeting the soul and heart become so full and apparent, it's hard to imagine life without God.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Add a host (factory) and you will soon end up with millions of copies.
Didn't you answer your own question there?
And as far as computers. An automotive assembly line isn't what's referred to as "reproductive"
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Bluey, my contract is written differently...
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Bluebloc...when are you going to drop the ego...you are smack in the middle of a pissing match and you won't stop...pure ego.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!