Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1561 - 1580 of total 2323 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:13pm PT
True, if the machine were Uncle Fred's old beat up Cadillac.
If ,on the other hand , the machine was the IBM model that beat the two humans on Jeopardy then you are outta luck.


Think about what you're saying there, Ward old buddy.

A machine is by nature a mechanical thing. It has no reference or access to and therefore no capacity to "imagine" or postulate what subjective experience would be like and would entail. And there is nothing else inside or outside of it's mainframe that remotely resembles subjective experience. Even the smartest machine could only detect objective functioning. And unless you are what we call a "collapser," objective functioning is not sentience.

Think about how the IBM model would even begin to describe sensations or feelings or states and modes of being. It would never get past the micro level of chemical reactions.

One of the problems with a staunch materialism is that you invariable end up defining man as a machine qualitatively no different than Uncle Fred's old car. Just more better. But it's still a bucket of bolts. Not a sentient human being.

JL
squishy

Mountain climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:14pm PT
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:25pm PT
Jim Standridge is the very avatar of an unconscious man, so surfeited with his own imagined importance he's ready to explode. He is the old, straight, right wing peckerwood still believing someone cares, when in fact the parade has marched past and ain't bothered to look back at old Jimbo. He and his type are done. They had a decent run and here we are.

Imagine telling Jim he needs an attitude adjustment and that black woman over there is gonna give it to him, like it or not.

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:28pm PT
re: parts and wholes
re: arithmetic sum versus synergistic sum (synergy)

We've been over this ground before but heck...

As soon as one assembles parts into a functional whole, he's created something greater than the arithmetic sum of its parts. We do it all the time. On purpose. Including the works on the 'Show Me What You're Building' thread.

Culture, another example. Culture, a subject I'm reading about now in evolutionary terms, is a system that's greater than the sum of its parts. Indeed, it exists - it's got so-called "existence power" - because it confers benefits on its parts (e.g., individuals, institutions, etc.) that ends up maintaining it.

We're no doubt confusing a wide range of subjects here. If we didn't confuse them, everything from mindfulness meditation to consciousness to physics to chemical WMD, then I'm sure we'd be in full agreement. :)

.....

Aside, an interesting - and timely - subject to ponder these days is how cultures (greater than the sum of their parts) compete across history in terms of evolution and strategies and winners and losers.

The big difference today is that we have the phenomenon of electronic social media recording it all - the good, bad and ugly - each and every day - and giving everyone the play by play action each and every day. Whew.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:29pm PT
You simply can't imagine this till you see it actually played out in your life.

You've actually been asked on many occasions to expand on just this, just as you've asked for the rest of us to open up about our own selves. There's nothing like a good ol' personal testimonial to sway the unbelievers. "I was lost but now I'm found." So, do tell?


The preacher man was pretty funny. Reminded me of this guy.

go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
Psalm 111:1 Praise the Lord!
I will praise the Lord with my whole heart,
In the assembly of the upright and in the congregation.

2 The works of the Lord are great,
Studied by all who have pleasure in them.
3 His work is honorable and glorious,
And His righteousness endures forever.
4 He has made His wonderful works to be remembered;
The Lord is gracious and full of compassion.
5 He has given food to those who fear Him;
He will ever be mindful of His covenant.
6 He has declared to His people the power of His works,
In giving them the heritage of the nations.

7 The works of His hands are verity and justice;
All His precepts are sure.
8 They stand fast forever and ever,
And are done in truth and uprightness.
9 He has sent redemption to His people;
He has commanded His covenant forever:
Holy and awesome is His name.

10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;
A good understanding have all those who do His commandments.
His praise endures forever.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:36pm PT
Cintune, if you are honestly asking a question in which you have no idea per the "answer," and are 100% interested in the data that might come from an investigation, and can jump into it with no biases, Abrahamic or otherwise, I will go into it because you asked. But if you're just after another wank along, I'll respectfully pass.


And Fruity, is it possible for you to imagine a phenomenon that was not "created" by parts?

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:38pm PT
A machine is by nature a mechanical thing. It has no reference or access to and therefore no capacity to "imagine" or postulate what subjective experience would be like and would entail.

You did not specify, in the post to which I responded ,that the machine doing the examination of the human meat brain had to itself possess subjective human traits , like falling in love with Uncle Fred's girlfriend, or wrestling with an imagination.
The scenario you presented simply had the machine objectively examining the brain.
Now.

Any super computer worth his silicon grains would:
A) conclude it was a human brain
B) infers , since it is a human brain, as a matter of course, this brain inherently wrestles with so - called subjective states ---such as love and imagination.

Could our computer be correct about its conclusions drawn from its observations and backed-up by its programmin' ?
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:45pm PT
But if you're just after another wank along, I'll respectfully pass.

Uh, no, dude, I'm asking about how these practices have changed your life, all respectful like. At one point you were a regular discursive guy like the rest of us, but then, over time, something happened and it changed everything, to the point that you want to share it. Now, it's safe to say your presentation skills have run up against some difficulties in that so far, but I do think a straightforward account of how these experiences have made a difference to you could only help shed some light.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
Credit: Malemute

unlike religion, which is merely a state of mind
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
Any super computer worth his silicon grains would:
A) conclude it was a human brain
B) infers , since it is a human brain, as a matter of course, this brain inherently wrestles with so - called subjective states ---such as love and imagination.


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.

He said: "John Searle and others have pointed out, the Turing Test does not measure awareness, it just measures information processing—particularly the ability to follow rules or at imitate a particular style of communication. In particular it measures the ability of a computer program to imitate human like dialogue, which is different than measuring awareness itself. Thus even if we succeed in creating good AI, we won’t necessarily succeed in creating AA(“Artificial Awareness”).

That much said, how would the computer understand love and imagination as anything other than chemical processes.

What's more, per your use of "so-called" subjective states. How would this differ from "so-called" objective states, and by what process would you gauge the verity of either? How do you define the difference between the subjective life you actually lead as a human being, and an objectified representation of same?

JL
WBraun

climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:50pm PT
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 ......
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:03pm PT
At one point you were a regular discursive guy like the rest of us, but then, over time, something happened and it changed everything, to the point that you want to share it. Now, it's safe to say your presentation skills have run up against some difficulties in that so far, but I do think a straightforward account of how these experiences have made a difference to you could only help shed some light.


For starters, I never stopped being a "regular discursive guy" like the rest of us. How would that change since discursive is the way we operate in the world. My "presentation skills" are not the problem, or the challenge. The challenge is that the experiential and objective worlds, while constituting one reality - like one coin - nevertheless are like both sides of a coin, which are not the same sides. The difficulties are that you want to know all about "heads," so to speak, but you want me to stick to the language and construct of Tails, and when I say this is impossible, you fail to understand this is not fault specifically of mine, or even of language.

Nevertheless, asking for "a straightforward account of how these experiences have made a difference to you could only help shed some light," is a totally reasonable question. 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.

But give me a bit. I'm just getting off work and have to go to the Sangha for a few hours.

JL
dirtbag

climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:07pm PT
Credit: dirtbag

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:14pm PT
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.

Credit: Ward Trotter



Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:14pm PT
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:45pm PT
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
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:59pm PT
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
Sep 5, 2013 - 10:11pm PT

"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
Sep 5, 2013 - 10:11pm PT
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?
Messages 1561 - 1580 of total 2323 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews