• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

Giordano said:
I like the very practical Turing test of if a machine is intelligent: if a person can’t, by asking questions, tell the difference between a computer and a human being then for most intents and purposes that computer is intelligent.

Frosts the shorts of people who seek more metaphysical criteria, of course.
Click to expand...

Have some computer passed Turing's test?
 
David Mo said:
Have some computer passed Turing's test?
Click to expand...

Can I choose which human to emulate? ;)

Anyway, I don't think the Turing test is a valid test of intelligence, partly because verbal communication is only a subset of human intelligence, but also because human intelligence is not the only kind of intelligence that exists.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Anyway, I don't think the Turing test is a valid test of intelligence, partly because verbal communication is only a subset of human intelligence, but also because human intelligence is not the only kind of intelligence that exists.
Click to expand...

Failing a Turing test would not prove a lack of intelligence, but being able to consistently pass one would be another matter.
 
acbytesla said:
Sorry, you can't get there from here.

Saying we don't understand how matter originated, does not mean we don't understand what matter is. We absolutely do. The same is true with consciousness. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know a lot and continue to learn.

I understand there are certain questions we can never fully answer because they will always lead to another question. This is the infinity paradox. There will always be something beyond.

Oh well.
Click to expand...


I just don't agree with you. We do not FULLY know what physical laws are, what physics is all about. There is a reason why there is a branch called "Metaphysics" in philosophy. We know how things present themselves, but not what their nature is.

And we do not fully know what consciousness is. I mean its nature, what is the nature of qualia? this is the reason there is another branch : Philosophy of Mind.
 
MohamedTaqi said:
I just don't agree with you. We do not FULLY know what physical laws are, what physics is all about. There is a reason why there is a branch called "Metaphysics" in philosophy. We know how things present themselves, but not what their nature is.

And we do not fully know what consciousness is. I mean its nature, what is the nature of qualia? this is the reason there is another branch : Philosophy of Mind.
Click to expand...


For me you have to prove such a thing as “qualia” exist, I’ve always found it is defined as either begging the question or circular logic.
 
Saying we don't understand how matter originated, does not mean we don't understand what matter is. We absolutely do. The same is true with consciousness. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know a lot and continue to learn.
Click to expand...

I did not say that "we do not understand what matter is" , I surely understand what I mean by matter.

I said

We don't fully know what matter is.
 
For me you have to prove such a thing as “qualia” exist, I’ve always found it is defined as either begging the question or circular logic.
Click to expand...

Qualia exist .. because : the term "exist" is in our language. I mean, we understand what "exists" mean, we invented the word.

Therefore, it follows that the semantics of "exist" denote something that matches that.

What I mean is that without Qualia, we would not invent the term "exist" in the first place. And since it happens that we understand what we mean by "exist" when we say it. It follows that Qualia must exist.

Although we don't know what their nature is, and whether this nature allows for them to have emerged from a material brain or not.
 
MohamedTaqi said:
Qualia exist .. because : the term "exist" is in our language. I mean, we understand what "exists" mean, we invented the word.

Therefore, it follows that the semantics of "exist" denote something that matches that.

What I mean is that without Qualia, we would not invent the term "exist" in the first place. And since it happens that we understand what we mean by "exist" when we say it. It follows that Qualia must exist.

Although we don't know what their nature is, and whether this nature allows for them to have emerged from a material brain or not.
Click to expand...


Sorry but that isn’t a coherent description. Also:

What are they?

How do you know everyone has them?

There is no “experience of redness” without something red, why do you need to add a separation between red and redness?
 
Giordano said:
I like the very practical Turing test of if a machine is intelligent: if a person can’t, by asking questions, tell the difference between a computer and a human being then for most intents and purposes that computer is intelligent.
Frosts the shorts of people who seek more metaphysical criteria, of course.
Click to expand...

Being or demonstating intelligence is not the question - but having or knowing or being capable of the feeling of love. Or openning it up a bit . . . to what thing/being are we willing to extend sentience? Interesting to note that in movies where there is a robot/machine character represented as or near human - that machine or robot is given a human face/skin to seal the deal.
There isn't a yes or no answer here - it's a question of credulity.
 
Wudang said:
How is the sense in which we know the word "exist" means differ from how we understand what the word "matter" means?
Click to expand...

Semantically, They don't differ , "matter" means what we meant by the term when we invented it. same for the the term "exist".

But ontologically, things are quite different.
 
Darat said:
For me you have to prove such a thing as “qualia” exist, I’ve always found it is defined as either begging the question or circular logic.
Click to expand...

Qualia are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. Since no one has ever scientifically found or isolated consciousness itself - or found consciousness in a brain - you are correct.
Yet we each know we are conscious and have qualia - unless we are a robot.
 
LarryS said:
Being or demonstating intelligence is not the question - but having or knowing or being capable of the feeling of love. Or openning it up a bit . . . to what thing/being are we willing to extend sentience? Interesting to note that in movies where there is a robot/machine character represented as or near human - that machine or robot is given a human face/skin to seal the deal.
There isn't a yes or no answer here - it's a question of credulity.
Click to expand...

Do we extend "being human" to someone in a coma? Someone with brain damage, neurotransmitter problems, drug effects etc who doesn't feel emotions as others do?
 
Last edited:
Wudang said:
Do we extend "being human" to someone in a coma? Someone with brain damage, neurotransmitter problems, drug effects etc who doesn't feel emotions as others do?
Click to expand...

please pretty please think . . . the question is not being human
 
Sorry but that isn’t a coherent description. Also:

What are they?

How do you know everyone has them?

There is no “experience of redness” without something red, why do you need to add a separation between red and redness?
Click to expand...


We don't know what they are. We know what we mean by the term Qualia, but we do not know what their nature is.

As for how I know that everyone has them, I use induction : The only particular example that I know of (me) has qualia . I can use induction to establish that probably all humans have qualia.. Then say that if I meet another human, he probably (only probably) has qualia. Therefore, solipsism is probably false.

By analogy , when scientists find a fossil with a small skull, they say that probably this is average size of these species. Because the odds of it being a deformed skull are very tiny. It's more meet people with an average height, than exceptions. So, Probably what I see is the norm.
 
Last edited:
I cited the Turing test deliberately to be provocative. It doesn’t fully sit well with me to define intelligence in this way. But on the other hand how do we often evaluate intelligence except by having conversations with other people. It is the external manifestation that we are examining.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Kind-of
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088

It was a modified Turing test and some think it was tilted in favor of the particular program used. But interesting and demonstrating the progress already made by 2017.

More recently Google Duplex had a much more fully successful test
https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-duplex-beat-the-turing-test-are-we-doomed/
Click to expand...

Neither of them has passed Turing's text.

Eugene only convinced 30% of people by pretending he was a teenager who didn't speak English correctly. He was baffled by certain issues that a Ukrainian teenager would have solved. I mean, it was just silly.
Google Duplex is only capable of short conversations with short sentences.

I don't think any computer has passed Turing's test to date. I don't know any.
 
LarryS said:
Qualia are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. Since no one has ever scientifically found or isolated consciousness itself - or found consciousness in a brain - you are correct.
Yet we each know we are conscious and have qualia - unless we are a robot.
Click to expand...


And you are using a circular definition. No one ever seems to be able to explain what these mysterious qualia are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom