"Intelligence is Self Teaching" A paranormal experience into A.I and Intelligence.

[WWHP]

How am I doing that? personally I don't see what it has to do with spacetime, and I know precious little about physics anyway.

Nick

well this is a comprehensive discussion, and if you have not taken the time to understand your model of materialism with understandings in physics, which is a waaaay more rigorous, materialistic, and deterministic science than brain research, your a few years behind in this discussion.

 

[Limbo]

It's a bit long.

What's an hour compared to a year-and-a-half?

 

[Nick227]

You said the pain IS "there". Well, the word "there" refers to space-time, right? So your train of thought goes X is "real", because X occurs in space-time, and space-time is real. Right?

But what if space-time itself is a product of "thinking"? Is it still real?

Well, if there are no thoughts present everything still looks the same. There is space. There is time. I don't find this idea such a goer really.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

Nick is the way you use the words thought or think synonymous with consciousness itself? Can you have consciousness without thoughts?

 

[Nick227]

Your not debating me, your copying and pasting the materialist party line and cannot even distinguish where it is we disagree.

You agree that conscious brain-processing and unconscious brain-processing are fundamentally the same?

You agree that there is no mental self, no experiencer, until it is constructed in the brain through thinking?

You agree that the Freestylers last album was really pants apart from two tracks?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick is the way you use the words thought or think synonymous with consciousness itself? Can you have consciousness without thoughts?

Thinking for me is these little strings of language which seem to appear in my head and which get written down. There can be sensory consciousness without thoughts. Nick

 

[Limbo]

Thinking for me is these little strings of language which seem to appear in my head and which get written down. There can be sensory consciousness without thoughts. Nick

So in your model we have:

1. thinking as little strings of language
2. sensory consciousness without thought
3. unconscious processes
4. constructed mental selves
5. brain
6. ???

 

[Nick227]

So in your model we have:

1. thinking as little strings of language
2. sensory consciousness without thought
3. unconscious processes
4. constructed mental selves
5. brain
6. ???

Well, mental selfhood is constructed by thinking, so you could chop 4 if you wanted. Ideally you also need some process which causes the brain to act on certain thoughts but not others. Nick

 

[Limbo]

Well, mental selfhood is constructed by thinking, so you could chop 4 if you wanted. Ideally you also need some process which causes the brain to act on certain thoughts but not others. Nick

Mental selfhood is constructed by thinking as little strings of language?

 

[Nick227]

Mental selfhood is constructed by thinking as little strings of language?

Yes. The presence of thinking...

* suggests via more thoughts the existence of a thinker
* relates tales about an "I" and other selves
* suggests this "I" as the apparent source of thoughts, rather as coherent peripheral activity suggests a centre.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

Yes. The presence of thinking...

* suggests via more thoughts the existence of a thinker
* relates tales about an "I" and other selves
* suggests that this "I" is the apparent source of thoughts, rather as coherent peripheral activity suggests a centre.

Nick

But we aren't talking about little strings of language, really. We are talking about symbolic thinking in general, as words or maths or images. Right?

 

[WWHP]

What's an hour compared to a year-and-a-half?

well let's give the guy a break. after all, he has only been thinking about these sorts of philosophical issues for a year and a half. He already has seeds of buddhism in his descriptions. After a few more years of integration and considering the hard questions, he will evolve. Everything he is doing is completely appropriate. The only mistake he is making is he is putting too much certainty on something that is not completely thought through. So he will bump his head a little bit until he gets the value of the third truth

 

[Nick227]

But we aren't talking about little strings of language, really. We are talking about symbolic thinking in general, as words or maths or images. Right?

I'm talking about thoughts - the little strings of language that flit off here and there, triggered by incoming information. Whilst they're happening there seems to be this Nick who is creating them. When they stop he disappears and there are just images, sounds, feelings...

Nick

 

[Limbo]

I'm talking about thoughts - the little strings of language that flit off here and there, triggered by incoming information. Whilst they're happening there seems to be this Nick who is creating them. When they stop he disappears and there are just images, sounds, feelings...

Nick

Well then you're talking about symbolic thinking. Symbolic thought is the representation of reality through the use of abstract concepts such as words, gestures, and numbers.

So naturally, the word "Nick" is itself a complex symbol. All words are symbols. In the absence of the symbol "NicK" from your conscious thought, does that which the symbol refers to cease to exist? In the absence of any symbol whatsoever, is thought possible?

 

[WWHP]

In the absence of the symbol "NicK" from your conscious thought, does that which the symbol refers to cease to exist? In the absence of any symbol whatsoever, is thought possible?

According to the Dennet explanation, yes. 'Nick' would be the 'winning' idea amongst all other processes that were competing in the brain. It's possible the idea 'Nick' could be subverted by another process (let's say insanity, or ego loss, or coma). The materialistic model suggests that whatever process wins IS consciousness.

That's the problem with this model, it's either flawed in it's failure to make distinctions, or only the people who develop the models understand them. I don't think anyone here can explain it without making contradictions.

(hmmm, wondering if it's time to up the ante? Maybe we need some big hitters to address this?)

 

[macdoc]

Nick

No. It's happening. The pain is there. It hurts. The body is holding its thumb and shouting "Ow!" But it isn't happening to anyone until the brain starts to create "an experience" from what is happening, through thinking.

Mental selfhood does not exist prior to it emerging from thinking

I think you are having issues with terms and integrating neural nets with conscious and unconscious processes...
this might help...

also try Bayesian brain model ( which I favour )

•••

I'm made reference a number of times to how I perceive the intergration of mind and body as a neural net which also allows extension via tools....

This is an interesting article that I agree with in terms of perception/mind but goes further in showing how the actions of the body impact the state of mind....
a few of our philo debaters on consciousness maybe should read this

Editorial: It's not mind or body – it's both ( related note )
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527534.000-its-not-mind-or-body--its-both.html

Mind over matter? How your body does your thinking
"I THINK therefore I am," said Descartes. Perhaps he should have added: "I act, therefore I think."

Our ability to think has long been considered central to what makes us human. Now research suggests that our bodies and their relationship with the environment govern even our most abstract thoughts. This includes thinking up random numbers or deciding whether to recount positive or negative experiences.

"Advocates of traditional accounts of cognition would be surprised," says Tobias Loetscher at the University of Melbourne in Parkville, Australia. "They generally consider human reasoning to involve abstract cognitive processes devoid of any connection to body or space."

Until recently, the assumption has been that our bodies contribute only to our most basic interactions with the environment, namely sensory and motor processes. The new results suggest that our bodies are also exploited to produce abstract thought, and that even seemingly inconsequential activities have the power to influence our thinking.

Clues that our bodies may play a role in thought can be found in the metaphors we use to describe situations, such as "I was given the cold shoulder" or "she has an excellent grasp of relativity".

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-how-your-body-does-your-thinking.html?page=1

I posted this at a request from the science forum for some additional info....
I'm not about to engage as the OP is nonsense

Self awareness, mind, consciousness are emergent phenomena from complex neural nets...

slice the semantics all you wish, it comes down to physics, chemistry and biology with a smattering of Bayesian comparator structure to tie it together in one rational manner..

all else is woo....

 

[WWHP]

Nick


I think you are having issues with terms and integrating neural nets with conscious and unconscious processes...
this might help...

also try Bayesian brain model ( which I favour )

•••

I'm made reference a number of times to how I perceive the intergration of mind and body as a neural net which also allows extension via tools....

This is an interesting article that I agree with in terms of perception/mind but goes further in showing how the actions of the body impact the state of mind....
a few of our philo debaters on consciousness maybe should read this



http://www.newscientist.com/article...-how-your-body-does-your-thinking.html?page=1

I posted this at a request from the science forum for some additional info....
I'm not about to engage as the OP is nonsense

Self awareness, mind, consciousness are emergent phenomena from complex neural nets...

slice the semantics all you wish, it comes down to physics, chemistry and biology with a smattering of Bayesian comparator structure to tie it together in one rational manner..

all else is woo....

Thanks for wanting to contribute. I already posted that article in this thread - which seemed to run counter to what another materialist here was claiming and us 'woo' types as you referred to me as were suggesting. So that's already been considered to support some of my arguments.

I understand you may not want to consider joining the discussion and certainly your right to leave if it does not interest you, but there is no reason to dismiss the op with your opinion then, it was a bit crude and unbecoming of someone who said he would not engage the OP, since the OP was I and the one your responding to in the other forum. Sheesh. thanks for coming anway.

 

[WWHP]

I certainly wish someone here somewhere on JREF was more articulate in representing the materialistic claim to the origins of consciousness. This is the same problem I have when having this discussion with anyone who claims the hard edged materialistic position, they can never seem to explain it fully. There is always a set of information that is either avoided in consideration or simply ignored, I assume because it does not fit their framework of reality.

To me, all they are saying is 'if you have x in place, and y in place, and z in place, and g, h, and l are happening, then *poof* you have consciousness. Yet none of them explain 'how' x, y, and z in relationship to g, h, and l makes information or process conscious, just that it somehow does, or must.

They always claim that consciousness must be created by the brain, is the brain, and nothing more than the brain, and they always seem to say that consciousness is a result of computation that is not medium specific (meaning computers can create consciousness just like 'meat' of biology can), yet when you present claims of the Universe as A Quantum Computer, with the inference therefore that the universe is conscious in some sense based on that claim, I get nothing but silence.

When it comes time for material reality to transcend itself into the very unknown thing that materialists themselves want to deny exists, I believe we witness materialists themselves confronting the 'woo-z-ness' of their own belief system.

 

[!Kaggen]

Bubblefish

Are you aware of the work of Prof. David Lewis-Williams

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cave-Consciousness-Origins-Art/dp/0500051178

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Neolithic-Mind-Consciousness-Cosmos/dp/0500288275/ref=pd_sim_b_1

 

[Nick227]

Well then you're talking about symbolic thinking. Symbolic thought is the representation of reality through the use of abstract concepts such as words, gestures, and numbers.

So naturally, the word "Nick" is itself a complex symbol. All words are symbols. In the absence of the symbol "NicK" from your conscious thought, does that which the symbol refers to cease to exist? In the absence of any symbol whatsoever, is thought possible?

Why bother bringing symbols into it? It's clear without them.

The brain may be undergoing immense amounts of processing beneath the conscious thinking, and for sure the brain is highly configured to process unconsciously for selfhood. Yet the mental self is a conscious phenomenon. No thinking = no mental self. And as "experience" merely emerges from this process also then no thinking = no experience.

So called "experiencing" performs a social function. If you were trapped alone on an island, after a while experiencing would stop! There would still be thoughts but no longer reason to construct experiences.

Nick