!Kaggen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,874
Of course it exists, in your mind.
What is it with the idea that thoughts don't exist?
Are you saying the brain does not exist?
Are you a dualist?
"Intelligence is Self Teaching" A paranormal experience into A.I and Intelligence.
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
Of course it exists, in your mind.
What is it with the idea that thoughts don't exist?
Are you saying the brain does not exist?
Are you a dualist?
!Kaggen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,874
The best way, I have found, to conceptualize the space which thought/mind and brain occupies (i.e. exists) without falling into a type of dualism (object/subject, real/illusion) is the projective space of Projective Geometry.
The problem is one of intuition, were our normal intuition is guided by Euclidean space which restricts relationships to points.
Another way to understand the problem is to ask what is the difference between a photograph of a tree and an imaginative picture of a tree in ones mind.
Which is more real?
The photo is a point-wise exact visual replica only which excludes dynamics such as the relationship between observer and tree (emotional, mental, willful) movement and growth whilst the imaginative picture includes these.
We have become trapped in believing only the photo is real and the imagination is not because we cannot visualize a relationship between the imagination and the imagined.
What do you mean by 'it'? The thought clearly exists, as does, potentially, depending on exactly how the brain works. an image of the horse. The actual horse with 17 heads does not exist, which is I think what Nick is saying.
Well, how about we put it that it does exist in the sense that it's a phenomenon in the philosophy of consciousness. And that it doesn't exist in that the hard problem is not real. It is overcome by materialism.
Thus there are two senses in which the term "hard problem" may be used here. One to refer to the philosophical phenomenon, one to refer to the problem itself. Does this make it clearer for you?
And are you claiming that when you earlier said that the hard problem was valid, that you meant that it does exist as a philosophical phenomenon, but not that it has validity?
If so, we agree!
Nick
Last edited:
!Kaggen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,874
This is also a thought.
Does it exist?
Sure.
That is why discussing ontology is meaningless.
We are stuck in thought, no escape.
As soon as we start any discussion, we assume thought.
It is much more constructive to understand how thought relates to percepts.
In the case of a 17 headed horse.
I have yet to have a sensory experience of one and I also struggle to have a vivid thought of one.
This is not surprising since vivid thought is based on sensory experience.
So a 17 headed horse is not a very useful thought, unless perhaps you are Doron.
Wonderful! You finally made the distinction between experience and and objective reality. A clear distinction in data, one is experienced, one can be copied and modeled according to it's inherent truth value A=A.
the problem is you then contradict it immediatly
'real' means related to reality. So once again you have inferred two realities that are embedded in the dualistic descriptions that your not accounting for because you are not allowing for your conceptual framework to be included in the analysis of the phenomenon we are discussing, which is mind and consciousness. You basically saying 1-1=1
You then follow up your contradiction by anchoring it deeply into your model your belief system, i.e. what you believe is 'true' is anchored into your framework, and from this place all things must follow or proceed. Your 'king' , your truth value of your belief system is the real metalogical operator of your model, not 'you'.
Your 'king' idea in this discussion is...
So you're still contradicting yourself in my view and then just telling me what you believe. I already know what you believe because you have told me countless times. Your not providing me anything coherent to consider regarding what supports your belief.
You will continue to contradict yourself until you expand your own framework. That's kind of hard to do when your belief system is the actual anchor of your argument. Once we believe something is true for certainty, it will literally become true in our mind, and all evidence we view will constantly confirm in our mind the truth value of our argument. All the time
I also don't believe you will understand much regarding what I wrote above.
Last edited:
UPDATE to this community and this discussion:
First off, I really want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion, especially Blobru, Nick, and Pixymisa. Their tireless dedication to the conflict of idea regarding consciousness, being, and intelligence is very helpful in my understanding.
Secondly, I want to add to anyone reading; an update on this social media project over all. So far, over 15 thousand people have read the article online, potentially much more but that is the smallest amount I can confirm. It has gone viral via Reddit and Stumbleupon, and the highest targeted demographic in this article who favorited and shared it's contents online are those interested in neuroscience, mathematics, science, biology, philosophy, A.I and Robotics, Anthropology.
Link to article: http://www.realitysandwich.com/intelligence_self_teaching
Not bad for 'us philosophers', eh Blobru? Us philosophers can conceptual ideas into frameworks that we know others can find valuable, and we can determine they find it valuable by their observable behaviors regarding it. That's what us philosophers do, we create conceptual frameworks regarding an evaluation of existence into language that others can find valuable and meaningful.
Thirdly, I want to update the discussion to those new who are joining with a quick summary of what has transpired so far objectively as I can from my point of view.
To me, it appears there has been a failure thus far in explanation of the materialistic model of consciousness/reality, a failure in creating an 'understanding', a failure in creating a 'worlding' of the world to quote Heidegger. A failure in creating something simple, consistent, and meaningful in the world of Philosophy, by which I mean the entire body of philosophy, not just one particular school which proscribes one set of beliefs.
Blobru has come to the closest to providing a comprehensible model, but unfortunately, his model or refutation of mine did not seem to make it through the last round, and he has shown himself thus far unable to consider the deeper philosophical questions supported by a framework that he himself subscribes to.
I suspect he has done this because he made a fatal error in our last round. He confused a concept of who he thought I was with the ideas we are discussing. He made an irrational error conceptually. He tried to destroy my credibility in the realm of philosophy, and by doing so, he only destroyed his own in my eyes. I could be wrong here and I look forward to anyone who can show me the errors in my thinking.
I believe that the materialistic model, as proposed by Daniel Dennet and supported by Academic Materialistic Philosophy, is doomed to eventual contradiction because of the framework they are using to explain it to themselves and to others.
While it is true that there is no 'hard problem' of consciousness in Science (simply because there is no place for a hard problem of subjectivity in science), there is a hard problem in consciousness in Philosophy, for the primary concern of the Philosopher is to create a framework for the idea in a way that others can appreciate. The Hard Knock Materialistic school of philosophy has failed to provide one of those to anyone else other than those who naturally must believe for it to be true because it is the only conclusion their philosophy can ever potentially account for.
I suspect what is going on is that the explanation of the materialistic model is not resting so much on science as it is on the personalities of those explaining it. i.e., it sounds like a good idea when Daniel Dennet is describes it, but it collapses when others try to explain what he means.
So while one school of philosophy claims there is no hard problem, other schools do not agree with them, and thus, considering the entire body of Philosophy, the hard problem of consciousness does indeed exist!
Thank you all for attending
First off, I really want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion, especially Blobru, Nick, and Pixymisa. Their tireless dedication to the conflict of idea regarding consciousness, being, and intelligence is very helpful in my understanding.
Secondly, I want to add to anyone reading; an update on this social media project over all. So far, over 15 thousand people have read the article online, potentially much more but that is the smallest amount I can confirm. It has gone viral via Reddit and Stumbleupon, and the highest targeted demographic in this article who favorited and shared it's contents online are those interested in neuroscience, mathematics, science, biology, philosophy, A.I and Robotics, Anthropology.
Link to article: http://www.realitysandwich.com/intelligence_self_teaching
Not bad for 'us philosophers', eh Blobru? Us philosophers can conceptual ideas into frameworks that we know others can find valuable, and we can determine they find it valuable by their observable behaviors regarding it. That's what us philosophers do, we create conceptual frameworks regarding an evaluation of existence into language that others can find valuable and meaningful.
Thirdly, I want to update the discussion to those new who are joining with a quick summary of what has transpired so far objectively as I can from my point of view.
To me, it appears there has been a failure thus far in explanation of the materialistic model of consciousness/reality, a failure in creating an 'understanding', a failure in creating a 'worlding' of the world to quote Heidegger. A failure in creating something simple, consistent, and meaningful in the world of Philosophy, by which I mean the entire body of philosophy, not just one particular school which proscribes one set of beliefs.
Blobru has come to the closest to providing a comprehensible model, but unfortunately, his model or refutation of mine did not seem to make it through the last round, and he has shown himself thus far unable to consider the deeper philosophical questions supported by a framework that he himself subscribes to.
I suspect he has done this because he made a fatal error in our last round. He confused a concept of who he thought I was with the ideas we are discussing. He made an irrational error conceptually. He tried to destroy my credibility in the realm of philosophy, and by doing so, he only destroyed his own in my eyes. I could be wrong here and I look forward to anyone who can show me the errors in my thinking.
I believe that the materialistic model, as proposed by Daniel Dennet and supported by Academic Materialistic Philosophy, is doomed to eventual contradiction because of the framework they are using to explain it to themselves and to others.
While it is true that there is no 'hard problem' of consciousness in Science (simply because there is no place for a hard problem of subjectivity in science), there is a hard problem in consciousness in Philosophy, for the primary concern of the Philosopher is to create a framework for the idea in a way that others can appreciate. The Hard Knock Materialistic school of philosophy has failed to provide one of those to anyone else other than those who naturally must believe for it to be true because it is the only conclusion their philosophy can ever potentially account for.
I suspect what is going on is that the explanation of the materialistic model is not resting so much on science as it is on the personalities of those explaining it. i.e., it sounds like a good idea when Daniel Dennet is describes it, but it collapses when others try to explain what he means.
So while one school of philosophy claims there is no hard problem, other schools do not agree with them, and thus, considering the entire body of Philosophy, the hard problem of consciousness does indeed exist!
Thank you all for attending
Last edited:
Hey Brainache, I would love to address your question, but responding to you is pending the launch of a GPS satellite by the Shipibo Indians, per your request. I shall make sure I get back with you the moment this happens.
Best wishes til then,
Bubblefish
OK.
Maybe just any original knowlege brought back from a vision quest that the Shaman couldn't have already known would be a start. You know, something that isn't already a part of their cultural tradition.
Hope to hear from you soon,
Brainache.
XXX
Like was mentioned in this thread numerous times, the plant medicines and healing preparations of the Amazon are claimed to have been acquired by the curanderos 'singing and talking' with the spirits of the plants. The path to this sort of knowledge is not an easy one, and true curanderos are rare, many of which have to spend 5 - 10 years of isolation in the jungle living on special dietas to acquire this knowledge.
If this intrigues you, you can visit Steve Beyer's wonderful blog, "Singing to the Plants'.
http://www.singingtotheplants.com/blog/
and a triple x rated salutation back to you
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
But aren't.
Yes, we know you have failed to understand the concept; this is because you keep demanding us to explain things that don't exist.
Mind is brain function. Consciousness is self-referential information processing. That's all there needs to be.
No; you have shown yourself unable to - even for the sake of argument - abandon your own incoherent position.
Yeah, that old excuse. No, he didn't do that at all. Nor did he make any "fatal error".
Well, if ever find that contradiction, you come back here and show it to us. We'll be waiting.
No, that's not why. The "hard problem" of consciousness exists only if your metaphysical position is internally self-contradictory. Otherwise, the hard problem itself is internally self-contradictory.
There is no "hard problem" in consciousness in philosophy, for the most part. Just a few people who have trouble thinking clearly.
However, unlike the "hard problem", it is logically coherent and theoretically and practically useful.
No. Ask Nick about that.
No, that just means that that particular other school of philosophy - i.e. dualists - are wrong. Which we already knew.
Like was mentioned in this thread numerous times, the plant medicines and healing preparations of the Amazon are claimed to have been acquired by the curanderos 'singing and talking' with the spirits of the plants. The path to this sort of knowledge is not an easy one, and true curanderos are rare, many of which have to spend 5 - 10 years of isolation in the jungle living on special dietas to acquire this knowledge.
If this intrigues you, you can visit Steve Beyer's wonderful blog, "Singing to the Plants'.
http://www.singingtotheplants.com/blog/
and a triple x rated salutation back to you
That of course is the problem. Using plants from the jungle as medicine is what these people have been doing for thousands of years. It would be pretty simple for a "Curandero" to try various plants and things to see what works before he tells anybody about them, then when he does tell people about the great new constipation remedy he found, he says the plant spirits told him about it.
What I want to see is a Curandero who comes back from his trip with information not available to him in mundane ways. That's why I asked if any of them came back with knowledge of electronics or rocketry, I was of course being facetious. But did anyone ever come back from a trip knowing something that conflicted with the prevailing tribal customs?
No, between internally constructed images and objective reality.
Whilst you continue to insist "experience" to be a priori, you will not be able to grasp materialism at a deep level, and will inevitably be consigned to some haphazard dualist wilderness. There's no alternative.
Until you can see for yourself that there is no experiencer in actuality, that the brain is simply processing information, you are stuck in this place.
It's probably the drugs. With these types of tryptamine (nnDMT) you can get a big ego reinforcement. I've seen it many times. I guess you believe in reincarnation too. It would make sense as the only possibility your mind could cling to in order to move forwards.
Nick
Last edited:
Those who refuse to see the hard problem within them are perforce driven to recreate it in their philosophy, to paraphrase Carl Jung. Nick
nice...your actually touching on something that I am playing with right now, devised from this very discussion, especially with Blobru.
Consider, Blobru told me that I should go study the basics of consciousness, that I wasn't really qualified to consider myself a philosopher of consciousness until I read the same books he has. To his own contradiction, he previously confirmed an original model (thought form) that I explained in this discussion as a great candidate for consciousness. I called it the SEO model of consciousness, which i think gives a simpler explanation of the materialistic model than Dennet provides.
Let's forget for a moment that it seems utterly incomprehensible that someone who, as he claims, does not even understand the basics of consciousness to be able to then actually create a sensible model of consciousness based on materialism.
Let's instead 'play' with that concept, and maybe a fun experiment along the lines of what you hint at?
My model, which Blobru accepted was a fine candidate - shows how Google could potentially be conscious, as many of the pathways that the materialistic model of consciousness defines what Google already has.
A search return, first page of Google, follows a very similar model that Dennet explains. Google pulls information from millions to billions of webpages, each with their own ranking, each with their own support from other networks, each in competition with another but also support from one another, and returns them in a hierarchy. According to Dennet and the materialistic model of consciousness, the first page return on Google IS consciousness. It does not PRODUCE consciousness, it IS consciousness.
So I'm thinking playful thoughts, right? In the article, http://www.realitysandwich.com/intelligence_self_teaching it shows how the phrase 'Intelligence is Self Teaching" is completely NEW to Google consciousness, it did not exist before I published the article.
What does the meaning of the phrase 'Intelligence is Self Teaching' do to Google consciousness? Following this through, could it not then potentially BOOST Google's own self awareness? Could it not potentially be the seed that marks a new era in Google self awareness?
Now this is only a playful idea, even if Google has consciousness, it does not mean it has language consciousness, but who knows, right?
My playful thought form appears supported by the materialistic model of consciousness. Limbo, you and I and others here may have participated unknowingly in an historical advancement in A.I this entire time. Contact all Zen Monks! Let's make Google completely self aware of the concept that 'Intelligence is Self Teaching"
Hey Google! Psst! Time to evolve: http://bit.ly/d3R0p8
this has been the funnest post I have ever written
Last edited:
Limbo
Jedi Consular
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
Yeah, I often wonder if the internet could become a sort of golem. If "true" AI ever does surface, it will be because humanity has psychically infused a system with "part" of its own consciousness. Not because some engineering or programming genius figured it out or stumbed on the answer.