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

[WWHP]

Bubblefish:

I just had a couple of thoughts that may resolve part of this debate about Dennet.

1. Dennet doesn't require there to be a duality at all.

I can't help but disagree. Sure he says he doesn't require one, but he still implies one regardless. So to me his model falls apart the second he begins to model it.

If it helps, you could think of it as a trinity: the brain, the processes of thought, and the model (the multiple drafts) the processes operate upon.

NOW you are SPEAKING my LANGUAGE! why did it take you so long to join this discussion? Yes, I agree that the environment is properly TERNARY in nature, and it is through this ternary process that we can resolve this dualities, and that is the ONLY way to resolve the dualities. But Dennet does not do that, or if he implies it, it is only accidently, he is not aware of his inherent duality, or so it appears to me.

The model is certainly not the brain.

YES! the map is not the territory. and in that same light, the neuron is NOT the experience of the neuron firing.

It's also not the processes (thought it could include a model of the processes...).

agreed, the 'process' is eternally 'becoming' or 'emerging' and the second you model it, it's not longer relevant.

Now, you could argue about whether and where to draw the line between the processes and the model (or the code and the data, for you computer types), and if it's appropriate to do so...

well, there is no reason to argue against them, just simply make a distinction that they exist in your actual model.

"The physical scientist does not introduce sense or perception into his theories, and thus having removed the mind from nature, cannot expect to find it there." - Shrodinger

2. Dennet's account assumes a materialist position in order to attack the notion of the Cartesian theater. So it's no wonder you find little evidence to prove materialism. Using Dennet to prove materialism might be like using Robert's Rules of Order to justify representative democracy.

hmm, interesting point to consider, so he is using materialism to refute non materialism, but not support materialism itself. Is that what you mean?

 

[WWHP]

This, more than, anything, indicates that you don't grasp the notion of Cartesian duality. You cannot say in the same breath, "There may not be two substances" and "there certainly is two distinct realities". One statement implies the other, if you understand the philosophic notion of substance.

I'm not going to invoke any philosophical terminology used in Western Philosophy because to be honest, I think these things are simpler to understand than the language used to describe them therin.

For example Descartes (still not sure why we bother to argue against a 17th century model of consciousness??)

Descartes believed there were two substances: res extensa (extended, or physical, stuff like houses, candle wax, and bodies) and res cogitans (thinking stuff, thoughts, ideas). The problem with Cartesian dualism is there is no conceivable way for the two substances (the two realities, as you put it above) to interact. And if they *can* interact, are they really two distinct substances/realities?

Substance is not equal to all reality, just material or objective reality. Substance is objective reality. Subjective reality may have a material reality 'substance' behind it, maybe even causing it, but it may experience something that is non material. For example, I can experience leaving my body (what is 'leaving' you ask?). I can have a dream about having sex with Angelina Jolie. I can experience that I am talking to a spirit of a plant. Those are subjective realities. they may only be composed of brains states, but they are not experienced as brain states, they are experienced simply as realities. They are not anywhere. They do not need to be anywhere.

So if I am in a lab looking at a Brain scan, I am looking at a piece of material reality that corresponds to a subjective experience on the other side of the brain's person.

You already know this distinction, you highlighted it above. I just request you account for it as an experience (you can call experience a 'model' of reality. One quality of model is rational and objective, and another model is creative and expressive, irrational even).

So there are TWO realities, one real, and one fake - o that we experience. One exists in one sense, and the other exists in another. They unfortunately share the same substance in common, yet are distinguishable by us only because we are the MIND EXPERIENCING THEM.

"The Physical scientist does not include sense or perception into his theories, and thus having removed the mind from nature, cannot expect to find it there."

Material stuff undergoing changes and enacting processes is *not* the same as this Cartesian dualism. In fact, I challenge you to formulate the same objection to Dennet as philosophers historically have against Descartes (the problem of interaction).

I agree, it is not the same as cartesian dualism which is just one possible dualistic relationship of consciousness. All explanations of consciousness MUST contain some form of dualism to even comprehend it or understand it. Some just hide them, some contradict them, and some resolve them, but ALL must have them.

 

[Eimhin]

Yet we learn from mistakes by recognising them as mistakes. Also a valid position, no?

No doubt. I was merely noting that the process of recognising and establishing the mistakes of other philosophical systems is a good a test of ones ideas as any.

"not even close to the same way"? You mean there is a fundamental qualitative difference between machine and biological consciousness?

Nick

I mean that though there are currently electronic systems that I would call "intelligent", its meaning in that context is completely differently to the way I would attribute it to a biological entity. That is not to say that I fundamentally consider machine and biological consciousness to be different, just that the current generation technology is not performing the same actions and biological actions if that makes sense?

And if you've studied this for any length of time, you know there's no rigorous, scientific definition of consciousness that excludes Google or a thermostat.

I am aware that definitions vary widely, which was kind of my point. Articles that declare google as intelligent simply tend to cotton pick the definition that suits it best. However, I stand by the idea that the precursor to consciousness is routed in short-term memory since, in my mind, it both adequately contains appropriate biological intelligences, does not exclude machine intelligence fundamentally, but does exclude those things which merely mimic the actions of conscious entities.

The way I see it, many popular "definitions" of consciousness are indicative of psychological recoil from being lumped together with insects, automobiles, and search engines, and knocked off the pedestal of universal human superiority.

I like this. If I may ask, what is your opinion of "google consciousness?"

 

[PixyMisa]

And if you've studied this for any length of time, you know there's no rigorous, scientific definition of consciousness that excludes Google or a thermostat.

Actually, there is in the latter case - the requirement for self-reference excludes thermostats (at least, the simple mechanical kind). Dennett used thermostats as an example of something that is aware but not conscious, for precisely that reason.

I'm not sure why we'd want to exclude Google, though.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think I see you point. When you say "the good parts of Western philosophy are 90% useless", I assumed you mean the discipline itself, but if you mean the majority of modern philosophy, I can at least appreciate your opinion. Still I find it a slightly strange assertion; we learn from mistakes as much, if not, more than successes, be them our own or other people's, and I would have thought you would have more relished the opportunity to temper your own position by observing the flaws in others?

The problem there illustrates the difference between science and philosophy. Bad science, or even good but incorrect science, goes away. Bad philosophy never does.

Interesting selection there. I think they have some virtues. For instance Mary's room I find interesting experiment, not actually due to the reason it was created, but interesting in the sense of identity, epistemology and ontological systems.

Yes. Chalmers' "hard problem consciousness", Searle's Chinese Room, and Jackson's Mary's Room are good problems for students of philosophy to examine and solve, to work out where the logical fallacies are and why. I call Chalmers, Searle, and Jackson idiots not because they posed these questions but because they are unable to come up with the answers - even after the answers have been explained to them ad nauseam.

Haha. From that I can assume you have had some experience with Heidegger

Indeed, I was going to name Heidegger specifically, but of course he's not the only one from that school that I have a problem with.

In recent times, there have been many attempts to suggest that certain artificial systems could be considered to be either 'sentient', or 'conscious'. And though the arguments generally work, they only work because they propose the definition of conscious to be unreasonably wide; in my opinion, false. I took your earlier definition of "Consciousness is self-referential information processing" as an example as such. It is the kind of definition one might see used in such an argument for the Google algorithms acting to create a 'conscious' or 'aware' system. I have no doubt the result is 'Intelligent', but not even close to the same way in which biological systems are intelligent. I said amusing since I am almost certain from reading the 1 or 2 posts of yours that I have, that you would not consider the google search engine or the like to be conscious. Do correct me if that was a misjudgement though.

The Google search engine almost certainly contains conscious subsystems; it's very hard to build such a system without that. Whether it is conscious as a whole is a somewhat different and harder question.

I base my definition on how we distinguish consciousness, and it boils down to can the system answer questions about it's own process of thought?

If it can, we regard it as conscious.

In computer programming this is called reflection, and it's used very widely in large complex adaptive systems like Google Search.

(If I were to give my opinion on the matter, the phenomenon of conciousness is an artefact created predominantly by short term memory.)

That sounds more to me like awareness or what psychologists term attention; what I term consciousness is introspective examination of ones own process of thought. I see self-reference as the key to consciousness, as per Hofstadter and Dennett (and building on earlier thinkers such as Quine).

 

[Philosaur]

I can't help but disagree. Sure he says he doesn't require one, but he still implies one regardless. So to me his model falls apart the second he begins to model it.

Certainly, completely, irrefutably wrong.

For whatever reason, all sorts of mystical traditions are gaga over their unities, dualities, and trinities. For Dennet, the duality is incidental, not fundamental. It's incidental because, as I (mistakenly) tried to point out, you could just as easily think of it as a trinity, or even a quaternity--if you want to. Just because there are two of something doesn't immediately link it to yin/yang, good/evil, life/death, male/female, or any other classic mystical duality. Sometimes an apple and an orange are just a pair of fruits.

Let me put it more succinctly: no matter how many fundamental parts Dennet cuts his model into, it still works. HE DOES NOT REQUIRE A DUALITY.

NOW you are SPEAKING my LANGUAGE! why did it take you so long to join this discussion? Yes, I agree that the environment is properly TERNARY in nature, and it is through this ternary process that we can resolve this dualities, and that is the ONLY way to resolve the dualities. But Dennet does not do that, or if he implies it, it is only accidently, he is not aware of his inherent duality, or so it appears to me.

Oh, brother. My mistake for bringing up the magic number. You are so barking up the wrong tree.

agreed, the 'process' is eternally 'becoming' or 'emerging' and the second you model it, it's not longer relevant.

This is gibberish.

well, there is no reason to argue against them, just simply make a distinction that they exist in your actual model.

There is great reason to argue this point! None of this is a given. I proposed the trinity as a way of showing how arbitrary the number of "fundamental" parts is. there may not be a good justification for positing a distinction between the code and the data, or it may be that any bit of information might play both parts to varying degrees, so that there is no clear distinction.

"The physical scientist does not introduce sense or perception into his theories, and thus having removed the mind from nature, cannot expect to find it there." - Shrodinger

Please stop. This quote is a half-baked "deep thought" Schrodinger probably wished he'd never said.

hmm, interesting point to consider, so he is using materialism to refute non materialism, but not support materialism itself. Is that what you mean?

Nope. Not even close. Can you possibly remove your Zen-colored glasses long enough to read what people here actually write?

I'm not going to invoke any philosophical terminology used in Western Philosophy because to be honest, I think these things are simpler to understand than the language used to describe them therin.

Well, there's your first mistake, given that we're talking about Western philosophy here.

For example Descartes (still not sure why we bother to argue against a 17th century model of consciousness??)

We do it because, even though you are blissfully, some might say absurdly, unaware of it, you are espousing a Cartesian-dualism position.

Substance is not equal to all reality, just material or objective reality. Substance is objective reality. Subjective reality may have a material reality 'substance' behind it, maybe even causing it, but it may experience something that is non material.

See, when you just decide to switch meanings of words mid-stream, stuff stops making sense. It's called "equivocation". I'm not going to explain Descartes or the technical term 'substance' to you any more. Go read a freshman philosophy book.

For example, I can experience leaving my body (what is 'leaving' you ask?). I can have a dream about having sex with Angelina Jolie. I can experience that I am talking to a spirit of a plant. Those are subjective realities. they may only be composed of brains states, but they are not experienced as brain states, they are experienced simply as realities. They are not anywhere. They do not need to be anywhere.

So you're saying there's no difference between "fantasy" and "reality"? Sounds like a bankrupt metaphysic to me.

So if I am in a lab looking at a Brain scan, I am looking at a piece of material reality that corresponds to a subjective experience on the other side of the brain's person.

Not even Descartes would say this. More confused gibberish.

You already know this distinction, you highlighted it above. I just request you account for it as an experience (you can call experience a 'model' of reality. One quality of model is rational and objective, and another model is creative and expressive, irrational even).

What you are calling an "experience" I'm calling part of a conscious being's model of reality. What's so difficult with that account?

So there are TWO realities, one real, and one fake - o that we experience.

We unsophisticated hillbillies here in the West call a "fake reality" a "fantasy" or "fiction".

One exists in one sense, and the other exists in another. They unfortunately share the same substance in common, yet are distinguishable by us only because we are the MIND EXPERIENCING THEM.

This is just a confused form of Cartesian duality--which is why people are still arguing about some old philosopher.

"The Physical scientist does not include sense or perception into his theories, and thus having removed the mind from nature, cannot expect to find it there."

This quote makes me want to come through the Interwebz and vomit on your keyboard.

I agree, it is not the same as cartesian dualism which is just one possible dualistic relationship of consciousness. All explanations of consciousness MUST contain some form of dualism to even comprehend it or understand it. Some just hide them, some contradict them, and some resolve them, but ALL must have them.

Wrong. Go read a book. Seriously.

 

[WWHP]

Certainly, completely, irrefutably wrong.

oh cool! that means you must have an iron clad refutation! I assume it is ...

For whatever reason, all sorts of mystical traditions are gaga over their unities, dualities, and trinities. For Dennet, the duality is incidental, not fundamental. It's incidental because, as I (mistakenly) tried to point out, you could just as easily think of it as a trinity, or even a quaternity--if you want to. Just because there are two of something doesn't immediately link it to yin/yang, good/evil, life/death, male/female, or any other classic mystical duality. Sometimes an apple and an orange are just a pair of fruits.

this is a refutation of unities, dualities, and trinities? What have you refuted? You simply have said "Look, we don't have to use that sort of language when we address obvious polarities in nature or our minds!" I don't care if it is 'incidental' or not to Dennet, the fact is, he is relaying a duality that just so happens to already be accounted for, quite neatly, in Taoism, and anyone who has any insight into both systems of philosophy can tell that Dennet has yielded nothing, he has not 'done away' with any 'mystery', all he has done, it appears is cleverly reworded it to create that illusion.

So where is this iron clad refutation?

Let me put it more succinctly: no matter how many fundamental parts Dennet cuts his model into, it still works. HE DOES NOT REQUIRE A DUALITY.

HIS MODEL REQUIRES A DUALITY! mind/brain is the entire duality he is describing, operating inside of, clarifying, describing. You can close your eyes to that if you want, but to this discerning and critical thinking individual, he is not doing what he claims.

Dualities are resolved in ternary systems. Taoism happens to be a ternary system

Oh, brother. My mistake for bringing up the magic number. You are so barking up the wrong tree.

No one is claiming '3' is a magic number, it's just a logical property where dualities can find resolution in a logical form. Ask Raymond Smullyan.

http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Silent-Raymond-M-Smullyan/dp/0060674695

the 'process' is eternally 'becoming' or 'emerging' and the second you model it, it's not longer relevant.

This is gibberish.

It's only gibberish when you fail to understand it. It's WHAT Dennet is SAYING! self is an 'emerging property'. the key word is 'emerging' and not 'emerged'. Our 'selves' are continually 'emerging' from brain process.


Like I said, there is simply no reason, nor anyway, to argue 'against' duality.

There is great reason to argue this point!

absolutely, especially when it is running contrary to your paradigm. Let's hope you do a better job than your previous 'refutation' which was a non refutation.

None of this is a given. I proposed the trinity as a way of showing how arbitrary the number of "fundamental" parts is.

It's NOT ARBITRARY! It has an embedded utility in our minds and in nature, and it does not matter how many 'parts' you cut it up in, the binary coupling, the distinction of opposites, exists! You just do not understand them, therefore your unable to model them, even though you endlessly refer to them.

there may not be a good justification for positing a distinction between the code and the data, or it may be that any bit of information might play both parts to varying degrees, so that there is no clear distinction.

huh? let's keep it simple. Regarding computers, there is a distinction between code and 'user experience', right?

And Schrodinger's quote is really bothering you, isn't it?

There is a very elegant and Zen-like response to this quote, but I can't type the sound of a fart.

Well you can save that for your blog. This is a rational discussion, not a Fox news report on Obama's Health care plan.

So I asked you regarding Dennet:s o he is using materialism to refute non materialism, but not support materialism itself. Is that what you mean?

Nope. Not even close. Can you possibly remove your Zen-colored glasses long enough to read what people here actually write?

lol - wow, my posts have you really riled up, eh? I asked you if that is what you meant, because that is how it read to me. Therefore, I give you the opportunity to clarify. Please clarify what you wrote without fart sounds.

Well, there's your first mistake, given that we're talking about Western philosophy here.
We do it because, even though you are blissfully, some might say absurdly, unaware of it, you are espousing a Cartesian-dualism position.

sheesh, and your upset because your assuming I am not reading what you write? I HAVE NO Position, I am not making a claim about consciousness, other than I don't believe DENNET has nailed it. I think it's still elusive to him, and you. And secondly, I am ALLOWING for Dennet's model of consciousness to be a process of brain functioning it exist in my model in this discussion. I think Descartes assumption of thought stuff to be just as absurd as you are

And YOU are talking about Western Philosophy. This discussion is primarily about INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS and it is analyzing models of philosophy therein, this is not a discussion about Western Philosophy.

See, when you just decide to switch meanings of words mid-stream, stuff stops making sense. It's called "equivocation". I'm not going to explain Descartes or the technical term 'substance' to you any more. Go read a freshman philosophy book.

oh how convenient. You really have ZERO refutation of what I'm saying, do you? All you have is a heap of Sean Hannity with a little bit of Pixymisa thrown in for measure.

Please learn how to make this distinction when you are discussing this sort of thing with the big boys. There is a distinction between how something looks to you, and how it really is. It looks like gibberish to you in the same way e=mc^2 looks like gibberish to a pigmy.

So you're saying there's no difference between "fantasy" and "reality"? Sounds like a bankrupt metaphysic to me.

It's actually the other way around. I am saying there is a distinction, and this distinction is not allowed for in the materialistic model of consciousness. Please pay attention and stop arguing with Descartes and the Bubblefish in your head.

Not even Descartes would say this. More confused gibberish.

I don't care what Descartes would say. It looks that way because you are confused on the subject matter. That is why you cannot deconstruct my meaning, you only supply me with Glen Beck commentary.

What you are calling an "experience" I'm calling part of a conscious being's model of reality. What's so difficult with that account?

there is no difficulty with that account. There is just no allowing for the dimension of the model to actually exist in the brain since it exists in the mind. That's where you NEED your dualism.

We unsophisticated hillbillies here in the West call a "fake reality" a "fantasy" or "fiction".

right, and it's a space unto itself. In my imagination, I can break every single law of physics that exists.

One exists in one sense, and the other exists in another. They unfortunately share the same substance in common, yet are distinguishable by us only because we are the MIND EXPERIENCING THEM.

This is just a confused form of Cartesian duality--which is why people are still arguing about some old philosopher.

It's NO MORE CONFUSED than what Materialism is ALREADY SAYING!

Where IS my MODEL of reality? Where is it? where is the dream I had last night? I'm saying it's not anywhere other than in my mind, I'm allowing for my mind to be a becoming of what my brain is doing. How is that Cartesian Dualism again?

I'm literally going to come through the Interwebz and vomit on your keyboard if you type this quote again in this thread.

Well LEARN TO LOVE IT, because it's the most elegant description I have encountered of the entire mess some of you reductionists are making with your extraordinary claims about reality.

Now when you are ready for thoughtful contemplation of the topic of intelligence and consciousness, please feel free to return to this discussion. If you are going to continue with the Sean Hannity Glen Beck form of discussion, you will find yourself fairing no better than Pixymisa.

Wrong. Go read a book. Seriously.

oh sure, I'm sure if I read a book that you have read that would clear all of this up. Seriously dude, come back to this discussion when you can provide clarity and actually explain what you mean without fart sounds.

 

[Philosaur]

Just so there's no confusion, BF caught my post before I got finished editing out the immature, knee-jerk statements I rashly made.

You are STILL missing the point. Not every duality is significant. Not every dualism is fundamental. Just because you can find a way to break something into two parts doesn't mean it's correct, or important, or meaningful.

Is there a duality between 'car' and 'moving down the road'?

Is there a duality between 'spatula' and 'flipping things over'?

Is there a duality between 'week old apple' and 'rotting on my desk'?

Why is it helpful to think of these as dualities?

Furthermore, what you don't seem to get is that when you start talking about two realities, the burden is on you to show how they can interact and still be considered truly separate and distinct realities. This is the major problem with Cartesian dualism. This is why you are--despite what you repeat to the contrary--espousing a Cartesian position. If you want to insist you aren't, then you need to respond to the bolded statement.

Whatever duality shows up in Dennet's work is NOT problematic. And the solution does not lie in a "trinity which resolves the duality" (a phrase you've repeated like it's an obvious fact). Here's why: Things do stuff! Nouns verb! The brain thinks! There is no problem to resolve.

You keep insisting that experience is...what?

it's a space unto itself.

Well, what is it that resides in this space and has these experiences? The mind?

we are the MIND EXPERIENCING THEM

And how does this mind/self cause things to happen in the other (real) reality?

Dennet's whole point: you don't need to worry about a subjective reality if there is no separate 'experiencer' homunculus watching the show.

 

[WWHP]

Just so there's no confusion, BF caught my post before I got finished editing out the immature, knee-jerk statements I rashly made.

lol - you mean the entire thing?

okay, so I assume then, before i read it, that what you have written below is not only a refutation of my ideas on the matter, but an elegant description of yours. I look forward to deconstructing them... off we go

You are STILL missing the point. .

Okay, I assume since you began your stream of thought here with the idea that I am somehow 'missing' the point, I assume the one you have provided is the point. Therefore, if I can integrate this point into my framework, then you can no longer make that claim, right? So let me show you how you might as well still be making fart sounds in this discussion..

Not every duality is significant.

so your saying that dualities can be understood in two forms, dualities that are significant, and dualities that are not significant. Another duality. That's fine, I'll let that one slide and just focus on what your suggesting. Your suggesting that the duality between mind/brain is insignificant because mind is a property of the brain and the brain is the fundamental property of consciousness. Sure, but the mind is also the fundamental property of the self, right? A dead brain doesn't have a mind, right?

So why shouldn't we include the mind when discussing the brain again? Isn't that contrary to what Dennet's entire argument is about?

Not every dualism is fundamental.

I'm not sure you have an elegant model of what 'dualities' are other than 'things that come in descriptions of 'this' and 'that.' 'fundamental' is ONE side of a duality.

Just because you can find a way to break something into two parts doesn't mean it's correct, or important, or meaningful

We don't 'need' a way to 'break' something into two parts unless we are making an omelette. The fact that our 'reality' proper has that 'embedded' into it is another matter altogether. To not include that embedded quality of ABSOLUTE reality into your models of reality is poor and incomplete and most importantly dishonest thinking.

Is there a duality between 'car' and 'moving down the road'?

lol, is there a duality between a dead brain and a brain state?

Is there a duality between 'spatula' and 'flipping things over'?

is there a duality between cooking and eating?

Is there a duality between 'week old apple' and 'rotting on my desk'?

lol - is there a duality between apple and physiological state of an apple?

Why is it helpful to think of these as dualities?

it's not meaningful because they are poorly formed dualities.

Why is it meaningful to consider the duality between male and female when discussing procreation and not when flipping pancakes with a spatula?

Furthermore, what you don't seem to get is that when you start talking about two realities, the burden is on you to show how they can interact and still be considered truly separate and distinct realities.

huh? Why in the hell would i go through all that work when Dennet has done such an excellent job for me?

This is the major problem with Cartesian dualism. This is why you are--despite what you repeat to the contrary--espousing a Cartesian position. If you want to insist you aren't, then you need to respond to the bolded statement.

yawn. snore. Arguments against or for cartesian dualism are boring to me. Certainly not what I am arguing for so I can't take the time to be brought into them.

Whatever duality shows up in Dennet's work is NOT problematic.

lol - well certainly not to the people that have no choice but to accept it and therefore already believe it and are not interested in skepticism on the matter.

And the solution does not lie in a "trinity which resolves the duality" (a phrase you've repeated like it's an obvious fact).

Well, it is an obvious fact of logic, sorry if it goes over your head. I referenced a famous logician that my fellow philosopher 'Blobru' introduced me too. If your curious about logic like I am, check him out! Raymond Smullyan is a national treasure.

Here's why: Things do stuff! Nouns verb! The brain thinks! There is no problem to resolve.

well, those are physics problems, and e=mc^2 resolved them. psst it's called the relationship between MATTER and ENERGY.

You keep insisting that experience is...what?

experience

Well, what is it that resides in this space and has these experiences? The mind?

I'm still quite puzzled by mind/consciousness - so I'm not making any firm claims, I'm just noting a distinction between my imagination and my brain. Brain seems to be the fundamental property of my imagination, but I seem to imagine plants revealing to me wise phrases about intelligence and I'm suspicious that those plants exist as plants in my brain.

And how does this mind/self cause things to happen in the other (real) reality?

huh? could you reformulate that question again, it reads like gibberish to me.

Dennet's whole point: you don't need to worry about a subjective reality if there is no separate 'experiencer' homunculus watching the show.

Yes, I am aware that is Dennet's point, and it's not fully comprehensible, it's philosophically incomplete, and produces eventual contradictions.

 

[Philosaur]

lol - you mean the entire thing?

okay, so I assume then, before i read it, that what you have written below is not only a refutation of my ideas on the matter, but an elegant description of yours. I look forward to deconstructing them... off we go



Okay, I assume since you began your stream of thought here with the idea that I am somehow 'missing' the point, I assume the one you have provided is the point. Therefore, if I can integrate this point into my framework, then you can no longer make that claim, right? So let me show you how you might as well still be making fart sounds in this discussion..



so your saying that dualities can be understood in two forms, dualities that are significant, and dualities that are not significant. Another duality. That's fine, I'll let that one slide and just focus on what your suggesting. Your suggesting that the duality between mind/brain is insignificant because mind is a property of the brain and the brain is the fundamental property of consciousness. Sure, but the mind is also the fundamental property of the self, right? A dead brain doesn't have a mind, right?

So why shouldn't we include the mind when discussing the brain again? Isn't that contrary to what Dennet's entire argument is about?



I'm not sure you have an elegant model of what 'dualities' are other than 'things that come in descriptions of 'this' and 'that.' 'fundamental' is ONE side of a duality.



We don't 'need' a way to 'break' something into two parts unless we are making an omelette. The fact that our 'reality' proper has that 'embedded' into it is another matter altogether. To not include that embedded quality of ABSOLUTE reality into your models of reality is poor and incomplete and most importantly dishonest thinking.



lol, is there a duality between a dead brain and a brain state?



is there a duality between cooking and eating?



lol - is there a duality between apple and physiological state of an apple?



it's not meaningful because they are poorly formed dualities.

Why is it meaningful to consider the duality between male and female when discussing procreation and not when flipping pancakes with a spatula?



huh? Why in the hell would i go through all that work when Dennet has done such an excellent job for me?



yawn. snore. Arguments against or for cartesian dualism are boring to me. Certainly not what I am arguing for so I can't take the time to be brought into them.



lol - well certainly not to the people that have no choice but to accept it and therefore already believe it and are not interested in skepticism on the matter.



Well, it is an obvious fact of logic, sorry if it goes over your head. I referenced a famous logician that my fellow philosopher 'Blobru' introduced me too. If your curious about logic like I am, check him out! Raymond Smullyan is a national treasure.



well, those are physics problems, and e=mc^2 resolved them. psst it's called the relationship between MATTER and ENERGY.



experience



I'm still quite puzzled by mind/consciousness - so I'm not making any firm claims, I'm just noting a distinction between my imagination and my brain. Brain seems to be the fundamental property of my imagination, but I seem to imagine plants revealing to me wise phrases about intelligence and I'm suspicious that those plants exist as plants in my brain.



huh? could you reformulate that question again, it reads like gibberish to me.



Yes, I am aware that is Dennet's point, and it's not fully comprehensible, it's philosophically incomplete, and produces eventual contradictions.

Anyone else feel like slamming your head in a car door over and over? I'm clearly out of my league.

 

[Nick227]

I mean that though there are currently electronic systems that I would call "intelligent", its meaning in that context is completely differently to the way I would attribute it to a biological entity. That is not to say that I fundamentally consider machine and biological consciousness to be different, just that the current generation technology is not performing the same actions and biological actions if that makes sense?

Not massively, no! Sounds a bit like you're fence-sitting, which is fine, but for me personally I would prefer it if you say this. Apologies if I'm simply misunderstanding.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Anyone else feel like slamming your head in a car door over and over? I'm clearly out of my league.

Bubblefish,

I have to ask if this repetitive pattern that seems to occur in your dialogues concerns you. You start to discuss the philosophy of consciousness with someone and they seem pretty civil and respectful to you for the first couple of posts. Then, quite quickly, their tone changes and they start either mocking you or questioning your knowledge. If you look back at this thread you will see that it has happened quite a few times now.

I'm interested, how do you process this?

Do you consider that they're all part of some conspiracy to **** with your head or belittle you?

Do you consider that your theory is just so radical that none of these fools can understand it?

Do you regard your detractors as idiots and you the only knowing one?

Do you consider that maybe you don't really have any meaningful understanding of the subject matter, despite that script running around your head saying that you do?

Or do you invoke some other strategy?

I'm genuinely interested.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Anyone else feel like slamming your head in a car door over and over? I'm clearly out of my league.

indeed, out of your league. at least your honest enough to see that. i can see your very passionate about this subject matter, but emotions won't help you solve the deeper questions regarding intelligence and consciousness.

cheers, thanks for joining

 

[WWHP]

Bubblefish,

I have to ask if this repetitive pattern that seems to occur in your dialogues concerns you. You start to discuss the philosophy of consciousness with someone and they seem pretty civil and respectful to you for the first couple of posts. Then, quite quickly, their tone changes and they start either mocking you or questioning your knowledge. If you look back at this thread you will see that it has happened quite a few times now.

oh you got an eye for talent

kidding aside, oh yes I am extremely familiar with this phenomenon. I can actually predict when it is most likely to happen, how it does happen, and what steps lead to it happening. It's very natural and human, it's part of a dialectical process we all go through. And this is nothing compared to what I used to go through. Years ago while developing this dialectical process I am speaking of, wow, you would see 30 - 50 people against lil ol me for months.

I'm interested, how do you process this?

I love it, it provides an opportunity to reach resolution within myself and with others if they stay with me in the discussion and agree to be honest with me.

Do you consider that they're all part of some conspiracy to **** with your head or belittle you?

lol, no unless you consider that there is a unconscious conspiracy for us to confuse ideas as the people discussing them.

Do you consider that your theory is just so radical that none of these fools can understand it?

hmmm, well I would not put it that way, it's not that it's radical, it's that it walks the very thin line of what I refer to as the third value, which is really only understood as unknown or mystery. I believe we have deep rooted issues with mystery, and when invoked into the discussion it a way that is considering and rational, it can be shocking how it can effect people's perceptions and behaviors. Couple that with the inherent conflict of idea and the human ability to confuse ideas as people and voila'.

Do you regard your detractors as idiots and you the only knowing one?

It's usually the other way around. I come from a place, ideally that is, of not knowing - pure skepticism - I don't know ultimately. I'm not saying i have the final answer on consciousness, although I do believe I have a reasonable framework to discuss it rationally.

as to how I perceive my detractors, well let's see, on this discussion, have extremely high regard for Blobru, even though he fumbled the last round. I like you too, I think your very reasonable. Pixymesa to me is more creative than she is discerning, she is just pure passion with a hiccup on the repeat button, so not so interesting to me to discuss the fine details. Brainache? that guy is funny!

I really have learned so much from speaking to all of you, I truly value the group here. Would dine or drink with any of you.

To me, philosophy is more of a sport than a discipline. I love the process of human discussion around very complex issues and ideas.

Do you consider that maybe you don't really have any meaningful understanding of the subject matter, despite that script running around your head saying that you do?

oh I have to remind myself to tell myself that all the time. In my more insecure modes, I assume I am completely delusional. That is why I try to keep my strategy so open and transparent, because if I am delusional on a certain point, I am sure the people i have poked enough of here will glady jump in and point out where.

Or do you invoke some other strategy?

see above

I'm genuinely interested.

I believe that you are. I assume your a psychologist or psychiatrist, or something similar for some reason. Been meaning to ask you your profession. PM me if you want to keep that private.

Thx Nick! at least your still friendly with me!

 

[zooterkin]

indeed, out of your league. at least your honest enough to see that. i can see your very passionate about this subject matter, but emotions won't help you solve the deeper questions regarding intelligence and consciousness.

 

[WWHP]

lol, and neither will emoticons assist you zoo!

 

[WWHP]

Note and follow up to Nick:

You asked me

Do you consider that maybe you don't really have any meaningful understanding of the subject matter, despite that script running around your head saying that you do?

funny, it took a bit longer for the irony on this question to register (perhaps thanks to zooterken's factually based irony meter?)

but in a way, that is essentially the question I have been asking most of you!

Don't you ever bother to question your own belief system? Don't you ever bother to apply to same level of skepticism that you do towards claims of bigfoot, ufos, astral travel, psychic energy, chi, etc etc to your OWN philosophy?

Why only be skeptical of one school of thought and not the other? What is the value of skepticism when it is only applied to things you do not believe in?

The reaction I get from the skeptical community here is just as arrogant as the reaction I get from a community of believers when I argue for the necessity of science and rational thinking.

What does that tell you about your own brand of fundamentalism, eh?

 

[Brainache]

...
Don't you ever bother to question your own belief system? Don't you ever bother to apply to same level of skepticism that you do towards claims of bigfoot, ufos, astral travel, psychic energy, chi, etc etc to your OWN philosophy?
...

It was that level of skepticism which lead us to our philosophy.

Do you seriously think that people start off believing in Dennet's model of consciousness then just try to fit evidence to match?

You sound like one of those conspiracy nuts accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being mindless sheep.

 

[Nick227]

I love it, it provides an opportunity to reach resolution within myself and with others if they stay with me in the discussion and agree to be honest with me.

But it has to be said, BF, that you really do not grasp the basics in this field. I know you think you do. I know you quote years of study. But I've only having been interested in this area for a year or two, and for me it's clear that there are certain concepts and ideas that need to be understood before any kind of meaningful debate can take place. And some of these things you absolutely do not grasp. It's clear. It's not that you lack for intelligence, I'm sure. It's simply that you have not read what other people have read, writings distilled from the general body of academic interest in the area.

That's why I suggested you read Blackmore's introduction.

hmmm, well I would not put it that way, it's not that it's radical, it's that it walks the very thin line of what I refer to as the third value, which is really only understood as unknown or mystery. I believe we have deep rooted issues with mystery, and when invoked into the discussion it a way that is considering and rational, it can be shocking how it can effect people's perceptions and behaviors. Couple that with the inherent conflict of idea and the human ability to confuse ideas as people and voila'.

I know this is what you think. But it is not so. Mystery is not the issue. There is inevitably bucketloads of mystery surrounding any philosophy. Mystery is not the deal here. You don't grasp basic concepts and your attempt to interpret Dennett shows this repeatedly. If you go back and study from afresh then you will understand where philosophy is currently at in this field and you will be able to debate.

It's usually the other way around. I come from a place, ideally that is, of not knowing - pure skepticism - I don't know ultimately. I'm not saying i have the final answer on consciousness, although I do believe I have a reasonable framework to discuss it rationally.

Get skeptical about that belief.

I really have learned so much from speaking to all of you, I truly value the group here. Would dine or drink with any of you.

How about reading for us?

oh I have to remind myself to tell myself that all the time. In my more insecure modes, I assume I am completely delusional. That is why I try to keep my strategy so open and transparent, because if I am delusional on a certain point, I am sure the people i have poked enough of here will glady jump in and point out where.

If you invest some time in reading a good introduction to the area then you will not have to be so insecure about discussing.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

funny, it took a bit longer for the irony on this question to register (perhaps thanks to zooterken's factually based irony meter?)

but in a way, that is essentially the question I have been asking most of you!

Don't you ever bother to question your own belief system? Don't you ever bother to apply to same level of skepticism that you do towards claims of bigfoot, ufos, astral travel, psychic energy, chi, etc etc to your OWN philosophy?

Why only be skeptical of one school of thought and not the other? What is the value of skepticism when it is only applied to things you do not believe in?

The reaction I get from the skeptical community here is just as arrogant as the reaction I get from a community of believers when I argue for the necessity of science and rational thinking.

What does that tell you about your own brand of fundamentalism, eh?

I don't have a problem with questioning materialism. As I've said the jury is anyway still out on the materialist vision of consciousness. There's no consensus of acceptance of the Computational Model amongst academics and scientists that I can see. Researchers research. They don't need a full philosophical perspective in order to do so. I think it is more a case of having to accept that, when all the other possibilities have been discounted, what remains, no matter how counter-intuitive, is likely to be true.

This is how I approach it.

But you still cannot argue the points because you don't understand enough background.

Nick