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

[blobru]

hah, just gave him a hug from you. He said 'okay'.

Betcha he loved that.
Great! Not bad enough Dad's talking to plants in the jungle, now he's giving me hugs from some dweeb on the internet.
Yeah, well, whaddayagonnado... shhh, documentary's on...

 

[Trent Wray]

lol, well at least that woman does anyway.

Snap !

 

[PixyMisa]

No real argument here (as long as we 'mind' what we mean). Mind is likely a property of the brain

Mind is a property of the brain. We have more evidence for this than for every other proposition ever made put together.

 

[PixyMisa]

lol, well at least that woman does anyway.

As already pointed out, the contradictions you think you see in my posts are actually just the incoherence of your own position reflecting back at you.

And I'll let someone else break the news when they feel like it.

 

[blobru]

Mind is a property of the brain. We have more evidence for this than for every other proposition ever made put together.

"Socrates is mortal" has probably got it beat, but yeah; still, doesn't hurt to soft pedal it... sometimes.

 

[Trent Wray]

As already pointed out, the contradictions you think you see in my posts are actually just the incoherence of your own position reflecting back at you.

And I'll let someone else break the news when they feel like it.

Snap ²
* ........ moving on ..........

 

[WWHP]

And I'll let someone else break the news when they feel like it.

well clearly someone else coming in and completing an argument for you is your only option.

 

[Trent Wray]

Okay BF --- I read a little of the OS 012 Theory site. I am viewing it as a philosophy, not fact. But at it's core, I'm seeing that it is hinting towards something being "sacred". So let me ask you: can you personally define sacred, in your own words, if there is such a thing deserving that title?

 

[Nick227]

I'm finding contradictions here Nick.

I think you have to read more carefully. The hard problem exists in the sense that there are people who believe in it, but it does not exist in the sense that there is no actual problem. I guess this can be confusing! But if you take more time I believe both these statements can be understood.

The so-called hard problem is merely the result of proceeding from untested assumptions about the nature of the self.

Nick

 

[Brainache]

I have been trying to follow this thread. I have to say that Pixy Misa seems to be the one making sense to me.

I'm still waiting for the AI part of the title to appear, so I guess I'll try to push it along:

Bubblefish, imagine a conscious computer. Now imagine a power surge or a short circut in that computer (not enough to damage it, just enough to scramble some of the processors temporarily) which makes it think it is receiving some input (maybe a voice saying "Processing is automatic programming"), even though it isn't.

Is that illusionary voice input real?

 

[PixyMisa]

"Socrates is mortal" has probably got it beat

Not sure about that; we only die once, but we each perform many thousands of mind/body experiments over the course of our lives, like getting drunk, getting hit on the head, attempting to extract useful information out of imaginary beings...

 

[WWHP]

Okay BF --- I read a little of the OS 012 Theory site. I am viewing it as a philosophy, not fact. But at it's core, I'm seeing that it is hinting towards something being "sacred". So let me ask you: can you personally define sacred, in your own words, if there is such a thing deserving that title?

Hey Trent, I don't want to turn this into a discussion about my ternary dialectic project. There is already one of those on this forum somewhere and it lasted months. Search my profile, you should find it and read it, there is plenty in there. It doesn't at all hint at sacred, that's not what it's about, it's for communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution. It can handle ideas that are considered sacred, but that's not it's trajectory.

Sacred is an experience, not an object.

 

[WWHP]

I think you have to read more carefully. The hard problem exists in the sense that there are people who believe in it, but it does not exist in the sense that there is no actual problem.

I have already allowed for that, accounted for that. The hard problem, true or untrue, exists in the mind. It still exists in some sense, and that manner of existence is something that philosophically I don't find your position allowing for.

I guess this can be confusing! But if you take more time I believe both these statements can be understood.

It's only confusing when we try to throw it into a dualistic model. I'm not confused one iota on the matter.

Consider; my summary does not produce contradictions. Your summary does produce contradictions. If I had a written discussion with both chambers and dennet, I predict I would also find the same contradictions from them in communicating the scenario.

I believe in the power of logic, and all truth values stated about reality and existence should not produce contradictions, and if they do, they should be discarded, not held on to for the sake of promoting an ideology.

The so-called hard problem is merely the result of proceeding from untested assumptions about the nature of the self.

Chambers hard problem as he frames it, perhaps. He is still stuck in dualism so he produces contradictions too. I don't think however, that any cohesive argument as been put forth on this thread that explains your position to any full satisfaction. The hard problem as I define it proceeds from no presumptions about the self other than the self is an unknown, illusion, and an material object. I don't need to invoke a soul, spirit, a man inside of a man. I don't need any of those things. There doesnt even need to be any 'stuff' to consciousness in my model.

Carl Sagan was famous for his proposition that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That proposition works for both sides of the aisle, not just for big foot supporters.

Take care Nick, this has been a pleasure.

 

[WWHP]

I have been trying to follow this thread. I have to say that Pixy Misa seems to be the one making sense to me.

Well she could use some help in this discussion, so perhaps you can help her?

I'm still waiting for the AI part of the title to appear, so I guess I'll try to push it along:

THANK YOU. I have been waiting for that I thought I was complete in this conversation.

Bubblefish, imagine a conscious computer. Now imagine a power surge or a short circut in that computer (not enough to damage it, just enough to scramble some of the processors temporarily) which makes it think it is receiving some input (maybe a voice saying "Processing is automatic programming"), even though it isn't.

Is that illusionary voice input real?

That illusionary voice input is about as real as the conscious computer you are invoking, exists in the exact same space, and is completely allowed for in my model without producing contradictions.

Let's use a more concrete model, yes?

Dark matter is believed by the majority of cosmologists to compose 96% of the universe. It's not composed of any physical element that we know of. Contains no atoms, sub atomic structures, molecules, nothing. It simply does not contain any 'matter' or 'energy' in any sense that any physical science has tested, theorized, or studied. There simply is nothing there that we can currently find. Theories about dark matter exist in the same place that theories about consciousness do.

Is dark matter real?

 

[Nick227]

The hard problem as I define it proceeds from no presumptions about the self other than the self is an unknown, illusion, and an material object. I don't need to invoke a soul, spirit, a man inside of a man. I don't need any of those things. There doesnt even need to be any 'stuff' to consciousness in my model.

But you still have a 'hard problem' apparently, when materialism does not. I mean, from where I'm standing I have to say that I can't really see the point in trying to create your own model of consciousness when you already admit that it doesn't resolve a problem that an already established model has dealt with. Why bother?

You seem to me to be following the well-travelled path of numerous so-called mystics. They believe the dialectical position is true, and consider that something must be needed to resolve this apparent duality of self / other stuff. They call it "transcendence" or whatever. However, what they have neglected to check out in all this drama is whether the problem that "transcendence" is supposed to correct really exists in the first place.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Dennet allows for the possibility of conscious computers, even suggesting that some computers now may be conscious in some sense. AI and many (but not all) proponents of AI suggest consciousness is a result of intelligence, if intelligence is allowed to evolve computationally, consciousness will be the eventual result.

Those are materialistic models. QM is another materialistic model.
Put them both together, and we have a universe that may also be conscious, indeed, must be conscious in some sense if the materialistic models are correct.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/c...m-computer.php?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

 

[WWHP]

But you still have a 'hard problem' apparently, when materialism does not.

While materialism, as you argue for it, produces contradictions, while I do not.

I mean, from where I'm standing I have to say that I can't really see the point in trying to create your own model of consciousness when you already admit that it doesn't resolve a problem that an already established model has dealt with.

It resolves the problem of the many contradictions that those models are producing.

Why bother?

Because I am a very conservative critical thinker, prefer neatness to sloppyness, prefer elegance to the crude. EDIT: I also believe in the value of original thinking, and always try to frame ideas using my own language and descriptions to test how well I understand them.

You seem to me to be following the well-travelled path of numerous so-called mystics. They believe the dialectical position is true, and consider that something must be needed to resolve this apparent duality of self / other stuff. They call it "transcendence" or whatever. However, what they have neglected to check out in all this drama is whether the problem that "transcendence" is supposed to correct really exists in the first place.

Nick

That's fine if you want to view me that way. I'm really not so interested in bringing ideas about me into this discussion, I prefer to discuss the ideas and data itself. If i need to be a mystic in your eyes for the safety of your own paradigm, there really is nothing I can do about that.

Everybody gets the Bubblefish they deserve.

Take care.

eta: Didn't I tell you I was a futurist?

 

[Nick227]

While materialism, as you argue for it, produces contradictions, while I do not.

I don't see any contradictions in the materialist vision of consciousness.

I mean, understanding subjectivity objectively inevitably has the possibility to create confusion, because the mind can become very attached to this sense of self it has created. And it does not like this sudden clarity that materialism can provide. Often it prefers to retreat back into its fantasy world of all complicated philosophies and hide. Which, for me, is precisely what you are doing now. But there are no contradictions - merely how things seem and how things are.

Nick

 

[Trent Wray]

Hey Trent, I don't want to turn this into a discussion about my ternary dialectic project. There is already one of those on this forum somewhere and it lasted months. Search my profile, you should find it and read it, there is plenty in there. It doesn't at all hint at sacred, that's not what it's about, it's for communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution. It can handle ideas that are considered sacred, but that's not it's trajectory.

Sacred is an experience, not an object.

I understood from the paper the conflict resolution and communication ideas. But coupling it with the ideas from this thread, I saw more you might have been trying to say.

But fair enough, I'll leave it alone as you asked.

So is Peru in the sights soon for you or still on hold?

And I was curious if you'd let your child try ayahuasca? And if not, why not? If I may ask.

 

[WWHP]

I don't see any contradictions in the materialist vision of consciousness.

I mean, understanding subjectivity objectively inevitably has the possibility to create confusion, because the mind can become very attached to this sense of self it has created. And it does not like this sudden clarity that materialism can provide. Often it prefers to retreat back into its fantasy world of all complicated philosophies and hide. Which, for me, is precisely what you are doing now. But there are no contradictions - merely how things seem and how things are.

Nick

Nick, I can only go on the argument you provided to me, and in your argument of materialism, there are contradictions. I haven't had an argument with Dennet or Charles, and perhaps they would show me mine, but until they do, I am exploring my model at deeper levels of understanding and I value you for you have helped me.

I like you, let's Keep in touch, but for me this discussion is now closed, there isn't anything left for me to evaluate in your claims nor in the claims of Pixy Mesa.