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

[PixyMisa]

I have over 25 years of study in science, comparative religion, anthropology, psychology and philosophy

Are you sure? Did you count them? You might want to double-check.

and about 20 years of practice in philosophical areas I would suspect you have never even encountered nor even heard of.

We've run into pretty much every variety of nonsense here; for some reason, skeptic forums attract nonsense like flies to a dead armadillo. But if you have something truly new, please feel free to present it, and we'll savour it while we tear it apart.

I have developed philosophies for as simple and practical things such as the internet and new media in general.

No, no you haven't.

I have developed an entire system of dialectic for the internet that has produced incredibly practical results that are very clearly defined, have been sponsored in salons at university by accredited academics, and never once have I ever been told I was not allowed in their 'group'!

Salons at university by accredited academics, yet!

Are you serious? Do you know how long I have been studying consciousness for? How many books I have read in the past 25 years? How many discussions with brilliant minds? How comprehensive my approach has been? do you know how much direct experience I have had with mind and consciousness that transcends virtually all of what you have covered in this discussion?

Zero?

Am I close?

Sorry, I might be wildly overshooting there; I'm just guessing based on the evidence you've presended.

Do you actually believe the history of Western academic philosophy accounts for the entire body of philosophical thought?

Who cares? Even the good parts of Western philosophy are 90% useless, and everything else is even worse.

Wouldn't it be a bit crude of me to request that you go study vegetalismo and sit with ayahuasca 50 or so times before could discuss the dynamics of intelligence in nature and consciousness in any meaningful way?

Crude, no. Foolish, unfounded, and pointless, yes.

Wouldn't it be condescending of me to assume your intellectual approach cannot fathom the depth of being and until you go experience it directly in meditation for 8 years?

Condescending maybe. Completely nonsensical, certainly.

Wouldn't I be an ******* if I said that because you have not integrated the ideas of Taoism or the martial strategy of Aikido, your simply uninformed of the nuances of human interactions?

No, you'd just be factually wrong.

 

[Nick227]

Maybe he's referring to - dun dun dun! - self-reference.

Well, I'm not sure. Be nice to hear blobru's affirmation.

Personally, I still don't like this "self-reference" term. The self is only created by the feedback loop to which it refers. It's a little putting the cart before the horse for me.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Are you sure? Did you count them? You might want to double-check.


We've run into pretty much every variety of nonsense here; for some reason, skeptic forums attract nonsense like flies to a dead armadillo. But if you have something truly new, please feel free to present it, and we'll savour it while we tear it apart.


No, no you haven't.


Salons at university by accredited academics, yet!


Zero?

Am I close?

Sorry, I might be wildly overshooting there; I'm just guessing based on the evidence you've presended.


Who cares? Even the good parts of Western philosophy are 90% useless, and everything else is even worse.


Crude, no. Foolish, unfounded, and pointless, yes.


Condescending maybe. Completely nonsensical, certainly.


No, you'd just be factually wrong.

I don't know if you've integrated enough Aikido into your reply here, Pixy. I don't know if it passes muster. Maybe you could edit it and fit a bit in. Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

I have a fourth-kyo black belt in Wookido. This is the gentle art of confusing your opponent to the point that they beat themselves up.

 

[WWHP]

oh wow - the dogs are barking at me again. who's surprised?

my point was that it would be ridiculous for me to assume than one must study aikido to understand martial philosophy enough to talk with me in the discussion. Since you're unaware that there is a philosophy embedded in a system that is outside your own (ignorance) your really supporting my point.

and we can study consciousness in university and books, sure, that's valuable, but we can also study consciousness by actually experiencing it and perturbing it directly, i.e. studying it directly, engaging in practices that take years to develop an understanding of. I don't find much of that going on in your camp. The fact is I do have a vast body of knowledge and experience on the matter of consciousness, over 20 years, and the position that I must go understand the basics is utterly condescending, especially since I am able to hold and support my position with some of you legends here quite easily. I think I have an easier time understanding you than you do understanding me. I think that says something.

 

[WWHP]

No. But I also find that you don't demonstrate much real understanding of the actual subject matter. And for me you do fly off at tangents, possibly to avoid the implications of what is in front of you.

such as? what implication have I avoided? I don't think you have presented any implication that I have avoided. Indeed, I think you have said a few things, repeated yourself over and over on a point that is well integrated in my framework.

I would like to ask you - can you just "sit on one point" and mull it over? Or do you find your mind just flickering off in another direction? I find you a nice guy, Bubblefish, but I definitely miss that you can construct a simple coherent argument. One without half a million words and multiple tangents.

I presented a very simple summary in this discussion that either went over your head or you avoided it, which your now projecting on to me.

I admit consciousness and this field is quite vast, I think all of us have something to learn. I don't believe I am jumping all over the place. If you're making such a claim, I request you support it with a clear example so I can make the correction.

It would be nice to have a more simple discussion. The materialist vision of consciousness is not complex. I sure wouldn't be bothered to try and understand it if it were. You don't need a real big brain. But it is highly counter-intuitive, and creating complexities and tangents can just be a way of avoiding what's in front of you, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

Nick

Nick, you created multiple contradictions in your argument, and I very clearly showed where they exist. Your welcome to do the same with me. Point is you haven't. You've avoided every single piece of information I have provided that shows otherwise, and I do not believe you understand the materialistic position on consciousness. Blobru does however, and now this discussion has finally gotten interesting and challenging to me. That's how I came here, to be challenged, to have my concepts and ideas challenged, and if I am lucky, defeated enough so I can evolve in my understanding.

The only real challenge in this discussion that I have had is from blubro, he has a marvelous education in logic and philosophy that I am learning from. I don't even think you know the point in contention in our argument.

Pixymesa has shown herself to be absolutely irrelevant to me in this discussion, so I'm not even going to waste my time in dissecting her point of view, it's too simple and predictable.

 

[Nick227]

my point was that it would be ridiculous for me to assume than one must study aikido to understand martial philosophy enough to talk with me in the discussion.

Look, just what is that supposed to mean, BF?

Since you're unaware that there is a philosophy embedded in a system that is outside your own (ignorance) your really supporting my point.

No. We're poking a bit of fun at someone who proclaims that one needs to understand the philosophy behind Aikido in order to enter into a discussion about consciousness.

and we can study consciousness in university and books, sure, that's valuable, but we can also study consciousness by actually experiencing it and perturbing it directly, i.e. studying it directly, engaging in practices that take years to develop an understanding of. I don't find much of that going on in your camp. The fact is I do have a vast body of knowledge and experience on the matter of consciousness, over 20 years, and the position that I must go understand the basics is utterly condescending, especially since I am able to hold and support my position with some of you legends here quite easily. I think I have an easier time understanding you than you do understanding me. I think that says something.

Yes, yes, so you keep saying. Yet, you still can't understand the materialist perspective of consciousness adequately to defend your proposition that the "hard problem" exists.

I don't care if you've studied philosophy since the dawn of time, BF. If you don't get the point, you don't get the point. It's meaningless to keep trying to puff yourself up with pronouncements of your vast knowledge when it's plain apparent to anyone with a basic grasp of the subject matter that you still don't understand it. Quite apart from anything else, the thing you're trying to puff up with all this self-agrandisement doesn't actually exist!

Nick

 

[zooterkin]

The only real challenge in this discussion that I have had is from blubro, he has a marvelous education in logic and philosophy that I am learning from. I don't even think you know the point in contention in our argument.

Pixymesa has shown herself to be absolutely irrelevant to me in this discussion, so I'm not even going to waste my time in dissecting her point of view, it's too simple and predictable.

It's blobru and PixyMisa.

 

[WWHP]

Look, just what is that supposed to mean, BF?

It means that this community has a lack of education/understanding in other areas of philosophy and I'm not using that as a barometer to qualify their arguments.

No. We're poking a bit of fun at someone who proclaims that one needs to understand the philosophy behind Aikido in order to enter into a discussion about consciousness.

Nick, the point I made was that it would be RIDICULOUS for me to assume what you wrote above. So who's doing that again? Who are you poking fun of? Your poking fun of the image of Bubblefish you have in your head.

Yet, you still can't understand the materialist perspective of consciousness adequately to defend your proposition that the "hard problem" exists.

Even Blobru said he understood where there was problems in the communication in the models of consciosness and how the discussion on the topic is still active. The hard problem of consciousness rests in philosophy, not science. Yes, one branch is claiming there is no hard problem, and a few other branches are skeptical, of which I am one. Problem with my summary here?

I don't care if you've studied philosophy since the dawn of time, BF. If you don't get the point, you don't get the point.

You haven't made a cohesive point for me to evaluate, so to me your just saying 'BF, you just don't believe what I do, you just don't believe what I do.'

It's meaningless to keep trying to puff yourself up with pronouncements of your vast knowledge when it's plain apparent to anyone with a basic grasp of the subject matter that you still don't understand it. Quite apart from anything else, the thing you're trying to puff up with all this self-agrandisement doesn't actually exist!

I've hardly been puffing myself up in this discussion, but since blobru attacked my credibility, I felt it proper to defend.

 

[WWHP]

It's blobru and PixyMisa.

thanks for keeping me on my toes Zoo - will try to improve my form a bit.

 

[Nick227]

such as? what implication have I avoided? I don't think you have presented any implication that I have avoided. Indeed, I think you have said a few things, repeated yourself over and over on a point that is well integrated in my framework.

In a post yesterday you wrote...

Yes, I can see that, the objective data is incomplete. However only the materialistic philosophies (from the 18th century til the early 21st - I consider my philosophy, futurism, to be a form of materialistic philosophy and not one I found most materialists can account for) rely on the objective data, while other philosophies seek to incorporate objective data with subjective experience, which is always personal. Dennet doesn't seem to agree that subjective experience is off limits, he seems to think that we can actually know exactly what subjective experience is. Problem is the two schools of thought here don't seem to agree on what subjective experience actually is. It's not that there is disagreement, it's that there is confusion about what each other means.

...I mean the second half is very chaotic, BF. For a start it's pointless to say objective data and subjective experience. It's objective data versus subjective data. You're just clouding stuff. Then to claim that Dennett thinks we can know exactly what subjective experience is is equally idiotic. How is any scientist or philosopher going to say such a thing? Dennett thinks that subjective data - "heterophenomenology" - can be used. That's all. And then you say that two schools of thought disagree here but then contradict that in the next sentence by saying it's not that there's disagreement. It's convoluted and it seems clear that you don't understand the issues. This to me is how you constantly present yourself. You need to pick one issue and go deep into it.

I presented a very simple summary in this discussion that either went over your head or you avoided it, which your now projecting on to me.

Here we go, the "you're projecting on to me" routine - Strategy #1.

I admit consciousness and this field is quite vast, I think all of us have something to learn.

Ah, stepping back from the issue - Strategy #2

I don't believe I am jumping all over the place. If you're making such a claim, I request you support it with a clear example so I can make the correction.

er, going on about the universe being a quantum computer or something.

Nick, you created multiple contradictions in your argument, and I very clearly showed where they exist.

Where?

Your welcome to do the same with me. Point is you haven't. You've avoided every single piece of information I have provided that shows otherwise,

What does that last sentence actually mean?

and I do not believe you understand the materialistic position on consciousness. Blobru does however, and now this discussion has finally gotten interesting and challenging to me. That's how I came here, to be challenged, to have my concepts and ideas challenged, and if I am lucky, defeated enough so I can evolve in my understanding.

If you want to evolve your understanding go back and read Blackmore or something. You aren't going to make it otherwise. You're not ready to discuss these issues.

The only real challenge in this discussion that I have had is from blubro, he has a marvelous education in logic and philosophy that I am learning from. I don't even think you know the point in contention in our argument.

....which is?

Pixymesa has shown herself to be absolutely irrelevant to me in this discussion, so I'm not even going to waste my time in dissecting her point of view, it's too simple and predictable.

You mean you don't like the way he talks to you?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

The hard problem of consciousness rests in philosophy, not science. Yes, one branch is claiming there is no hard problem, and a few other branches are skeptical, of which I am one. Problem with my summary here?

Yes. You're not defending your position that the hard problem is valid. you're stepping back and trying to create a summary - Strategy #2.

I've hardly been puffing myself up in this discussion, but since blobru attacked my credibility, I felt it proper to defend.

Then why not do so by demonstrating an adequate grasp of the subject matter. No one is really much convinced by someone who seems to spout endless tangents and tries to reinforce their position by claiming years of learning and experience. This applies across the board not just philosophy.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

In a post yesterday you wrote...



...I mean the second half is very chaotic, BF. For a start it's pointless to say objective data and subjective experience. It's objective data versus subjective data. You're just clouding stuff.

huh? I think it's fairer to say that you are clouded when your presented information with this distinction. This distinction to me appears to be the very place where understanding breaks down between the two sides of the problem.

Your position seems to say there is no distinction between experience and data.

My position says there is a distinction between experience and data, it's just difficult to define because they both share a set of information in common. One set of information is physical, and one is experienced. One is public, one is private.

Now, that distinction doesn't cloud my mind at all. You're saying the distinction does not exist. I'm saying it does, and it is the very point made in the quote by Schrodinger "A physical scientist who does not account for sense or perception into his theories, thus having removed the mind from nature, he cannot expect to find it there."

This is a profound point in the article, and in this discussion.

So instead of simply denying the distinction and trying to assert a philosophy that you yourself cannot frame in a way that is cohesive, why don't you try asking a question or two? Why don't you simply say "BF, I dont see a distinction, can you explain to me what you mean here?"

Here we go, the "you're projecting on to me" routine - Strategy #1.

Well it's a very basic and human psychological behavior, and materialism can even account for it. I'm saying that your only able to frame both myself and my arguments by your own psychological makeup, and thus your private psychological space is viewable to me when you express yourself in your own language on a discussion forum. Or, what you accusing me of, I observe you doing, and I base this on nothing more than your language and viewable behaviors.

Ah, stepping back from the issue - Strategy #2

HUH? If you haven't noticed, I deconstruct every single rebuttal to my claims, especially yours and blobru's. I have not stepped away from this issue, I am here in technically philosophical 'enemy' camp on JREF because I am directly seeking the antithesis to my idea and am poking at all of you until you give it to me clearly. So far, only blobru has accomplished that.

er, going on about the universe being a quantum computer or something.

Do you remember what this argument is about? This discussion is about consciousness and intelligence and models of them therein. I claim that material reality begins to transcend itself, and use a universe as quantum computer as a bit of data to give as example.

That's not jumping all of the place Nick, that's simply making my point, and unfortunately for you, that means taking the discussion into an area you have having problems conceptualizing.

Where?

Your going to have to go back and read this thread, I don't have time to find the post, but I think I very clearly made a post that said "Nick, I am finding some contradictions in your model. On the one hand your saying that the hard problem does not exist, and then you are saying it exists in the minds of certain philosophers."

It took you this long to ask where the contradictions are?

What does that last sentence actually mean?

It means I do the ol copypasta and take your language and show you where i am seeing a contradiction in your model, and you are welcome to do the ol copypasta of my language and do the same with me.

truth is your simply not giving me much to evaluate, so I'm not really finding what your providing here that interesting. And your clearly not interested in my POV either. So let's just move on?

 

[Nick227]

Your position seems to say there is no distinction between experience and data.

No. I'm saying why cloud the issue by introducing an unneeded complexity? It's objective data vs subjective data. Go look at some subjective data, er, the BDI or whatever. It's data, not experience. Straight away you're hurling in another variable.

...next, having jumped to an irrational conclusion you then begin to continue to rebut your own point, capping it as usual by reference to a dead scientist's unsubstantiated claims about the mind. Hello... Schrodinger wasn't God. He has to justify his propositions like the rest of us. If Albert Einstein told you that arsenic was cheese, would you eat it?

On the one hand your saying that the hard problem does not exist, and then you are saying it exists in the minds of certain philosophers."

This you call a contradiction?

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Yes. You're not defending your position that the hard problem is valid. you're stepping back and trying to create a summary - Strategy #2.

I guess this strategy #2 is now competing with my other strategy #2 that you mentioned in a previous post.

My strategy in discussion is pretty open and transparent. I am a big supporter of openness and transparency, much of my work utilizes this ethic in social networks. My strategy is to be as open and as honest in my thinking process with this community as I can. My strategy is to reveal, not hide, what I truly believe, and what steps I took to come to the conclusion that I have with the hope that someone more intelligent than I can make the correction or expose my own delusions and confusions. That's my strategy. I don't have a secret sauce, it's right in front of your eyes.

I'm not here because I'm bored, this discussion is directly linked to an article I wrote online, this discussion is part of a social media project.

 

[WWHP]

No. I'm saying why cloud the issue by introducing an unneeded complexity? It's objective data vs subjective data. Go look at some subjective data, er, the BDI or whatever. It's data, not experience. Straight away you're hurling in another variable.

right, like I said, you're saying no distinction exists, but then you say there is no hard problem, it just exists in the minds of certain philosophers. Thus making the distinction and nullifying your position immediately.

This you call a contradiction?

Nick

Sure, your saying it does not exist, and then your saying it does exist. Since you deny the distinction between experience of data and data, then your compounding your contradiction even more.

It's taken you 5 days to bring this up?

 

[Nick227]

Sure, your saying it does not exist, and then your saying it does exist. Since you deny the distinction between experience of data and data, then your compounding your contradiction even more.

I said the hard problem only exists in the minds of misguided philosophers, or something similar. It does not exist in objective reality. If you could make an image of a horse with 17 heads in your mind, would you thus claim that it exists? I wouldn't.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

I said the hard problem only exists in the minds of misguided philosophers, or something similar.

sure after you said it doesn't exist. now it exists in the mind.

It does not exist in objective reality.

but according to you, the mind does exist in objective reality, so by default, so would any property of mind.

If you could make an image of a horse with 17 heads in your mind, would you thus claim that it exists?

I would be claiming what I have continued to claim, that there is a distinction in dimension between experience and brain/nervous system. If I cut open my brain, I wont find a little jpeg of a horse with 17 heads, that 'image' exists in a space that I am suggesting is poorly accounted for in the materialist arguments I come across. That space is where I am defining a distinction, and you are denying and introducing a contradiction that you cannot account for.

 

[zooterkin]

but according to you, the mind does exist in objective reality, so by default, so would any property of mind.

So because a mind can imagine a horse with 17 heads, that means a horse with 17 heads exists in objective reality? I don't think that follows. (I seem to recall you had problems with 'objective' and 'subjective' in the past.)

 

[WWHP]

So because a mind can imagine a horse with 17 heads, that means a horse with 17 heads exists in objective reality? I don't think that follows.

I agree, that is what is inferred in Nick's argument, the way he explains materialism is contradictory.

(I seem to recall you had problems with 'objective' and 'subjective' in the past.)

funny, I have the same recollection of you