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

[blobru]

...blobru!

@Blubro: ...

do you have an emoticon that expresses what your moniker means ?

Yes and no, maybe? (by coincidence, blobru means blubro; which is nice, because blubro means blobru)

 

[WWHP]

There is pain - sensory reality
I experience pain - mental overlay

Not sure what is mental about pain and a direct tingling in my foot when I scratch it just right. Not sure what is mental about my lady and I - you know - not sure what is mental about my son giggling when he watches a gecko.

As I and Pixy have said, and Dennett and Hofstadter will confirm, it is extremely counter-intuitive.

Your not addressing my points, skipping over the tougher questions that anyone interested in critical thinking would want to ask, and then just repeating the party line.

I understand you. I don't think you understand me.

 

[WWHP]

I'm not saying there isn't a self. I would hardly be communicating with you if this were so. I'm saying that what you "experience" at this level, does not manifest in the way it appears to manifest.

but that's what I'm saying too - so how is it you disagree with me then?

There is not an experiencer within the brain. Experience is a story, told by various brain modules, called "thinking." All that exists of "experience" before these modules get hold of it is sensory processing.

That's how the process of experience is believed to occur amongst a group of philsophers and neuroscientists. They have their 'own' story. but the process is not what we are experiencing. You still seem unable to integrate that very simple distinction.

This is not to diminish the value of "experience" or the social functions it achieves. It is simply to make a clear statement of how it happens.

Yes but this discussion on my end is not even trying to disqualify how it happens. It's the happening that is the distinction. Look, somewhere, our discussion and this entire forum is a bunch of 1's and 0's somewhere, right? But is that our discussion, or is that just our discussion digitized into 1's and 0's? Two different things, two different experiences, two different ways of expressing our discussion. One makes sense to virtually all of us, and the other to computer programmers.

Please respect the distinctions!

These things are good feelings. They don't need anyone for them to exist. Just as your body does not need a sense of self to react to pain, so it doesn't need one to feel happy. Endorphins flow and produce a bodily reaction whether or not there is mental selfhood.

Do we even need to know what you wrote above to feel happy? we don't need neuroscience to feel happy, just as neuroscience doesn't need a self to account for happiness. and until your version of materialism humanizes itself a bit more, it's going to be deemed irrelevant by thoughtful and considering human beings everywhere.

 

[Nick227]

Not sure what is mental about pain and a direct tingling in my foot when I scratch it just right. Not sure what is mental about my lady and I - you know - not sure what is mental about my son giggling when he watches a gecko.

There is pain means pain is present. Mental is not important. We're dealing with basic sensory awareness. In basic sensory awareness the pain is present. Now...along comes ancilliary processing and constructs "I feel pain." There is no actual experiencer of the pain until the brain constructs one through thinking. Prior to that it is simply a chemical reaction.

I understand you.

Then you can appreciate this point. The notion of feelings belonging to someone is being constructed entirely by ancilliary processing in the brain. It is not present in a priori sensory awareness.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

That's how the process of experience is believed to occur amongst a group of philsophers and neuroscientists.

...increasing in number annually as more and more research concludes that there is no magical pixie dust in the brain and consciousness is actually entirely explainable as a physical brain function.

Yes but this discussion on my end is not even trying to disqualify how it happens. It's the happening that is the distinction. Look, somewhere, our discussion and this entire forum is a bunch of 1's and 0's somewhere, right? But is that our discussion, or is that just our discussion digitized into 1's and 0's? Two different things, two different experiences, two different ways of expressing our discussion. One makes sense to virtually all of us, and the other to computer programmers.

Please respect the distinctions!

You're saying that you can't discuss internal brain dynamics, neural activity, this kind of thing? You don't find it relevant?

Do we even need to know what you wrote above to feel happy?

oh god, another shoot me now moment!

we don't need neuroscience to feel happy, just as neuroscience doesn't need a self to account for happiness. and until your version of materialism humanizes itself a bit more, it's going to be deemed irrelevant by thoughtful and considering human beings everywhere.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You don't find the reality of consciousness sufficiently human for you? You think a fantasy is better? This is what you're actually saying?

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

Even plenty of those who absolutely profess materialism and refute the HP totally still won't travel in Parfit's "teletransporter" (thought experiment). They talk the talk but can't walk the walk. This is because what materialism says about the self is for most people about 180 deg away from what they intuitively believe.

That's me. They told me I had to go in the teletransporter, but I said no, no, no.

Though if teletransporters had existed when I was born, I probably wouldn't think twice.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well then you are in for some fun! Ideomotor movement is unconscious movement of your body. Dowsing and Ouija boards are attributed to the ideomotor effect.

Yep.

So here is somewhat of a philosophy experiment you can do at home. You can construct a simple little pendulum and use it to communicate with your unconscious mind through the ideomotor effect. It's really very simple. People have been doing it for thousands of years. It's usually called divination.

Yeah; problem is, it doesn't really work even as far as that. Divination of course doesn't work at all, but it doesn't really even give you a useful channel to your unconscious.

 

[WWHP]

Then you can appreciate this point. The notion of feelings belonging to someone is being constructed entirely by ancilliary processing in the brain. It is not present in a priori sensory awareness.

Nick

not the point in contention. the point in contention is that an experience is happening and the experience is a real experience, regardless of the claims of nueroscientists telling anyone there really isnt a self in the brain. I do contest that we 'think' we have pain. That's not the full story - we 'feel' we have pain.

 

[WWHP]

...increasing in number annually as more and more research concludes that there is no magical pixie dust in the brain and consciousness is actually entirely explainable as a physical brain function.

okay, please no condescension, yes? You are sort of reverting into Pixy mesa. Your not even addressing the point I am making - your simply continuing with the party line. Who is arguing for Pixy dust?

You're saying that you can't discuss internal brain dynamics, neural activity, this kind of thing? You don't find it relevant?

NO! that's never been what I am saying. I am saying that the way you are framing it is simply incomplete. Your trying to force all of philosophy into the realm of science and it's you who is producing contradictions. It means to me that you really don't understand what it is your saying, your just reinforcing what you are believing.

oh god, another shoot me now moment!

well I said our conversation was over, yet you wanted to keep on coming. You're here because you want to be here. You WANT to discuss these things with me. You LOVE IT. So once again, your producing contradictions. Your words, behaviors are not consistent.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You don't find the reality of consciousness sufficiently human for you? You think a fantasy is better? This is what you're actually saying?

I'm saying your trying to remove the human element and making a human mistake in the process. Your trying to argue with a creationist at a discussion with a scientific humanist and futurist. I'm saying what schrodinger said - you are removing the mind from your model, and thus you cannot expect to find it there. I'm saying your producing contradictions and your model is irrational. I'm saying that you really don't make much sense, your just repeating what other philosophers are saying and are unable to ask the deeper questions or frame it into something meaningful for anyone but yourself and a handful of proponents of a soft version of materialism that ironically concludes what Buddhism concludes.

I'm saying our discussion is over

 

[Nick227]

not the point in contention. the point in contention is that an experience is happening and the experience is a real experience, regardless of the claims of nueroscientists telling anyone there really isnt a self in the brain. I do contest that we 'think' we have pain. That's not the full story - we 'feel' we have pain.

Bubblefish - no one is disputing that the pain is there. It hurts. It's clear. But it is not happening to anyone, until mental selfhood is constructed by thinking. You are constantly putting the cart before the horse. You are doing exactly what Descartes, and numerous spiritual types, have done over and over again - you assume mental selfhood to be a priori.

In our everyday life this distinction does not matter. But as soon as you want to understand something like consciousness it becomes of primary significance. If you believe mental selfhood to be a priori, then the model of "how consciousness is" that you construct will inevitably be deeply suspect.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Bubblefish - no one is disputing that the pain is there. It hurts. It's clear. But it is not happening to anyone, until mental selfhood is constructed by thinking. You are constantly putting the cart before the horse. You are doing exactly what Descartes, and numerous spiritual types, have done over and over again - you assume mental selfhood to be a priori.

In our everyday life this distinction does not matter. But as soon as you want to understand something like consciousness it becomes of primary significance. If you believe mental selfhood to be a priori, then the model of "how consciousness is" that you construct will inevitably be deeply suspect.

Nick

Your having an argument with the Bubblefish in your mind and your only picking apart his arguments. You don't need me for that. Take care Nick.

 

[Limbo]

Bubblefish - no one is disputing that the pain is there. It hurts. It's clear. But it is not happening to anyone, until mental selfhood is constructed by thinking. You are constantly putting the cart before the horse. You are doing exactly what Descartes, and numerous spiritual types, have done over and over again - you assume mental selfhood to be a priori.

Another way to say that would be to say that it's not happening in space-time, until space-time is constructed by thinking.

Nick are you assuming space-time to be a priori?

 

[Nick227]

okay, please no condescension, yes?

Well, I think I've tried most polite options. There's no way through. I suppose I could rap on the side of your head and shout "There's no one in there! Really!"

Do you think that would work?

NO! that's never been what I am saying. I am saying that the way you are framing it is simply incomplete. Your trying to force all of philosophy into the realm of science and it's you who is producing contradictions. It means to me that you really don't understand what it is your saying, your just reinforcing what you are believing.

It doesn't make sense to you, BF, because you are assuming mental selfhood to exist before processing. But there's no one in there!

well I said our conversation was over,

You sound like the CEO of some collapsing multi-national trying to hold off questions from the regulators.

yet you wanted to keep on coming. You're here because you want to be here. You WANT to discuss these things with me. You LOVE IT. So once again, your producing contradictions. Your words, behaviors are not consistent.

I like a bit of debating, for sure. Wouldn't be here otherwise. I imagine you do too, except of course when it's not going your way.

I'm saying your trying to remove the human element and making a human mistake in the process.

I'm not trying to remove the human element. I'm looking for honesty and truth. And if it looks a bit odd, or worse, then that's how it is. I'm not going to dress it up for you.

Just because I recognise that this body is purely a bio-mechanical machine doesn't mean that I have to act like Robbie the Robot.

Just because I believe in determinism doesn't mean I don't have to spend my whole day choosing stuff.

If it scares you to believe you are a machine then why not just say so instead of coming out with these convoluted half-rants?

I'm saying our discussion is over

You don't need to say it. You just need to stop replying, put a cushion over your head, and hope that nasty idea you just had that your pet theory is wrong goes away! Good luck!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Another way to say that would be to say that it's not happening in space-time, until space-time is constructed by thinking.

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

Mental selfhood does not exist prior to it emerging from thinking.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

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

Nick

Er, so then you are taking space-time as a priori?

 

[Limbo]

Hey Nick, if I made a thread in the religion section about this vid, would you be willing to watch it and discuss it?

Our Eternal Selves

 

[Nick227]

Er, so then you are taking space-time as a priori?

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

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Hey Nick, if I made a thread in the religion section about this vid, would you be willing to watch it and discuss it?

Our Eternal Selves

It's a bit long. Nick

eta: as a rule of thumb, if the theory has an internal observer, soul or in the body, then it's in trouble. these days we know that the body creates its own sense of self and this is just an ongoing process, not a tangible thing. Thus, if reincarnation should exist, which i personally don't believe, then it will not be the same you that reincarnates. The reincarnated body would simply create its own sense of self.

Theories which imply that there is an actual observer are dead in the water these days.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

How am I doing that?

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

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

 

[WWHP]

Well, I think I've tried most polite options. There's no way through. I suppose I could rap on the side of your head and shout "There's no one in there! Really!"

Do you think that would work?

It doesn't make sense to you, BF, because you are assuming mental selfhood to exist before processing. But there's no one in there!
You sound like the CEO of some collapsing multi-national trying to hold off questions from the regulators.

it's pointless arguing with someone who agrees with you on the point your banging on about.

I like a bit of debating, for sure. Wouldn't be here otherwise. I imagine you do too, except of course when it's not going your way.

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

I'm not trying to remove the human element. I'm looking for honesty and truth. And if it looks a bit odd, or worse, then that's how it is. I'm not going to dress it up for you.

Just because I recognise that this body is purely a bio-mechanical machine doesn't mean that I have to act like Robbie the Robot.

Just because I believe in determinism doesn't mean I don't have to spend my whole day choosing stuff.

If it scares you to believe you are a machine then why not just say so instead of coming out with these convoluted half-rants?

I love being a bio tech. Your not paying attention. Your still arguing with the BF in your head.

You don't need to say it. You just need to stop replying, put a cushion over your head, and hope that nasty idea you just had that your pet theory is wrong goes away! Good luck!

Nick

Your not considering my pet theory and my pet theory has never been apart of your argument. So your just wasting our time together. But in my infinite compassion, I still take time with you anyway.