What I meant is that the discussion here may help some of us better understand what is thinking. There is NO intention to change the topic to "What is understanding?"FreeChile said:
This thread has 60 replies as of now. While I understand it might tough to read through all post, reading through them allow you to follow those who has been following it from the start.
Nevertheless...
Discussion about self-awareness in this thread, came about from the debate about whether animals and robot is capable of thinking. There was comment within this thread, about such argument as, "no self-awareness therefore cannot think".
OR "No soul therefore cannot think".
At some point within the thread, there are comment that a definition of "self-awareness" is needed in order to test "self-awareness".
Please read all the post if possible.
FreeChile said:
I would say a tool is just a tool. What the user do with the info "extracted" by the tool is up to the individual.
On the presumption that "no self-awareness therefore cannot think", I believe those who participated in discussion here do wish to have a "tool". A tool to detect or test for self-awareness. Perhaps For the sole purpose of inferring that a person/robot/animal can think.
Perhaps for JAK and others, who wishes to help develop a thinking robot/computer, this "tool" could be useful to test if they have succeeded.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally said by UG Krishnamurti and quoted by FreeChile
The one thing that helps us to become conscious of the non-existing body, for all practical purposes, is the knowledge that is given to us. Without that knowledge you have no way of creating your own body and experiencing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think clarification is needed on the meaning of "knowledge"
as mentioned by UG Krish.
new drkitten, I understand what you mean about the newborn. But newborn babies do have "knowledge". It has 9 months within the womb to gain "knowledge". But I have no problem for you to replace your reference to "newborn babies" to "embroyo" or anything smaller.
To me ...
The fact that it is a human embroyo, is a hardwired "knowledge".
The fact that it is a human DNA, is a hardwired "knowledge".
It is upon the foundation of a human DNA and embroyo that it further gain "knowledge".
New drkitten, if you happen to be a newborn kitten, the type of knowledge you would gain would be very bias towards the awareness and perspective of cats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally said by UG Krishnamurti and quoted by FreeChile
The one thing that helps us to become conscious of the non-existing body, for all practical purposes, is the knowledge that is given to us. Without that knowledge you have no way of creating your own body and experiencing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
new drkitten said:
I do think clarification is needed on the meaning of "knowledge"
as mentioned by UG Krish.
new drkitten, I understand what you mean about the newborn. But newborn babies do have "knowledge". It has 9 months within the womb to gain "knowledge". But I have no problem for you to replace your reference to "newborn babies" to "embroyo" or anything smaller.
To me ...
The fact that it is a human embroyo, is a hardwired "knowledge".
The fact that it is a human DNA, is a hardwired "knowledge".
It is upon the foundation of a human DNA and embroyo that it further gain "knowledge".
New drkitten, if you happen to be a newborn kitten, the type of knowledge you would gain would be very bias towards the awareness and perspective of cats.
Are the following questions relevant to these discussions?
1. Do any non-humans knowingly end their own lives? Please note that this question is non-sensical because we cannot be inside an animal or something else to know why the entity decides to end its own life, if it does. For example, a domesticated dog may die in the process of saving a victim. Yet, we cannot know the reason why the dog acted this way or if the dog knew it could die. But under normal cirscumstances, a dog would avoid a dangerous situation, if possible.
Intuitively, most of us believe that animals and machines cannot terminate nor risk their own lives knowingly.
2. Would knowingly taking your own life result from thinking?
3. When a human sacrifices its own life, we say that the person is acting selflessly. Is this true? Or is the person acting primarily based on a selfish belief really because it makes the person feel good?
4. Why do these questions cause distress?
1. Do any non-humans knowingly end their own lives? Please note that this question is non-sensical because we cannot be inside an animal or something else to know why the entity decides to end its own life, if it does. For example, a domesticated dog may die in the process of saving a victim. Yet, we cannot know the reason why the dog acted this way or if the dog knew it could die. But under normal cirscumstances, a dog would avoid a dangerous situation, if possible.
Intuitively, most of us believe that animals and machines cannot terminate nor risk their own lives knowingly.
2. Would knowingly taking your own life result from thinking?
3. When a human sacrifices its own life, we say that the person is acting selflessly. Is this true? Or is the person acting primarily based on a selfish belief really because it makes the person feel good?
4. Why do these questions cause distress?
Consider a computer. Like humans, a computer can remember. The memory there is not always in use. It is used only when the system or program needs it to perform some function. Humans may be operating similarly. However, because we cannot see how we remember as transparently, we feel it is somehow special.
If thinking and remembering were the same thing, then we have to say that a computer also thinks.
But computers can’t remember unless instructed to do so. Do humans also remember by instruction? Humans don’t remember unless there is a need or demand to do so.
Computers have proven that it is possible to remember without thinking.
Remembering does not imply that there is memory. Can something be remembered without memory? It depends on what we mean by memory. For example, I rarely forget people's birthdays because I record them in my electronic organizer. However, from their point of view when I call them to wish them a happy birthday, I remembered. Unless I tell them what I do, of course; in which case they would say I cheated.
There is a similar case with the computer. When using a computer application, you don't really know where the information is coming from and you have to be more specific. Is it coming from random access memory, or from the hard disk, or from the Internet, etc?
The scenario above is just to show the categorical issues in our language. We say there is memory when in fact all we know is that we remember. Likewise, we say that there is awareness, self-consciousness, thought, etc. In some cases, we see this categorical problem quite easily. For example, we would be fools to say that there is something we call 'imagination' or 'creativity' which resides inside a part of our body (let's say the brain or some other part).
Assuming there is such a thing called memory, it does not imply that it operates the same way in everything. We have computer memory, cellular memory, social memory, personal memory, shared memory, etc.
It also does not imply that the memory should be situated in a single place. Perhaps every cell in our body has our memories. After all we are finding that there is more capacity for memory and computation in the small than we think--I am talking about quantum computation and memory, of course.
If thinking and remembering were the same thing, then we have to say that a computer also thinks.
But computers can’t remember unless instructed to do so. Do humans also remember by instruction? Humans don’t remember unless there is a need or demand to do so.
Computers have proven that it is possible to remember without thinking.
Remembering does not imply that there is memory. Can something be remembered without memory? It depends on what we mean by memory. For example, I rarely forget people's birthdays because I record them in my electronic organizer. However, from their point of view when I call them to wish them a happy birthday, I remembered. Unless I tell them what I do, of course; in which case they would say I cheated.
There is a similar case with the computer. When using a computer application, you don't really know where the information is coming from and you have to be more specific. Is it coming from random access memory, or from the hard disk, or from the Internet, etc?
The scenario above is just to show the categorical issues in our language. We say there is memory when in fact all we know is that we remember. Likewise, we say that there is awareness, self-consciousness, thought, etc. In some cases, we see this categorical problem quite easily. For example, we would be fools to say that there is something we call 'imagination' or 'creativity' which resides inside a part of our body (let's say the brain or some other part).
Assuming there is such a thing called memory, it does not imply that it operates the same way in everything. We have computer memory, cellular memory, social memory, personal memory, shared memory, etc.
It also does not imply that the memory should be situated in a single place. Perhaps every cell in our body has our memories. After all we are finding that there is more capacity for memory and computation in the small than we think--I am talking about quantum computation and memory, of course.
As you said it, Q1 may have no answer.FreeChile said:
But I think the tricky word is "knowingly". Which implied awareness and thinking. So thinking about taking your own life results from thinking.
A mother may put herself at risk to protect a child.FreeChile said:
While the act is noble, there is no denying the possibility that it is inherently "programmed" in the genes to protect and proliferate her genes.
Could be true.FreeChile said:
Perhaps you may share why does it make you feel distressed.FreeChile said:
Well, I get the impression that people are unconfortable when confronted this way. I personally have no problem when people compare me to animals or talk about enderlying beliefs and assumptions.Jyera suggestederhaps you may share why does it make you feel distressed.
FreeChile said:
You have a duplicity of issues - self-sacrifice as in martyrdom and self-sacrifice as in suicide. You are also comparing humans and non-humans. As much as we may like dogs, they are a far cry from human capabilities. The level required to enable self-sacrifice may be too advanced for canines. Gorillas or chimps or dolphins may be a closer comparison. Even so, after the disappearance of beloved humans, dogs have been known to stop eating and drinking until death overtakes them. This is a form of self-sacrifice in lower animals.
Hurling oneself voluntarily from the Golden Gate bridge requires some thinking regarding which direction to jump, otherwise the "jumper" would land in oncoming traffic on the bridge or simply slightly bruised on the walkway. Just locating the bridge itself takes forethought.FreeChile said:
A clear argument can be made that all acts are selfish in nature. (Interestingly, that subject could create a lively separate thread.)FreeChile said:
They may distress others, but they do not distress me.FreeChile said:
You seem to have presented a variety of issues and ideas. It is difficult to continue without narrowing the subject. What aspect do you wish to explore? Self-sacrifice as martyrdom/heroism? Self-sacrifice as suicide? Self-sacrifice as a purely human characteristic (despite what we know of ants and bees)? Self-sacrifice as proof of UG's belief system? Self-sacrifice as proof of thinking (or non-thinking)? (Any issue related to thinking would be much more in harmony with the intent of this thread and its title.)
Again, what aspect do you wish to explore?
Martyrdom, self-sacrifice and suicide tend to collide depending on the context. They also carry certain connotations. So I kept it general by saying “knowingly end their own lives.â€
What do you mean by “This is a form of self-sacrifice in lower animals� Are you giving a different meaning to “self-sacrifice†than the meaning you would give to it for a human? Would you compare this to a grieving spouse or something else?
Yes. This actually hit me one time I was running (jogging). It impacted me so much that it made be stop. It was not about philosophy I had read or anything. In fact, I had not read too much philosophy when this happened. It does not necessarily mean that your selfishness helps or harms other lives, but simply that your actions are also intrinsically selfish.
What do you mean by “despite what we know of ants and bees� I’m curious. I am not asking because I want to attack your response to this but simply because if in fact what we know of dogs (as above) and of ants and bees is as significant as you imply, then it would negate my premise that the question “Do any non-humans knowingly end their own lives?†is non-sensical.
I don’t see the connection you are making here. I was not trying to make any connection between this post and the previous UG quotes I posted. I’m interested in knowing what connections you have made. I would not present anything I said here as proof of any belief systems.
I am not interested in exploring anything per se. I simply made the observation that knowingly taking ones own life is a significant human behavior. My intent is not to judge this behavior, but to perhaps note it in the context of this thread. If we could indeed create a computer that was self-conscious as has been discussed in this thread, then a very good test of this, along with the Turing test, is to see if this computer would take its own life or the lives of others, knowingly, like humans do—assuming the other necessary human self-conscious qualities are present, of course. I don’t mean this in a sarcastic way, yet (LOL). This kind of test is something we actually do in certain cases. For instance, in the military, we simulate the pressing of the button. This is a test of “knowingly taking life.†Some soldiers proceed with the simulation some don’t.
Now let me get sarcastic just for fun!
There are so many interesting tests we can perform on machines to see if they have emotions and feelings, for instance. We can perform lobotomies to see what happens to their sense of self once we discover it. Put electrodes on them and tinker with their different body parts, … But in some cases they may claim psychological damage and this may open a whole new field of law.
It is known that "army ants" will sacrifice themselves by forming a "living bridge" across streamlets so that the rest of the advancing hoard can walk safely across. Those forming the bridge will eventually fall and die when they weaken and lose their grips with each other. Similarly, honey bees die after stinging a foe. Many other animals also exhibit some form of self-sacrifice. Birds and monkeys call out to warn others when a predator appears. Yet, warning their group (flock, troop, etc.) also draws attention and, thus, endangers them individually more than the others. In other words, each one calling an alarm increases personal risk in order to serve the good of the whole.FreeChile said:
However, all of this leads to discussions of whether any of these acts were truly selfless or just instinctual (without forethought). In the end, only acts of self-sacrifice by "self-aware" creatures should be of consideration - humans, chimps, dolphins, and perhaps a few others. It is only a self-aware creature that could possibly choose death "knowingly."
I think your premise should be restated: “Do any non-humans which are self-aware knowingly end their own lives?â€
Again, "knowingly" is the key.FreeChile said:
If we pay income taxes knowing that they pay for weopons used to kill others in Iraq, we might as well be pulling the triggers ourselves.FreeChile said:
I suggest you rethink emotions and feelings as being purely mechanical.FreeChile said:
Bodily resources are finite at any moment in time. When faced with danger, a living creature must divert its resources to benefit survival. The better this is done, the more likely it will survive.
Blood is the primary form of resource distribution within the body. When danger is perceived, blood distribution within the body dramatically changes. The extremities become more engorged (arms, legs, feet and hands) while the torso is drained. This redistribution prepares the entire body to engage in "fight or flight" (a process explained by Walter Cannon in the 1920s). Meanwhile, since digestion is a slow and useless process for the immediacy at hand, rather than waste precious resources digesting, blood is diverted away from this activity or held in reserve. (Immune functioning appears similarly shutdown. Who cares if you catch cold running from a lion? We'll deal with that AFTER the escape!)
The net result of this redistribution is a "sinking" or "sick" feeling in the gut and nervous tension (fidgeting) in the limbs when danger is imminent. During depression, some form of hopelessness is perceived, and blood is drained from the limbs to conserve even more resources (see Gregg Henriques' "Behavioral Shutdown Model"). The result is outward lethargy. Upon release from stress, blood is rediverted into the torso (a "warmth in the heart," an "inner glow," etc.). It may also be drained from the limbs ("I melt in your arms").
If blood is diverted, being self-aware should entail sensing this redistribution. Though we mask this mechanical process with subjective and obtuse words such as "feelings" and "emotions," the net effects do have survival benefits and being aware of these redistributions should be naturally selected. Again, feelings and emotions may be just as mechanistic as the boolean algebra performed in a processor "ANDing" and "ORing" circuits.
Re: Re: Re: What is thinking?
To give this a reasonably understandable look, I am enhancing the sentance & adjusting it in your previous post;(don't mind, bold one yours, italic mine)
1. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes and a picture of a house pop up in your brain. Did you think?
1a. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes, a picture of your/or some previously known house pop up in your brain.Is it thinking or recalling?
2. Is recalling something from memory considered thinking?
3. Is imagining up a picture of a ficticious house thinking?
4. Recalling and Imagining a house,
which is a more TRUE form of thinking?
Btw, HOW thinking, imaginations, illusions, dreams, thoughts recognizing, understanding, memory---means other than, so said as recalling, can be possible without "recalling"? How our adaptions, inherited & aquired informations are related & relavent to all these?
Jyera said:
To give this a reasonably understandable look, I am enhancing the sentance & adjusting it in your previous post;(don't mind, bold one yours, italic mine)
1. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes and a picture of a house pop up in your brain. Did you think?
1a. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes, a picture of your/or some previously known house pop up in your brain.Is it thinking or recalling?
2. Is recalling something from memory considered thinking?
3. Is imagining up a picture of a ficticious house thinking?
4. Recalling and Imagining a house,
which is a more TRUE form of thinking?
Btw, HOW thinking, imaginations, illusions, dreams, thoughts recognizing, understanding, memory---means other than, so said as recalling, can be possible without "recalling"? How our adaptions, inherited & aquired informations are related & relavent to all these?
Jyera said:
Let's start with the meaning of "sense". The distinction between sense and reference was proposed by Gottlob Frege. Here's a link to a Wikipedia description.
Sense and Reference
Here's an example taken from that link:
"The distinction can be illustrated with an example from Frege. Take the two expressions "the Morning Star" and "the Evening Star". It looks like these expressions have quite different meanings: "the Morning Star" means the bright object in the eastern sky at sunrise and "the Evening Star" means the bright object in the western sky at sunset. But, as it turns out, both expressions refer to the same object—the planet Venus. That is, the Morning Star is exactly the same thing as the Evening Star. This interesting fact was discovered by an ancient astronomer (perhaps Pythagoras); before that, people thought they were observing two different celestial bodies.
Now we can apply the sense-reference distinction. Both expressions have the same reference—that is, "the Morning Star" and "the Evening Star" refer to the same object. But they have different senses—after all, "the Morning Star" means something quite different from "the Evening Star". The two aspects of meaning should now be clear. On the one hand, there is the object referred to (reference). On the other hand, there is a more cognitive aspect of meaning (sense). And, as the case of Venus shows, sometimes we cognize a single object in several ways—with different senses corresponding to the same reference."
Jyera said:
Here's what Wittgenstein explains a sense to be.
2.11 A picture presents a situation in logical space, the existence and non-existence of states of affairs.
2.1 We picture facts to ourselves.
2.221 What a picture represents is its sense.