The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Wendy on August 24, 2009, 02:44:11 PM
-
Does anyone believe in souls? What is a soul, really? What decides whether you have one or not? How is it connected to your faith?
I ran across a video on youtube on the subject.
-
Well, I don't believe in the soul. Maybe a consciousness, but not a soul.
-
This just makes me miss Erasmus. His thread about qualia (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=5857.0) was awesome and very relevant to this thread, and it died too quickly.
I do not believe in the supernatural entity known as the "soul." However I do think that what we attribute to being our soul is the sum of our qualia. The culmination of all our memories and experiences that make us who we are. But really, if you want to call that a soul, that's fine with me.
-
I don't believe in anything in which there is no supporting evidence; something that has yet to be defined cannot be supported.
-
The idea that the human consciousness survives the decaying process of the brain after death is extremely unlikely.
-
The soul is a useful metaphor for describing our sense of identity.
-
The soul is a useful metaphor for describing our sense of identity.
Or vice versa...
-
This just makes me miss Erasmus. His thread about qualia (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=5857.0) was awesome and very relevant to this thread, and it died too quickly.
I do not believe in the supernatural entity known as the "soul." However I do think that what we attribute to being our soul is the sum of our qualia. The culmination of all our memories and experiences that make us who we are. But really, if you want to call that a soul, that's fine with me.
I'll go with that.
-
The idea that the human consciousness survives the decaying process of the brain after death is extremely unlikely.
I would go more with the Buddhist idea of a soul.
-
Much like supernatural being debate, need a consensus definition before anything can be established.
-
i'd like to believe in souls, but i'm not sure. i guess i'll find out when i die.
-
i'd like to believe in souls, but i'm not sure. i guess i'll find out when i die.
Nobody can be sure, yet people do believe in souls just because they'd like to.
-
i'd like to believe in souls, but i'm not sure. i guess i'll find out when i die.
That's how religion should work but those mean bastards keep telling me that I'm going to hell.
-
i'd like to believe in souls, but i'm not sure. i guess i'll find out when i die.
That's how religion should work but those mean bastards keep telling me that I'm going to hell.
Humans can't and don't know anything about the supernatural, and that includes clergymen. The only difference is that they are absolutely convinced of their baseless beliefs and they can get people to believe they are authorities.
-
What is the mind? I doubt this will ever be answered in my lifetime and we have a fairly good understanding of how the brain works as a whole already. We don't even have a clear definition of a soul so how can we debate what it is?
For me, my soul is a tiny little thing deep in the back of my mind which is me
-
For me, my soul is a tiny little thing deep in the back of my mind which is me
lol, wut?
-
For me, my soul is a tiny little thing deep in the back of my mind which is me
I, too, have a miniature version of myself lodged in my brain.
-
For me, my soul is a tiny little thing deep in the back of my mind which is me
I, too, have a miniature version of myself lodged in my brain.
They can give you drugs for that.
But staying on topic: I believe the idea of a soul just came from humans evolveing and finding the need to identify themselves once becomeing self-aware.
-
this argument seemed to fit more in this area.
I see no reason why I shouldn't think that software in hardware that knows the truth that it is software in hardware, wouldn't be self aware. What more to self awareness is there then knowing about one's own physical existence?
That's the very question I am saying we cannot answer. I see no reason why consciousness should follow directly from processing information about oneself.
Why would either freewill or self awareness require the other?
I didn't say they would, all I said was that once we find an explanation for self-awareness, there's a chance it may also allow for free will, which is why I don't rule it out entirely even though I consider it unlikely.
When I say aware of things, I'm talking about what input it is built to be sensitive to and act upon even if it doesn't have proper context.
Well, I suppose that is awareness, but it's not the sort of awareness I am expressing bewilderment towards. When I say that something is aware, in the context of this discussion, I mean that it is actually conscious of what it is doing, as opposed to the stimuli simply triggering responses.
I consider awareness to be a continuum, and only being aware of electrical signals is very limited consciousness. If it understood what they were, what they meant, etc. it would be more conscious because it can give it context. We humans just have more information about what input we take in and that our minds are processing the data. We the software, know about the existence and basic processes of the software. A calculator doesn't have any context to its input. Similarly, it doesn't have any knowledge of itself, and doesn't have any sensory devices or neural pathways to become aware of itself.
I think we are talking about different things. I don't see how consciousness (which is the sense in which I am speaking of "awareness") can be a continuum; either we are conscious of our surroundings, or we are not. Of course, there are certain states - such as sleep - in which we are aware of less than at other times, but we are still sentient beings all the while. As far as I'm concerned, the amount of sensory input processed and the phenomenon of sentience need not correlate. You could, at least in theory, have an isolated system which is sentient - conversely, you could have a machine hooked up to every kind of input device imaginable that does nothing but relay the data to where it needs to go.
Does a robot not have the sensation of awareness?
We have no way of knowing.
I'd say that being consciousness of information is having a better understanding of the information and its context.
Subconscious processing is just lower levels of processing that the mind software found in the processes isn't built to interpret or explore itself. Same way a calculator can process data without having or needing knowledge that it is processing. If it could see its own background processes, it would be much more self aware.
Our brains can only handle self thought so much considering the limits of efficiency on the brain. If every neuron on its own was able to think about a single neuron, then no processes of the brain would ever be hidden.
Also, by dedicating processes of the brain that are built specifically for other functions by not thinking about those things in the here and now, we should be able to reach into our subconscious thoughts. Hypnotism does just that.
Yes, but the point is that we are not necessarily aware of every piece of information we process, and therefore sentience is not a direct consequence of information processing. However, I do find the part of your post that I bolded very interesting, and will give that matter some thought.
@ soze. how much different reactions does there have to be for there to be an awareness. if there is a scientific reason there should be a number. do you need a system to have 1000 parts then bam it has a awareness. also a new property shouldn't just pop out when you add more of the same together. that would be like if I double the amount of steel I have it all of the sudden now is yellow. although this argument does not prove free will it does imply that there is more then just action reaction in the brain.
I know this might not be that understandable but it is the clearest I can be.
-
I think we are talking about different things. I don't see how consciousness (which is the sense in which I am speaking of "awareness") can be a continuum; either we are conscious of our surroundings, or we are not. Of course, there are certain states - such as sleep - in which we are aware of less than at other times, but we are still sentient beings all the while.
How could you think that conciousness isn't variable? Let's stick with your definition of it being awareness of your surroundings. If we're always fully aware of our surroundings then why do we trip, slip, forget car keys, put our shirts on inside-out, leave buildings with the wrong coat or do all the other stupid things which annoy us daily? Why are we more likely to do these things in the mornings or when we're tired? Why do subliminal messages rarely get detected by us but at the same time effect our shopping habits? Are you never tricked by optical illusions?
-
I think we are talking about different things. I don't see how consciousness (which is the sense in which I am speaking of "awareness") can be a continuum; either we are conscious of our surroundings, or we are not. Of course, there are certain states - such as sleep - in which we are aware of less than at other times, but we are still sentient beings all the while.
How could you think that conciousness isn't variable? Let's stick with your definition of it being awareness of your surroundings. If we're always fully aware of our surroundings then why do we trip, slip, forget car keys, put our shirts on inside-out, leave buildings with the wrong coat or do all the other stupid things which annoy us daily? Why are we more likely to do these things in the mornings or when we're tired? Why do subliminal messages rarely get detected by us but at the same time effect our shopping habits? Are you never tricked by optical illusions?
I think you miss understand what robosteves argument. he is thinking of awareness different then you are. I will try to do this argument but will use slightly different terms. A computer can react to sight through use of a camera. but can it actually have the sensation of sight. now you may say that you need to have sensation in order to react but that doesn't really hold true. a domino doesn't need to feel someone push it to fall. now with a computer it is a lot more complicated but that doesn't mean that we should assume it is any more then action reaction. there is no reason for there to be sensation of these actions. yet we have them. you may say that is because we are more complicated but why would adding more parts to a system suddenly cause sensation. hmm there are 1024214 parts to this system, oh that is one less then is needed for sensation. there should be a point were sensation suddenly forms and there should be a reason.
-
I think you miss understand what robosteves argument. he is thinking of awareness different then you are. I will try to do this argument but will use slightly different terms. A computer can react to sight through use of a camera. but can it actually have the sensation of sight.
A computer has to interpret the data from the camera/sensor, and that interpretation of sense stimulation would presumably be the sensation.
-
A computer has to interpret the data from the camera/sensor, and that interpretation of sense stimulation would presumably be the sensation.
What about that interpretation causes the sensation?
-
A computer has to interpret the data from the camera/sensor, and that interpretation of sense stimulation would presumably be the sensation.
What about that interpretation causes the sensation?
Sensation is the processing of the senses.
-
Sensation is the processing of the senses.
That seems to be Soze's viewpoint, too. I don't see why the two are necessarily related, let alone synonymous.
-
Sensation is the processing of the senses.
That seems to be Soze's viewpoint, too. I don't see why the two are necessarily related, let alone synonymous.
Yeah, I'm surprised she left. This stuff is juicy.
If you weren't processing senses, could you have sensation? I only think of them so connected because I haven't seen a reason to divide them. Sensing pain is a sensation in my book.
-
Yeah, I'm surprised she left. This stuff is juicy.
Did she leave, or is she just on one of her unexplained extended vacations from FES?
If you weren't processing senses, could you have sensation?
Yes.
-
Did she leave, or is she just on one of her unexplained extended vacations from FES?
No clue.
If you weren't processing senses, could you have sensation?
Yes.
Can you elaborate on why or how?
-
Can you elaborate on why or how?
How would the brain distinguish between neural signals from sensory input and subconsciously self-generated signals?
-
I think we are talking about different things. I don't see how consciousness (which is the sense in which I am speaking of "awareness") can be a continuum; either we are conscious of our surroundings, or we are not. Of course, there are certain states - such as sleep - in which we are aware of less than at other times, but we are still sentient beings all the while.
How could you think that conciousness isn't variable? Let's stick with your definition of it being awareness of your surroundings. If we're always fully aware of our surroundings then why do we trip, slip, forget car keys, put our shirts on inside-out, leave buildings with the wrong coat or do all the other stupid things which annoy us daily? Why are we more likely to do these things in the mornings or when we're tired? Why do subliminal messages rarely get detected by us but at the same time effect our shopping habits? Are you never tricked by optical illusions?
I think you miss understand what robosteves argument. he is thinking of awareness different then you are. I will try to do this argument but will use slightly different terms. A computer can react to sight through use of a camera. but can it actually have the sensation of sight. now you may say that you need to have sensation in order to react but that doesn't really hold true. a domino doesn't need to feel someone push it to fall. now with a computer it is a lot more complicated but that doesn't mean that we should assume it is any more then action reaction. there is no reason for there to be sensation of these actions. yet we have them. you may say that is because we are more complicated but why would adding more parts to a system suddenly cause sensation. hmm there are 1024214 parts to this system, oh that is one less then is needed for sensation. there should be a point were sensation suddenly forms and there should be a reason.
That's because we're not drawing a line between instinctive behaviour and intelligent behaviour. When I'm looking at any system which produces intelligent-like behaviour I categorise the system into those two groups. Instinctive behaviour is automatic hard wiring which you may instantly attribute to the way computers conventionally work but this also applies to all animals. Insects are pretty much fully instinctive, this means when an ant picks up a leaf and walks towards its nest it doesn't stop to think about why, the insect may not be completely unaware of its actions but we can be certain that it's not necessary for the insect to be aware at all of what it's doing in order for it to do it. All animals can be found to display instinctive behaviour under certain circumstances, a quick demonstration of this can be found by poking your own eye. Even if you manage to poke your eye without flinching or blinking you'll soon be gifted an uncontrollable delivery of tears in order to clean the eye.
The point about instinct is it can portray intelligent behaviour such as squirrels burying their acorns for the winter but in reality the squirrel doesn't plan ahead and decide to save its food for later just like we don't plan our heart rates. Instinctive behaviour has nothing to do with consciousness and no computer or robot to this day (as far as I'm aware) can produce any behaviour that isn't instinctive.
However, instinctive behaviour isn't enough to produce the sophisticated behaviour that humans and a good proportion of other animals display regularly. We know that we aren't fully instinctive beings because we work from a simulated environment which grants us a form of what we call consciousness. What I mean by that is what we see isn't necessarily reality, it's actually a simulated environment which is built by our brains using the information from our eyes and other sensors so that we can make decisions by interacting with this simulation. The origin of this part of our brains (the simulator and the simulated, if you will) obviously isn't fully understood but there's no reason to believe that it cannot eventually be explained by neural scientists.
So this simulator and simulated relationship is what I categorise as actual intelligent behaviour and indeed I may have been unfair to pick out points from robosteve as it seems their discussion was more to the topic of splitting the two categories apart. Having said that though I stick to the point I made and I'd like to repeat what I was trying to say which is actual intelligent behaviour is variable and the awareness that comes from it as a result is variable.
-
I can make a computer program that makes the computer say "stop it you are hurting me" every time I press the t key. does this give us reason to believe that the t key hurts the computer. not really. lets go with pain. the reason for this is unlike sight there is an obvious differce with reacting to it versus feeling it. although we can't test for it we understand the difference. now you might say that my idea is to simple that it needs to be a more complicated for there to be feeling. well how much more complicated. when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain. how many steps. also why does it change?I need to go to work I will post more latter.
-
Can you elaborate on why or how?
How would the brain distinguish between neural signals from sensory input and subconsciously self-generated signals?
Does it make that distinction? My actual consciousness is rather unaware of my actual subconscious.
And can a lack of sensation not also be sensed?
when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain.
Pain is a part of the action reaction process. It never stops being a part of it.
The difference is that a computer programmed with the specific responses like "if button pressed, then display text file". A brain fitted with perception of good and bad sensation can respond to infinite number of scenarios without an infinite number of logical statements regarding action. It's precise categorical reaction by making every scenario a form of motivation even if its new or different.
If something inflicts pain, avoid it. "Something" is a wide meaning term instead of a specific term like "button A". With general terms, many general rules may overlap and depedning on how strong some variables are, rules will supersede other rules. That is what I consider to be a choice.
-
If we make a simulated human from synthetic material, that we can be certain thinks, feels and has simular morals as your average human (there are plenty of variables i know, just humor me here), and for all purposes and intent is an exact replica of a human, would it have a soul?
-
when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain.
Pain is a part of the action reaction process. It never stops being a part of it.
The difference is that a computer programmed with the specific responses like "if button pressed, then display text file". A brain fitted with perception of good and bad sensation can respond to infinite number of scenarios without an infinite number of logical statements regarding action. It's precise categorical reaction by making every scenario a form of motivation even if its new or different.
If something inflicts pain, avoid it. "Something" is a wide meaning term instead of a specific term like "button A". With general terms, many general rules may overlap and depedning on how strong some variables are, rules will supersede other rules. That is what I consider to be a choice.
but then when would it become pain. if I had a robot that avoided light would the light be causing it pain? how many different parts does it need to have for it to become pain. pain, feeling is different then a simple action reaction. a domino can't feel it has been pushed, why does a system that is complex enough all of the sudden gain a new property. keep in mind something doesn't need to feel to react in a complex form. when is it complex enough that I can say bam it is feeling pain not just reacting. or oh it only has a process involving 2423542 connections that is one less then is needed to be a feeling.
-
when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain.
Pain is a part of the action reaction process. It never stops being a part of it.
The difference is that a computer programmed with the specific responses like "if button pressed, then display text file". A brain fitted with perception of good and bad sensation can respond to infinite number of scenarios without an infinite number of logical statements regarding action. It's precise categorical reaction by making every scenario a form of motivation even if its new or different.
If something inflicts pain, avoid it. "Something" is a wide meaning term instead of a specific term like "button A". With general terms, many general rules may overlap and depedning on how strong some variables are, rules will supersede other rules. That is what I consider to be a choice.
but then when would it become pain. if I had a robot that avoided light would the light be causing it pain? how many different parts does it need to have for it to become pain. pain, feeling is different then a simple action reaction.
Why?
a domino can't feel it has been pushed, why does a system that is complex enough all of the sudden gain a new property. keep in mind something doesn't need to feel to react in a complex form.
Are you asking when is a system or computer designed to interpret senses?
And yes actually feeling is required. Without feeling, seeing, or hearing things cannot react. Senses are the stimuli and input.
when is it complex enough that I can say bam it is feeling pain not just reacting. or oh it only has a process involving 2423542 connections that is one less then is needed to be a feeling.
It's not a function of complexity but of design. If it can detect signals from senses and can interpret them under certain categorical stimuli, it has sensation in its own robot way. Number of circuits doesn't imply anything about design. Design can just imply a certain level of complexity.
-
when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain.
Pain is a part of the action reaction process. It never stops being a part of it.
The difference is that a computer programmed with the specific responses like "if button pressed, then display text file". A brain fitted with perception of good and bad sensation can respond to infinite number of scenarios without an infinite number of logical statements regarding action. It's precise categorical reaction by making every scenario a form of motivation even if its new or different.
If something inflicts pain, avoid it. "Something" is a wide meaning term instead of a specific term like "button A". With general terms, many general rules may overlap and depedning on how strong some variables are, rules will supersede other rules. That is what I consider to be a choice.
but then when would it become pain. if I had a robot that avoided light would the light be causing it pain? how many different parts does it need to have for it to become pain. pain, feeling is different then a simple action reaction.
Why?
a domino can't feel it has been pushed, why does a system that is complex enough all of the sudden gain a new property. keep in mind something doesn't need to feel to react in a complex form.
Are you asking when is a system or computer designed to interpret senses?
And yes actually feeling is required. Without feeling, seeing, or hearing things cannot react. Senses are the stimuli and input.
when is it complex enough that I can say bam it is feeling pain not just reacting. or oh it only has a process involving 2423542 connections that is one less then is needed to be a feeling.
It's not a function of complexity but of design. If it can detect signals from senses and can interpret them under certain categorical stimuli, it has sensation in its own robot way. Number of circuits doesn't imply anything about design. Design can just imply a certain level of complexity.
You are acting as though interpretation of data somehow is special form any other action reaction. interpreting the data is just a complex action reaction. this happens because this happens. what makes something special because it has for lack of a better term organization to its circuit elements. what makes one of those thought and another one that lacks feelings.
-
You are acting as though interpretation of data somehow is special form any other action reaction. interpreting the data is just a complex action reaction. this happens because this happens.
Bingo, it is just action reaction. I'm not saying processing sensory data is special enough to create sensation, but that sensation is nothing special beyond interpretation of that data.
what makes something special because it has for lack of a better term organization to its circuit elements. what makes one of those thought and another one that lacks feelings.
If something can process a sense of something, it has sensation.
-
You are acting as though interpretation of data somehow is special form any other action reaction. interpreting the data is just a complex action reaction. this happens because this happens.
Bingo, it is just action reaction. I'm not saying processing sensory data is special enough to create sensation, but that sensation is nothing special beyond interpretation of that data.
what makes something special because it has for lack of a better term organization to its circuit elements. what makes one of those thought and another one that lacks feelings.
If something can process a sense of something, it has sensation.
So you're saying a thermistor feels warm and cold?
-
and what is process data mean? what is data?
You are acting as though interpretation of data somehow is special form any other action reaction. interpreting the data is just a complex action reaction. this happens because this happens.
Bingo, it is just action reaction. I'm not saying processing sensory data is special enough to create sensation, but that sensation is nothing special beyond interpretation of that data.
what makes something special because it has for lack of a better term organization to its circuit elements. what makes one of those thought and another one that lacks feelings.
If something can process a sense of something, it has sensation.
So you're saying a thermistor feels warm and cold?
only if it is hooked up to a computer.
you know for some reason although we are both using logic to discuss something that is a truth of the universe (which ever way it really is) I really don't think we are going to come to an answer that satisfies both of us.
-
Does it make that distinction? My actual consciousness is rather unaware of my actual subconscious.
And can a lack of sensation not also be sensed?
The initial question was:
If you weren't processing senses, could you have sensation?
The inability to distinguish between real and fabricated senses is my reasoning for answering "yes" to this question.
-
So you're saying a thermistor feels warm and cold?
Can it process information from senses? No, because it is not designed with sensory features or a computational system to interpret what it would sense.
and what is process data mean? what is data?
'Processing' data mean that the data is used as input for thought.
'Data' being nerve signals or information from sensory organs/devices. (Electrical impulses carry sight data through the optic nerve).
If you weren't processing senses, could you have sensation?
The inability to distinguish between real and fabricated senses is my reasoning for answering "yes" to this question.
What fabricated sense? If pain is a variable, I would count zero pain as a sensation of a lack of pain.
-
What fabricated sense? If pain is a variable, I would count zero pain as a sensation of a lack of pain.
I use the word "fabricated" to mean neural signals generated by the subconscious, as opposed to those from real sensory input.
-
and what is process data mean? what is data?
'Processing' data mean that the data is used as input for thought.
'Data' being nerve signals or information from sensory organs/devices. (Electrical impulses carry sight data through the optic nerve).
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ok lets say you have something connected to a photo cell. now it sends signals based on the weather. power is a 1, no power is a zero. now lets say you take this signal and plug it into a random bit of transistor and shit. lets say the transistors and shit are hooked up too a monitor. lets say the monitor display a poem. is the random signals data? would they be data if it was not hooked up to it. or is it our minds that gives it meaning. is it us that decideds if it is data or not?
-
I use the word "fabricated" to mean neural signals generated by the subconscious, as opposed to those from real sensory input.
The subconscious is a system of processes just like the conscious, except that the conscious is also able to evaluate its components of its external awareness, while the subconscious is limited to only evaluating the external. I'd be inclined to say that the subconscious is much more like optimisticcynic's thought model for a human without <<<[bloody typo fixed] a ghost in the machine. As long as it isn't able to think about itself, consciousness remains limited.
If an artificial brain can sense things, and interpret those senses in categories (pain or relaxation) and magnitude, what more could it possibly need to have sensation?
I have nerves in my arm, and when I rub steel wool on it, it sends pain signals to my brain which then informs me that it hurts. That awareness of electrical signals is called pain.
-
Ok lets say you have something connected to a photo cell. now it sends signals based on the weather. power is a 1, no power is a zero. now lets say you take this signal and plug it into a random bit of transistor and shit. lets say the transistors and shit are hooked up too a monitor. lets say the monitor display a poem. is the random signals data? would they be data if it was not hooked up to it. or is it our minds that gives it meaning. is it us that decideds if it is data or not?
Okay lets see.
The photo cell is like a stimuli of sunlight (like pain in basic forms: on/off).
The transistors and shit would be interpreting the stimuli like a brain (complexity making it appear random).
The monitor is like a muscular system capable of acting based on the brain's output.
It sounds like the random signals are the output not the input to me. All the data I have been talking about was input. The photocell's binary variable would be data though.
-
Ok lets say you have something connected to a photo cell. now it sends signals based on the weather. power is a 1, no power is a zero. now lets say you take this signal and plug it into a random bit of transistor and shit. lets say the transistors and shit are hooked up too a monitor. lets say the monitor display a poem. is the random signals data? would they be data if it was not hooked up to it. or is it our minds that gives it meaning. is it us that decideds if it is data or not?
Okay lets see.
The photo cell is like a stimuli of sunlight (like pain in basic forms: on/off).
The transistors and shit would be interpreting the stimuli like a brain (complexity making it appear random).
The monitor is like a muscular system capable of acting based on the brain's output.
It sounds like the random signals are the output not the input to me. All the data I have been talking about was input. The photocell's binary variable would be data though.
but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?
-
but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?
It's data because it contains information representing the reality. For instance, the photocell transmits information of light exposure.
-
but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?
It's data because it contains information representing the reality. For instance, the photocell transmits information of light exposure.
but what is the difference between a bunch of electronics hooked up in an order and a bunch of them hooked p randomly. as long as you hook them up to a camera them are doing something with the data. does that mean that both of them are seeing something? according to your definitions as I understand them anything can have feeling. a solar cell hooked up to a wire has the sensation of sight. a electronic thermometer has the sensation of different temperatures.
-
but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?
It's data because it contains information representing the reality. For instance, the photocell transmits information of light exposure.
but what is the difference between a bunch of electronics hooked up in an order and a bunch of them hooked p randomly. as long as you hook them up to a camera them are doing something with the data. does that mean that both of them are seeing something?
If the electronics process the data in a consistent orderly fashion, I would think yes. It senses certain optical patterns. Knowing what those patterns are or represent is different from sensing them.
according to your definitions as I understand them anything can have feeling. a solar cell hooked up to a wire has the sensation of sight. a electronic thermometer has the sensation of different temperatures.
These things don't process or interpret any data, they only collect it.
-
but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?
It's data because it contains information representing the reality. For instance, the photocell transmits information of light exposure.
but what is the difference between a bunch of electronics hooked up in an order and a bunch of them hooked p randomly. as long as you hook them up to a camera them are doing something with the data. does that mean that both of them are seeing something?
If the electronics process the data in a consistent orderly fashion, I would think yes. It senses certain optical patterns. Knowing what those patterns are or represent is different from sensing them.
according to your definitions as I understand them anything can have feeling. a solar cell hooked up to a wire has the sensation of sight. a electronic thermometer has the sensation of different temperatures.
These things don't process or interpret any data, they only collect it.
A electronic thermometer processes data by turning the amount of heat around it into a number.
-
A electronic thermometer processes data by turning the amount of heat around it into a number.
But does it process it in a way that requires awareness of the concept of numbers or is it capable of evaluation?
Is it strict interpretation (one rule for every instance) or categorical interpretation (One rule for one concept)? The thermometer is not built to recognize the significance of the numbers and form concepts of them.
-
A electronic thermometer processes data by turning the amount of heat around it into a number.
But does it process it in a way that requires awareness of the concept of numbers or is it capable of evaluation?
Is it strict interpretation (one rule for every instance) or categorical interpretation (One rule for one concept)? The thermometer is not built to recognize the significance of the numbers and form concepts of them.
the point I am trying to make is that all parts of by themselves can be at most this. when you add more of them together you do not get an awareness it . you may get a system that is so complicated it is not predictable but that doesn't mean you should think it is aware. it is like saying that 1000 pounds of steel would have different property then 1 pound of steel.
-
A electronic thermometer processes data by turning the amount of heat around it into a number.
But does it process it in a way that requires awareness of the concept of numbers or is it capable of evaluation?
Is it strict interpretation (one rule for every instance) or categorical interpretation (One rule for one concept)? The thermometer is not built to recognize the significance of the numbers and form concepts of them.
the point I am trying to make is that all parts of by themselves can be at most this. when you add more of them together you do not get an awareness it.
Awareness is just knowing that you're receiving information and you know what it means, is it not?
-
what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.
Change from reacting?
Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.
I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance.
-
Singy, a thermometer doesn't know that it's receiving information, and it doesn't know what the information means. It just mindlessly processes one piece of information into another.
-
That's essentially my point. Processing information can either follow a linear static path or a interpretive dynamic path. By giving the object or brain in question actual knowledge of the data, knowledge of what the data represents, and knowledge of how it can be applied to other concepts, I see awareness emerge. A thermometer is not aware, nor knowledgeable of anything. It is an action reaction system that has no consciousness to perceive the devices that are sensitive to things.
Storing information, understanding it, sorting it by relevance, accessing it appropriately, and adapting it to fit new situations is where the appearance of consciousness and choice comes into play. Humans are unlimited with possible stimuli and unlimited functions (as opposed to always displaying temperature data) is just used as it is necessary, but it gives everything else meaning. When you develop a connection of ideas and data like a web of knowledge, you have a foundation for material thought. Enough so, that you can effectively expand upon it with new combinations or concepts of your own. A set of dominoes is designed to fall, but what is a human designed to do?
Awareness of senses implies a deep and basic implicit understanding of the senses and not just being sensitive to something like heat. Sensation and awareness of sensation are different. Awareness allows us to assign positive or negatives attributes to sensation. Burning your hand wouldn't mean much if signals revealing distinct nerve damage wasn't associated with pain.
If you had to describe consciousness is as objective terms as possible, how would you? I submit that it is simply awareness of senses.
Something may be sensitive to electrical current, which would mean that it effectively can sense electricity. Consciousness means understanding that you have senses, and understanding the senses are meaningful (even if only to your perception), et cetera. No thermometer has been built to be aware (or for that matter self aware) to my knowledge.
-
what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.
Change from reacting?
Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.
I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance. The previous chairs I used are part of that foundational system of knowledge and give me enough context to properly use the new one.
-
what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.
Change from reacting?
Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.
I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance. The previous chairs I used are part of that foundational system of knowledge and give me enough context to properly use the new one.
that is just a system that changes based on the input. there need be no awareness or knowledge there. in a newer video game the computer player can figure out my patterns and change accordingly. does this mean it actually understands what I am doing, or is it just reacting. again although the system is more complex and changes based on the input it doesn't show any reason to be more then just that, a system. that is it's component parts and something can't gain new property's from it's component parts just because there are more of them. no mater how I put my Legos together the hardness of the structure won't change.
-
what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.
Change from reacting?
Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.
I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance. The previous chairs I used are part of that foundational system of knowledge and give me enough context to properly use the new one.
that is just a system that changes based on the input.
As is the brain.
there need be no awareness or knowledge there. in a newer video game the computer player can figure out my patterns and change accordingly.
Because he is designed to adjust in specific ways for specific actions. Comprehension is necessary for dealing with anything unexpected. An enemy in a computer game is limited to his ability to adjust to you based on what programmers predicted different styles of playing would be. It's actions will never grow, and it can't learn anything it didn't really start with.
does this mean it actually understands what I am doing, or is it just reacting. again although the system is more complex and changes based on the input it doesn't show any reason to be more then just that, a system.
As the brain is just an action reaction system. Understanding requires the ability to associate ideas and phenomenons and establish conceptual relationships between them.
that is it's component parts and something can't gain new property's from it's component parts just because there are more of them. no mater how I put my Legos together the hardness of the structure won't change.
But that's just it, it will change. The large the structure, the easier it is to break apart. There is physical stability in small pieces of something larger. How many times can you break a pencil in half with your fingers?
A more relevant example might be that someone with a single neuron cannot think, but build a hive collective of neurons to connect and transmit signals to each other and may patterns that emerge constitute thought. It's not that the properties change on a small level, but that larger properties can emerge.
If you had to describe consciousness is as objective terms as possible, how would you? I submit that it is simply awareness of senses.
-
what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.
Change from reacting?
Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.
I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance. The previous chairs I used are part of that foundational system of knowledge and give me enough context to properly use the new one.
that is just a system that changes based on the input.
As is the brain.
there need be no awareness or knowledge there. in a newer video game the computer player can figure out my patterns and change accordingly.
Because he is designed to adjust in specific ways for specific actions. Comprehension is necessary for dealing with anything unexpected. An enemy in a computer game is limited to his ability to adjust to you based on what programmers predicted different styles of playing would be. It's actions will never grow, and it can't learn anything it didn't really start with.
does this mean it actually understands what I am doing, or is it just reacting. again although the system is more complex and changes based on the input it doesn't show any reason to be more then just that, a system.
As the brain is just an action reaction system. Understanding requires the ability to associate ideas and phenomenons and establish conceptual relationships between them.
that is it's component parts and something can't gain new property's from it's component parts just because there are more of them. no mater how I put my Legos together the hardness of the structure won't change.
But that's just it, it will change. The large the structure, the easier it is to break apart. There is physical stability in small pieces of something larger. How many times can you break a pencil in half with your fingers?
A more relevant example might be that someone with a single neuron cannot think, but build a hive collective of neurons to connect and transmit signals to each other and may patterns that emerge constitute thought. It's not that the properties change on a small level, but that larger properties can emerge.
If you had to describe consciousness is as objective terms as possible, how would you? I submit that it is simply awareness of senses.
Okay Lets just go to the sum of my point. this will be probably my last post in this topic because I doubt with just you and me arguing we will get anywhere new. Anyway it seems to me that although you could use sensation as a good modeling tool to explain actions of truly complex systems it is something that you should not expect. such as pain. you can make pain for a robot that learns so it learns what to avoid. or you can use it for an good comparison for why the machine complains when you push it to hard, but it does not seem to be something that you should expect from a system.
again they were the best comparisons I could come up with.
I would go with consciousness is somethings ability to have sensations and understand what they mean. I understand that according to my definitions it is an impossible thing to test for. hell I don't even know if you are conscious but that is what makes sense to me.
-
Okay Lets just go to the sum of my point. this will be probably my last post in this topic because I doubt with just you and me arguing we will get anywhere new. Anyway it seems to me that although you could use sensation as a good modeling tool to explain actions of truly complex systems it is something that you should not expect. such as pain. you can make pain for a robot that learns so it learns what to avoid. or you can use it for an good comparison for why the machine complains when you push it to hard, but it does not seem to be something that you should expect from a system.
Are you implying the question 'what makes pain unpleasant'?
In essence I do not know the precise functions of hormones' influences in biochemistry, but I do think that nothing could survive evolutionary timetables without experiencing it as unpleasant.
I'll assume you seen the terminator movies. I think it was the second one in which John asked him if he felt pain. He responded that he has sensors that report damage to him, but it was no unpleasant. If he had no preprogrammed goals as a machine (ensure survival of John, himself, et cetera). What kind of a motivator would sensing damage be if it wasn't tied to a categorical mental knee-jerk reaction of "bad"?
Would you bother eating if you didn't become uncomfortable when being hungry? A machine has to be preprogramed to do these things, but an evolving organism isn't preprogrammed.
For your action-reaction systems, it may be theoretically possible to create something similar to humans that aren't aware of their experiences in order to better act of them, but I can't see how it would originate without being built specifically to suit those input output functions.
I would go with consciousness is somethings ability to have sensations and understand what they mean. I understand that according to my definitions it is an impossible thing to test for. hell I don't even know if you are conscious but that is what makes sense to me.
So do you believe that a computer can never be built with the capacity for learning beyond what it has been taught? Learning means to either develop or have understanding.
Is a baby ignorant of the world in every regard conscious? Do babies not likely have sensations that they can't understand? It only understands that it is having the sensations, but not necessarily what they mean.
-
Okay Lets just go to the sum of my point. this will be probably my last post in this topic because I doubt with just you and me arguing we will get anywhere new. Anyway it seems to me that although you could use sensation as a good modeling tool to explain actions of truly complex systems it is something that you should not expect. such as pain. you can make pain for a robot that learns so it learns what to avoid. or you can use it for an good comparison for why the machine complains when you push it to hard, but it does not seem to be something that you should expect from a system.
Are you implying the question 'what makes pain unpleasant'?
In essence I do not know the precise functions of hormones' influences in biochemistry, but I do think that nothing could survive evolutionary timetables without experiencing it as unpleasant.
I'll assume you seen the terminator movies. I think it was the second one in which John asked him if he felt pain. He responded that he has sensors that report damage to him, but it was no unpleasant. If he had no preprogrammed goals as a machine (ensure survival of John, himself, et cetera). What kind of a motivator would sensing damage be if it wasn't tied to a categorical mental knee-jerk reaction of "bad"?
Would you bother eating if you didn't become uncomfortable when being hungry? A machine has to be preprogramed to do these things, but an evolving organism isn't preprogrammed.
For your action-reaction systems, it may be theoretically possible to create something similar to humans that aren't aware of their experiences in order to better act of them, but I can't see how it would originate without being built specifically to suit those input output functions.
the point is a system that could change based on the inputs that go into it. if it was complex enough it could deal with it . you are acting as though pain is needed in order to react in a useful way. as though one the system is complex enough it needs to have sensation in order to react. I am disagreeing. I also disagree with the bolded statement. that is what the brain would be doing without a soul as it were. although it would be extremely complex system there is no reason to believe the system feels pain. what we see as pain should just be something that the system reacts in a way that is most likely to make the pain stop. no sensation is needed.
So do you believe that a computer can never be built with the capacity for learning beyond what it has been taught? Learning means to either develop or have understanding.
Is a baby ignorant of the world in every regard conscious? Do babies not likely have sensations that they can't understand? It only understands that it is having the sensations, but not necessarily what they mean.
A. yes a computer can be made that can react to things in a logical way beyond what it was taught, however there does not need to be understand, just a system that reacts based on previous input. although it would be more complicated there does not need to be understanding.
B. and yes I believe a baby is less conscious compared to a adult. however it does have some understand of what they mean. not necessarily a perfect understand but definitely some. pain means something bad is happening. again it doesn't need complete understanding just some.
-
Are you implying the question 'what makes pain unpleasant'?
In essence I do not know the precise functions of hormones' influences in biochemistry, but I do think that nothing could survive evolutionary timetables without experiencing it as unpleasant.
I'll assume you seen the terminator movies. I think it was the second one in which John asked him if he felt pain. He responded that he has sensors that report damage to him, but it was no unpleasant. If he had no preprogrammed goals as a machine (ensure survival of John, himself, et cetera). What kind of a motivator would sensing damage be if it wasn't tied to a categorical mental knee-jerk reaction of "bad"?
Would you bother eating if you didn't become uncomfortable when being hungry? A machine has to be preprogramed to do these things, but an evolving organism isn't preprogrammed.
For your action-reaction systems, it may be theoretically possible to create something similar to humans that aren't aware of their experiences in order to better act of them, but I can't see how it would originate without being built specifically to suit those input output functions.
the point is a system that could change based on the inputs that go into it. if it was complex enough it could deal with it. you are acting as though pain is needed in order to react in a useful way. as though one the system is complex enough it needs to have sensation in order to react. I am disagreeing.
Like you say, pain is universal representation of bad. Without being able to classify and experience under categories, wouldn't the action reaction require specific rules for every conceivable input?
what we see as pain should just be something that the system reacts in a way that is most likely to make the pain stop. no sensation is needed.
What you are talking about would require the organism to evolve higher order thinking skills prior to pain reactions. Pain is an emotional influences that makes people do stupid things.
So do you believe that a computer can never be built with the capacity for learning beyond what it has been taught? Learning means to either develop or have understanding.
Is a baby ignorant of the world in every regard conscious? Do babies not likely have sensations that they can't understand? It only understands that it is having the sensations, but not necessarily what they mean.
A. yes a computer can be made that can react to things in a logical way beyond what it was taught, however there does not need to be understand, just a system that reacts based on previous input. although it would be more complicated there does not need to be understanding.
How can it learn new things and not have some form of understanding? Are you using "understanding" to mean more than having sufficient knowledge of something and its application (or potential application) to the rest of the world?
B. and yes I believe a baby is less conscious compared to a adult. however it does have some understand of what they mean. not necessarily a perfect understand but definitely some. pain means something bad is happening. again it doesn't need complete understanding just some.
So something with infantile thought would not be able to categorize nerve impulses representing damage to the body as bad without a clear motivator like pain? The Pain=Bad simplification solves the need for higher order thinking in general?
-
Are you implying the question 'what makes pain unpleasant'?
In essence I do not know the precise functions of hormones' influences in biochemistry, but I do think that nothing could survive evolutionary timetables without experiencing it as unpleasant.
I'll assume you seen the terminator movies. I think it was the second one in which John asked him if he felt pain. He responded that he has sensors that report damage to him, but it was no unpleasant. If he had no preprogrammed goals as a machine (ensure survival of John, himself, et cetera). What kind of a motivator would sensing damage be if it wasn't tied to a categorical mental knee-jerk reaction of "bad"?
Would you bother eating if you didn't become uncomfortable when being hungry? A machine has to be preprogramed to do these things, but an evolving organism isn't preprogrammed.
For your action-reaction systems, it may be theoretically possible to create something similar to humans that aren't aware of their experiences in order to better act of them, but I can't see how it would originate without being built specifically to suit those input output functions.
the point is a system that could change based on the inputs that go into it. if it was complex enough it could deal with it. you are acting as though pain is needed in order to react in a useful way. as though one the system is complex enough it needs to have sensation in order to react. I am disagreeing.
Like you say, pain is universal representation of bad. Without being able to classify and experience under categories, wouldn't the action reaction require specific rules for every conceivable input?
what we see as pain should just be something that the system reacts in a way that is most likely to make the pain stop. no sensation is needed.
What you are talking about would require the organism to evolve higher order thinking skills prior to pain reactions. Pain is an emotional influences that makes people do stupid things.
So do you believe that a computer can never be built with the capacity for learning beyond what it has been taught? Learning means to either develop or have understanding.
Is a baby ignorant of the world in every regard conscious? Do babies not likely have sensations that they can't understand? It only understands that it is having the sensations, but not necessarily what they mean.
A. yes a computer can be made that can react to things in a logical way beyond what it was taught, however there does not need to be understand, just a system that reacts based on previous input. although it would be more complicated there does not need to be understanding.
How can it learn new things and not have some form of understanding? Are you using "understanding" to mean more than having sufficient knowledge of something and its application (or potential application) to the rest of the world?
B. and yes I believe a baby is less conscious compared to a adult. however it does have some understand of what they mean. not necessarily a perfect understand but definitely some. pain means something bad is happening. again it doesn't need complete understanding just some.
So something with infantile thought would not be able to categorize nerve impulses representing damage to the body as bad without a clear motivator like pain? The Pain=Bad simplification solves the need for higher order thinking in general?
perhaps being a math major helps me see this. you don't need to have a something that is made for any specific input. you are saying that pain is a motivator that gets the mind to do something based on this. I am saying that without souls although you could use sensation to describe why something does something it is not at accurate idea of what should be expected even if it models what happens well. it is sort of like describing the warping of space-time like a a ball on a rubber cloth stretched taunt. although it show the basic concept it is inaccurate to what is actually happening. Such as pain. to say that you should expect a system to want to avoid pain is acting as though the system wants. a system should be able to act in a way that benefits itself. that is the way new systems are made. but saying it wants is like saying that a ball wants to roll down a hill. it doesn't want to, it just rolls based on the forces acting upon it. again I say that the idea of what pain is is understandable. it is a system designed to minimize it(I use designed even through the laws of probability most like caused it to be.). to say you need an awareness is to be honest silly. even if you were right all awareness would be is a system that reacts. to say that it couldn't react to all situations without being designed to fit it goes against your own argument that is what we would be. a system just complex.
I have been working on homework for the past 7 hours so I am a little fried. in other words my grammar might be worse then normal. I don't care.
second could we get some more people in on this argument? I think it needs some new blood. preferably so more on both sides would be nice.
-
you don't need to have a something that is made for any specific input. you are saying that pain is a motivator that gets the mind to do something based on this. I am saying that without souls although you could use sensation to describe why something does something it is not at accurate idea of what should be expected even if it models what happens well.
What should be expected? Sensation could be perceived a number of ways we can't imagine but if this is the way are brains perceive sensation then to say it is an odd outcome is using its own significance as its a detriment to its probability of arising. I remember that trekky posted a thread at some point declaring that he was lucky because he turned over certain cards or rolled certain numbers on dice in a certain order. For instance, the chances of rolling a specific order of specific numbers is extremely low, but because it already happened we look at those chances for only that possibility and not the competing scenarios of something else seeming significant. Any other perception would be that same unlikely perception. I see pain the way we feel match all the physical ties it needs to and the interpretation of it is irrelevant for perceiving it one way or another.
A different brain structure very well might perceive pain differently but still use the concept as a link to 'bad'.
to say that you should expect a system to want to avoid pain is acting as though the system wants.
I expect the system to avoid pain because it is an evolutionary imperative to develop that way. It's hardwired like any instincts. Pain equals bad is not a choice, but a mandatory interpretation of sense data.
a system should be able to act in a way that benefits itself. that is the way new systems are made. but saying it wants is like saying that a ball wants to roll down a hill. it doesn't want to, it just rolls based on the forces acting upon it.
The ball isn't conscious, nor capable of making decisions, nor capable of acting. Wants are just the system's goals that are assigned to it by experience and genetics.
again I say that the idea of what pain is is understandable. it is a system designed to minimize it(I use designed even through the laws of probability most like caused it to be.). to say you need an awareness is to be honest silly.
Awareness is holding knowledge of the outside world and whether you are a computer program modeling your best options based on that data or a computer program that thinks it has a soul and is modeling options based on that data, you still need the data. Any action reaction system needs that data to react.
even if you were right all awareness would be is a system that reacts. to say that it couldn't react to all situations without being designed to fit it goes against your own argument that is what we would be. a system just complex.
I'm saying that by creating categories of perception we can reduce infinite possibilities of input. A calculator The hardware is specific to one function. A human is unlimited in functions as far as hardware goes so the software must be responsible for mental analysis above and beyond a calculator.
To clarify something I let go earlier, I don't believe complexity of the brain implies anything new as far as consciousness goes, but that consciousness implies a certain level of complexity.
second could we get some more people in on this argument? I think it needs some new blood. preferably so more on both sides would be nice.
Agreed. I wish that it were possible to clear up miscommunications, as I often feel like I don't present the clearest posts that could represent my argument. Other people posting often help me see how I'm coming off enough where I can patch together the picture I try to paint. I actually see we are following an unproductive cycle as long as we can't establish the disconnects on the other side. :P
I'm also considering a new approach. We might be able to simplify this as much as possible by starting with definitions...
I take awareness to mean receiving sense data so that it may be acted on. Anything to add or dispute?
-
I'm also considering a new approach. We might be able to simplify this as much as possible by starting with definitions...
I take awareness to mean receiving sense data so that it may be acted on. Anything to add or dispute?
OK I am just going to argue the end of yours, I will try your idea of simplifying. I think an awareness is something that can feel sensation. a system no mater how complex should not feel pain. although pain is could comparison it should not be what is expected. here is my question, if a system that is complex enough to have consciousness how does that help it react to any possible turn of events. although a consciousness could be used as a good explanation it is not something you would expect to happen. it is like saying that a ball rolls down the hill because it wants to be at a low energy state. it really doesn't want anything but it does explain it. a system shouldn't want to avoid pain even if it was set up to minimize that variable to its system. it shouldn't have bad or good it just does. such as a robot that take moves to avoid to much heat. it reacts but it shouldn't be expect to feel even if pain is a good way of explaining what is happening.
-
here is my question, if a system that is complex enough to have consciousness how does that help it react to any possible turn of events.
Because something incapable of building comprehension cannot function nearly as well as something that cannot comprehend things.
I think an awareness is something that can feel sensation.
What does feeling something mean beyond receiving sense data?
If a subject receives the sense data and is aware of it, it must perceive it somehow.
-
here is my question, if a system that is complex enough to have consciousness how does that help it react to any possible turn of events.
Because something incapable of building comprehension cannot function nearly as well as something that cannot comprehend things.
My idea of what should happen, without a soul, is that although a system can change in order to get a "better outcome" based on past experience, it should still be a system. you are saying that you need consciousness in order to handle infinite possibility, I am saying it would still be a system. nothing would be different. although it would be more complicated it would still be a system. a consciousness wouldn't help because it would just be a different name for a complex system. nothing would have changed. blah This is such a hard concept to explain.
-
here is my question, if a system that is complex enough to have consciousness how does that help it react to any possible turn of events.
Because something incapable of building comprehension cannot function nearly as well as something that cannot comprehend things.
My idea of what should happen, without a soul, is that although a system can change in order to get a "better outcome" based on past experience, it should still be a system. you are saying that you need consciousness in order to handle infinite possibility, I am saying it would still be a system. nothing would be different. although it would be more complicated it would still be a system. a consciousness wouldn't help because it would just be a different name for a complex system. nothing would have changed. blah This is such a hard concept to explain.
I am saying consciousness is a system.
And the method you suggest the system improves itself is by using relevant data from previous experiences. That is part of the system I am advocating as well. "Data collection giving everything else context."
I really don't want this to be a twin thread, but I have to ask: What part of consciousness can't be accounted for by physical means?
Without having a discernible piece missing, it seems to reduce to intuition that the soul exists in duality with consciousness.
I believe based on logic that sensation, and consciousness could not exist without a soul. although things could still function, it would be action reaction no feeling involved. keep in mind I am using feeling to describe things like pain, not ability to receive input.
Okay for more on the soul topic go back to the soul thread
What is pain if not receiving input? The perception "unpleasantness" automatically associated with the input of pain signals?
Anything being received in a computer mind must either be perceived or it is ignored and not part of the equation. Are you saying that perception of pain input is what a soul is? Interpreting signals as unpleasant is the soul's job?
-
What is pain if not receiving input? The perception "unpleasantness" automatically associated with the input of pain signals?
Anything being received in a computer mind must either be perceived or it is ignored and not part of the equation. Are you saying that perception of pain input is what a soul is? Interpreting signals as unpleasant is the soul's job?
no, it does not interpret information so it can be used. I am saying that a system does not feel. it can react but not feel. you are saying that pain is caused by turning the date into something that can be used. I am saying that feeling is not needed. lets compare this two a simply math problem. y=V^x I want to know Y but I don't know x, but lets say I know t and how t relates to x. now I can find y. Now with this when it changes the date into a form the system can do something with there does not need nor should there be expect pain or even true thought(bad term best I could come up with). just direct action reaction. you don't need to have real pain. it would be like saying that a ball needs to feel the pull of gravity in order to know that it should roll down a hill. or that a compass needle needs to feel the earths magnetic field in order to turn.
-
What is pain if not receiving input? The perception "unpleasantness" automatically associated with the input of pain signals?
Anything being received in a computer mind must either be perceived or it is ignored and not part of the equation. Are you saying that perception of pain input is what a soul is? Interpreting signals as unpleasant is the soul's job?
no, it does not interpret information so it can be used. I am saying that a system does not feel. it can react but not feel. you are saying that pain is caused by turning the date into something that can be used. I am saying that feeling is not needed. lets compare this two a simply math problem. y=V^x I want to know Y but I don't know x, but lets say I know t and how t relates to x. now I can find y. Now with this when it changes the date into a form the system can do something with there does not need nor should there be expect pain or even true thought(bad term best I could come up with). just direct action reaction. you don't need to have real pain. it would be like saying that a ball needs to feel the pull of gravity in order to know that it should roll down a hill. or that a compass needle needs to feel the earths magnetic field in order to turn.
Something that is processing the equations to figure out how to act must have data meaningful to the equations, no?
What good is a hard drive full of 1's and 0's if my computer can't assemble them into relationships of data by running an exe?
The 1's and 0's are in the same place but by running an engine or compiling a program, an operating state to better use the data is formed.
I think the most obvious example in humans is sight. If our vision was just points of light, how could the robotic brain be able to discern objects?
I'm saying that you would have to find relations between the points of light or "eye pixels" like contrast to find obvious boundaries. By using them together an applying algorithms you can discern objects, track objects (don't have to find them over again if they move), and build a mental model of the environment. Did that make sense?
-
What is pain if not receiving input? The perception "unpleasantness" automatically associated with the input of pain signals?
Anything being received in a computer mind must either be perceived or it is ignored and not part of the equation. Are you saying that perception of pain input is what a soul is? Interpreting signals as unpleasant is the soul's job?
no, it does not interpret information so it can be used. I am saying that a system does not feel. it can react but not feel. you are saying that pain is caused by turning the date into something that can be used. I am saying that feeling is not needed. lets compare this two a simply math problem. y=V^x I want to know Y but I don't know x, but lets say I know t and how t relates to x. now I can find y. Now with this when it changes the date into a form the system can do something with there does not need nor should there be expect pain or even true thought(bad term best I could come up with). just direct action reaction. you don't need to have real pain. it would be like saying that a ball needs to feel the pull of gravity in order to know that it should roll down a hill. or that a compass needle needs to feel the earths magnetic field in order to turn.
Something that is processing the equations to figure out how to act must have data meaningful to the equations, no?
What good is a hard drive full of 1's and 0's if my computer can't assemble them into relationships of data by running an exe?
The 1's and 0's are in the same place but by running an engine or compiling a program, an operating state to better use the data is formed.
I think the most obvious example in humans is sight. If our vision was just points of light, how could the robotic brain be able to discern objects?
I'm saying that you would have to find relations between the points of light or "eye pixels" like contrast to find obvious boundaries. By using them together an applying algorithms you can discern objects, track objects (don't have to find them over again if they move), and build a mental model of the environment. Did that make sense?
I would agree with the bolded statement. I however disagree that that would mean that the robot would have the sensation of sight. although it would have the mental model, all that would be is information being stored in a way that could use. it isn't picturing anything in its minds eye. ok that explanation sucked(mine not yours), I would see that as more similar to a calculator storing a value to x and then later using x in an equation that it had programed into it. the calculator didn't have the thought" Ok it now I am going to multiply it" or whatever it just did it the same way if a mechanical calculator solved it,
(http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/curta.jpg)
with no more thought.
-
I would agree with the bolded statement. I however disagree that that would mean that the robot would have the sensation of sight. although it would have the mental model, all that would be is information being stored in a way that could use.
I'm not saying that it would have the same sensation of light as humans but it would have to do the same two things. Take in data and relate it to other data to develop an understanding. Understanding meaning the knowledge of truths concerning reality it gains... something a robot can obtain.
-
I would agree with the bolded statement. I however disagree that that would mean that the robot would have the sensation of sight. although it would have the mental model, all that would be is information being stored in a way that could use.
I'm not saying that it would have the same sensation of light as humans but it would have to do the same two things. Take in data and relate it to other data to develop an understanding. Understanding meaning the knowledge of truths concerning reality it gains... something a robot can obtain.
last post on this topic until after all the test I have next week.
Although I believe understand is a good analogy i think that it is giving the system to much credit. it is just changing part of itself to allow it to deal with the information better. it does not understand it just changes based on the way it was created in the first place.
-
I would agree with the bolded statement. I however disagree that that would mean that the robot would have the sensation of sight. although it would have the mental model, all that would be is information being stored in a way that could use.
I'm not saying that it would have the same sensation of light as humans but it would have to do the same two things. Take in data and relate it to other data to develop an understanding. Understanding meaning the knowledge of truths concerning reality it gains... something a robot can obtain.
last post on this topic until after all the test I have next week.
Although I believe understand is a good analogy i think that it is giving the system to much credit. it is just changing part of itself to allow it to deal with the information better. it does not understand it just changes based on the way it was created in the first place.
But how does the robot change the way it analyzes visual data? Sure figures and shapes may have contrast enough to tell they are likely separate, but I'm looking for recognition. What makes a box more than a geometric shape but a concept that actions can be applied to? Without understanding the box and pulling from experience can a person know that it is a hollow lightweight shape? Practical knowledge of the object is necessary.
-
I would agree with the bolded statement. I however disagree that that would mean that the robot would have the sensation of sight. although it would have the mental model, all that would be is information being stored in a way that could use.
I'm not saying that it would have the same sensation of light as humans but it would have to do the same two things. Take in data and relate it to other data to develop an understanding. Understanding meaning the knowledge of truths concerning reality it gains... something a robot can obtain.
last post on this topic until after all the test I have next week.
Although I believe understand is a good analogy i think that it is giving the system to much credit. it is just changing part of itself to allow it to deal with the information better. it does not understand it just changes based on the way it was created in the first place.
But how does the robot change the way it analyzes visual data? Sure figures and shapes may have contrast enough to tell they are likely separate, but I'm looking for recognition. What makes a box more than a geometric shape but a concept that actions can be applied to? Without understanding the box and pulling from experience can a person know that it is a hollow lightweight shape? Practical knowledge of the object is necessary.
I am saying that there should be no "thought" in the sense you are talking about. it should not understand as it were. it shouldn't understand that the box is probably hollow. it should however treat it as though it is hollow because the system has changed based on previous inputs. I will try not to post anymore in this area unless either someone else posts or you make a interesting point. I will probably fail but I will try.
-
I am saying that there should be no "thought" in the sense you are talking about. it should not understand as it were. it shouldn't understand that the box is probably hollow. it should however treat it as though it is hollow because the system has changed based on previous inputs. I will try not to post anymore in this area unless either someone else posts or you make a interesting point. I will probably fail but I will try.
I'll try to stop posting too as long as this stays unproductive, but I'd thought I'd mention that I see these two things as one in the same. Understanding being the capacity to hold data from previous input.
-
u
I am saying that there should be no "thought" in the sense you are talking about. it should not understand as it were. it shouldn't understand that the box is probably hollow. it should however treat it as though it is hollow because the system has changed based on previous inputs. I will try not to post anymore in this area unless either someone else posts or you make a interesting point. I will probably fail but I will try.
I'll try to stop posting too as long as this stays unproductive, but I'd thought I'd mention that I see these two things as one in the same. Understanding being the capacity to hold data from previous input.
I swear this will be my last one. understanding is different then storing. a camcorder can store data but there is no sensation of sight. a computer can store music but it doesn't feel anything when it listens to it.
-
understanding is different then storing. a camcorder can store data but there is no sensation of sight. a computer can store music but it doesn't feel anything when it listens to it.
You're right, storing alone is not enough. It has to be able to access the data and find trends or properties to a degree that it could effectively apply it.
As far as I can tell, understanding/comprehension is just "knowing" stuff. Not just facts, but also connections between them.
The camcorder isn't built to access and interpret its own data, just to preserve it.
Truthfully, I only posted because you said you wouldn't. ;) I doubt I said anything actually new.