Souls?

  • 78 Replies
  • 8625 Views
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #60 on: September 13, 2009, 02:48:08 PM »
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 02:50:44 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Souls?
« Reply #61 on: September 13, 2009, 04:00:08 PM »
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.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2009, 08:28:35 PM »
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?

Quote
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.

Quote

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?

Quote
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?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Souls?
« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2009, 10:06:58 PM »
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?

Quote
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.

Quote

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?

Quote
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 can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2009, 10:43:00 PM »
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'.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 10:51:21 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Souls?
« Reply #65 on: September 15, 2009, 09:31:30 AM »

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.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #66 on: September 16, 2009, 08:02:11 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2009, 08:05:24 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Souls?
« Reply #67 on: September 16, 2009, 08:48:31 PM »
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.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #68 on: September 16, 2009, 08:57:05 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2009, 09:02:01 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Souls?
« Reply #69 on: September 16, 2009, 09:18:51 PM »

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.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #70 on: September 16, 2009, 09:29:33 PM »

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?

If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Souls?
« Reply #71 on: September 16, 2009, 09:53:12 PM »

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,

with no more thought.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #72 on: September 16, 2009, 09:59:19 PM »
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.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Souls?
« Reply #73 on: September 16, 2009, 10:13:41 PM »
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.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #74 on: September 18, 2009, 07:59:57 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2009, 08:02:05 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Souls?
« Reply #75 on: September 23, 2009, 09:05:42 AM »
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.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #76 on: September 23, 2009, 03:59:14 PM »
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.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Souls?
« Reply #77 on: September 23, 2009, 05:36:06 PM »
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.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Souls?
« Reply #78 on: September 24, 2009, 03:10:10 PM »
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.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.