The Ultra Intelligent Machine

Technology, computers, sciences, mysteries and phenomena of all kinds, etc., etc. all here at The Loresraat!!

Moderator: Vraith

User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

wayfriend wrote:
If you copy the program and not the data, then you have another "being" which is exactly as intelligent but which is a different "person", having to learn things all over again, and capable of having a different "personality".

But if you copy the data ... then you have two copies of the same "person", where both believe that they are the original, possibly leading to disastrous consequences.

That being said,

It is possible that biological beings might have been designed so that only one parent is necessary.

Mix them up. Cull all but the improved. It would be artificial and arbitrary rather than random and uncontrolled. But it would be similar.
I'm glad you liked the intelligent outcomes without intelligence thing.
The first time that kind of idea occurred to me was because of people who can easily make change, recite multiplication tables, recall the sonnet they learned in 5th grade...but can't really add, subtract, multiply, divide, or talk about what the sonnet they know means, let alone read and understand a new one.

On the first couple...right. That's part of the experiments I was talking about.
And you can do all kinds of variations...from using a simple section of code on small/singular kinds of data, all the way up to millions of exact/complete copies working on different and duplicate kinds/sizes of data sorted in various ways/with varying emphasis on hierarchy [[if you've got a machine analyzing a batter, you might have a particular goal prioritized...say, how s/he swings, and what changes will lower strike-out rate, OR raise home-run rate. OR the machine might crunch the data, compared to other batters, to predict how s/he will perform in the future, and what can be changed to increase that performance, and/or which batter is/will be more valuable...I used batter, because I know those things are ALREADY being done with fair and rapidly improving success]]

On the next, some biological beings---even a few reasonably complex ones---do reproduce singularly. Some all the time, some occasionally depending on environmental conditions at the moment.
Last I knew, no one knows exactly how sexual reproduction got started...nor precisely why two-parent is vastly more common than three or more.
But, despite some seemingly serious disadvantages, sexual reproduction BOTH allows variation/adaptation/mutation AND error-correction/redundant systems/code-repair.

On the last, which overlaps in ways with the first couple...mixing/culling, those and competitive/cooperative interactions, modeled survival pressures... that's being done as well. It's an important part of how the bleeding-edge game-playing and other systems are made/evolve.
[[Which you almost certainly already know]]
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

DNA and RNA replication, if I understand correctly, involve "unzipping" the double strand. This gives two single-strand templates, each of which can be used to reproduce the other stand, and the double strand.

Yet, although each nucleobase bonds with only one of the others, things go wrong. Mutations. Combine that with natural selection. This is the leading theory of abiogenesis and evolution?

If one fairly clear-cut system of replication can go wrong so easily, I would imagine another can. Especially one made by humans, who are known to create things that don't work exactly as planned, and/or fall apart.

I'm not even talking about doing this with intelligent machines. I'm talking about starting from the very bottom, and seeing how it builds itself up. The way we assume life started.

And yes, it might be better termed human selection than natural selection. Or at least a hybrid. There might not be any conditions that select without our input. How would one's survival be in danger, or enhanced, in the realm of electronics and programs without us setting up the conditions? But I wouldn't recommend we try to guide things in any specific way. I don't think we could accomplish anything that way. After all, if we knew what would work, we could just jump to the end and write a conscious program.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

My comment is that digital copying -doesn't- go wrong. That's what makes it a different ballgame.

What you're suggesting is creating something that intentionally has the capacity to error. where it need not be so, in order to replicate our evolutionary capacity. In other words, your intentionally allowing random deviations to occur.

... and here we are talking about RNG! Like I said, people tend to get on this road when discussing consciousness. Your discussing physical randomness, not a random number generator. But still it's randomness.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Seriously?? (And I mean that sincerely.) Digital copying doesn't go wrong? That's a stunning bit of news for me. The idea that humans can achieve perfection in any endeavor seems preposterous too me. But I don't know much about this topic, so I'll take your word for it.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Esmer
Giantfriend
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:18 am
Location: Infinity
Contact:

Post by Esmer »

even God must bend the knee
to the tyrant of eternity
having always been, to always have to be
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

I like your analogy to biological beings Wayfriend .. very interesting.

And I love the distinction between program and data.... but is not coding the merging of the two? And the coding provides the parameters and enter data to define its behaviour? Could an AI or a computing replicant define or write its own behaviour?

That and if a computer or AI can learn to think? I mean if scientists are exploring now whether consciousness is always a computational process .. whats next .. and that also begs the question .. what is consciousness if its not?

I like the fact that human consciousness isnt all any longer useful .. not to an ultra intelligent machine or computer .. let alone us as humans .. then is it even relevant to this process. Im with Wayfriend in that human minds retain a lot of evolutionary vestiges which are no longer relevant or necessary .. and definitely not useful to mirror or even seek to mirror in an ultra intelligent machine.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Skyweir wrote:but is not coding the merging of the two?

Could an AI or a computing replicant define or write its own behaviour?

That and if a computer or AI can learn to think?

whether consciousness is always a computational process .. whats next .. and that also begs the question .. what is consciousness if its not?

I like the fact that human consciousness isnt all any longer useful

and definitely not useful to mirror or even seek to mirror in an ultra intelligent machine.

Nah, the code and the data needn't merge...like, if you see a pile of rocks in your yard and use them to build nice man-cave for your mate, you don't "merge" with the rocks. The cool thing with machines and data is, unlike your rocks, the data don't have to be used up. The original data is still in its pile.
When you create a PowerPoint presentation on the lifestyle of your goats, when you are done, you don't need to get a new copy of PowerPoint, or take new pics/video of your goats if you want to do something else with them.

To an extent [and expanding extent] some machines can write their own code/behavior...BUT they do that BECAUSE included in their code are instructions to do that. They don't, obviously, "understand" their code or behavior. They can't "explain" it to you. Cuz there is no "they" there. [[though they could have code written in to print out or display all the code and procedural steps taken]]

I don't think machines even remotely running as they run now can ever think as we think. BUT---they will [and in limited ways already do] produce thought-like results. And maybe, with some advances, tweaks, and variations they will achieve a different kind of thinking...they already come up with some bizarre, yet effective, solutions. And make discoveries. And that's without thinking in any way whatsoever.

We don't know what consciousness is yet. But we do almost-know it only happens in brain-like structures. So nothing like current machines can become conscious if that's so.
If the materials and usages/functionality of the hardware don't matter [or aren't a strict limit], if it emerges from ANY sufficiently complex information-processing/reacting system, then it will happen in the right kind of machine whether it is "useful" or not.
Whether consciousness is useful or not is still an unresolved question. The useless camp has some decent reasons---the primary one being no one knows how consciousness can/could CAUSE anything. And if it can't DO anything, it's irrelevant to everything, not matter how it seems/feels to "us."

I'm not a dualist---that the mind is somehow distinct from the brain---so the causal problem has to be solved for me to be satisfied. Because I also don't think consciousness is useless.

Whatever consciousness is, though, it isn't a left over/remainder from early evolution. It's new[ish], modern. It doesn't happen in primitive/simple brains...it happens in advanced/complex ones...though no one has found the exact boundary/crossover from non-c to c in brains, I doubt that fungi are conscious, fish aren't very, many birds are pretty high, and we are.
[[And, as a physical matter, it is relatively easy to render someone unconscious by multiple methods, shutting down ONLY the recently-evolved brain sectors, and not touching the ancient ones...and some of those methods, if they are instead applied to the ancient parts, kill you while you remain conscious of the fact that you are dying]]
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Vraith wrote:I'm not a dualist---that the mind is somehow distinct from the brain---so the causal problem has to be solved for me to be satisfied. Because I also don't think consciousness is useless.
I agree with all of that. I think the mind is matter - the brain - doing things, or exhibiting characteristics, that we cannot explain. Seemingly non-materially reducible.
Vraith wrote:Whatever consciousness is, though, it isn't a left over/remainder from early evolution. It's new[ish], modern. It doesn't happen in primitive/simple brains...it happens in advanced/complex ones...though no one has found the exact boundary/crossover from non-c to c in brains, I doubt that fungi are conscious, fish aren't very, many birds are pretty high, and we are.
To what degree are fish? Worms? Euglena? What is the smallest degree of non-materially reducible activity? I think consciousness is a characteristic that, at whatever the smallest degree is, whenever it first happened, helped the critter survive better than others of its kind. And it reproduced. Just like every other characteristic. And, as vision improved with evolution, so too did non-materially reducible activity. Until it got to the point where we, who have the most, could wipe many species off the face of the earth. OTOH, even those who we can't, and who could probably wipe us out if they wanted, like maybe ants, cannot conceive of the idea.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Esmer
Giantfriend
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:18 am
Location: Infinity
Contact:

Post by Esmer »

even God must bend the knee
to the tyrant of eternity
having always been, to always have to be
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Fist and Faith wrote:To what degree are fish? Worms? Euglena? What is the smallest degree of non-materially reducible activity?

I think consciousness is a characteristic that, at whatever the smallest degree is, whenever it first happened, helped the critter survive better than others of its kind. And it reproduced.

On the first, I don't know. No one does. For some things, I think the mirror test is a decent sign. Some fish [[all of them kinds of sharks, far as I know]] can recognize themselves in a mirror. Lesser fish can't. So it's unlikely anything below them [worms, fungi, etc] are. [[Not ONLY because they can't, see below, but also they lack complexity and other physical structures]]
But it's not a usable test for every species...totally biased against some...and I'm not at all convinced it is a defining ability for consciousness. A thing that CAN recognize itself, I'd say, certainly has consciousness...but not being able to doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't.
I mean, I think cats have some consciousness...but they are hysterically bad at recognizing self in mirrors.

On the second. Yes. I think exactly that, said it in another thread I think. But, I ONLY think/believe it. There seems to be evidence for it---but that COULD be a bio-bias. In order to KNOW it, someone has to come up with a test/experiment that shows consciousness having a causal capacity/function. If that can't be shown, then it really is either just a pure illusion that doesn't exist at all, or it is real but useless---the totally heat-dead remainder of all the work and thinking that's been done non-consciously.

Esmer: I've seen that vid before. It's fun/funny.
But, a fair number of nondualist folk---at BOTH extreme [and contradictory] ends---draw conclusions/make claims of truth/real[illusion] beyond anything they can actually show.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Vraith wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:To what degree are fish? Worms? Euglena? What is the smallest degree of non-materially reducible activity?

I think consciousness is a characteristic that, at whatever the smallest degree is, whenever it first happened, helped the critter survive better than others of its kind. And it reproduced.

On the first, I don't know. No one does. For some things, I think the mirror test is a decent sign. Some fish [[all of them kinds of sharks, far as I know]] can recognize themselves in a mirror. Lesser fish can't. So it's unlikely anything below them [worms, fungi, etc] are. [[Not ONLY because they can't, see below, but also they lack complexity and other physical structures]]
But it's not a usable test for every species...totally biased against some...and I'm not at all convinced it is a defining ability for consciousness. A thing that CAN recognize itself, I'd say, certainly has consciousness...but not being able to doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't.
I mean, I think cats have some consciousness...but they are hysterically bad at recognizing self in mirrors.
You're only talking about self-consciousness. I'm only looking for non-materially reducible activity.

Vraith wrote:On the second. Yes. I think exactly that, said it in another thread I think. But, I ONLY think/believe it. There seems to be evidence for it---but that COULD be a bio-bias. In order to KNOW it, someone has to come up with a test/experiment that shows consciousness having a causal capacity/function. If that can't be shown, then it really is either just a pure illusion that doesn't exist at all, or it is real but useless---the totally heat-dead remainder of all the work and thinking that's been done non-consciously.
I believe the question is answered with what Z and I (after he got the idea through my skull) have been saying about math. If the concepts of numbers and addition are materially reducible - that is, nothing but arrangements of neural activity - then addition would have to be a series of arrangements. And each would be the effect of the previous, and the cause of the next. But that is not the case. If it was, we would not be able to not calculate 4,563+7,559. Now that I have put that idea into your mind, which means I have caused a certain arrangement of neural activity in your brain, you could not do anything other than solve it. Because all addition is is one arrangement following the next. And, once the arrangement that means "add these numbers" is there, addition must happen.

But you can do something other than add those two numbers. You can do any darned thing you want. Further, if you do add those numbers, especially in you head, you might get the wrong answer. Which could not happen if numbers and the rules of addition were simply arrangements of neural activity.


That is how it works for my calculator. It is not thinking 4,563+7,559. Those things are simply arrangements of 0s and 1s. And when I press =, it does not think about how to find the sum. It simply follows the steps of calculation that are also nothing more than programmed, unalterable arrangements of 0s and 1s.

We do not do math because of the cause & effect interactions of the particles that make up our brains. Consciousness is something else.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Fist and Faith wrote: We do not do math because of the cause & effect interactions of the particles that make up our brains. Consciousness is something else.
But we can ONLY do math because of those things.
Still, the brain is completely different than a calculator, or even a computer. That's so.

We can "not calculate," unlike a calculator, because no brain state is EVER "add these numbers." Because we don't have one input method, one kind of information, one algorithmic set, one functional mode.

It's a different order, a different category, a different kind of existence.

While one minuscule part is adding [[and it can be wrong easily, there are multiple possible sources of error]] the brain can be performing, IIRC, many QUADRILLIONS of operations PER SECOND on at LEAST a couple dozen [and perhaps many more] different data-streams, on many different kinds of information, using different instruction sets, of which any one or several could be "determined" to be more important than the math---and so end the calculation and reallocate resources [or just take a rest, instead of wasting energy].

You'll stop adding right quick, and for good reason, when a ninja comes crashing through your window. And the stopping and your reaction will occur LONG before your consciousness thinks about it. If it DOESn't happen that way, you are headless [[and your brain might live long enough after the beheading to wonder for a bit about what the hell you did to make a ninja come and take you out---was it your wife, your boss, that blog post you wrote about how boring the Japanese flag is???]]

A "brain state," at any given instant is ALL of that shit AT ONCE. And it changes at the next given instant.

One can make a holistic statistical model of state and flow...

One can even monitor it with various machines.

BUT all the rules of chaos, turbulence, unpredictability, [plus the constant flow of new data/energy into the system] apply---Like the weather, like the butterfly, only unimaginable more complex than mere weather [even than weather plus some avenger of dinosaurs tossing asteroid swarms at you].

Now, I tend to agree that consciousness is something "else," in the sense that we don't understand/can't describe the connection YET.

But the main point, for both the original topic of ultra-intelligent machines and the current, is that it doesn't matter WHAT consciousness is, UNLESS it has causal capacity/property.
Without that, it's far more mythical than Great A'Tuin, and even less useful.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Of course consciousness has casual agency. We intentionally shape our world in ways that would not arise without the conscious, willful direction of matter into the forms that make up our industrial, computerized society. That doesn't happen by the accidental interactions of matter. It happens only by having a "vision" of what you want to accomplish. A goal. A wish. An idea. This is especially true for alterations of the material world that have little else but meaningful content, e.g. a book, or even an Internet post. If consciousness is not causing the arrangement of letters you see before you right now, then it would be a miracle that they end up in precisely the arrangement that carries meaning that is relative to your own point, which is an idea that is only possible in your consciousness. The atoms in my brain didn't respond to the shape of the letters in your post in order to make just this arrangement (even though that was involved in the deep levels that "carry" my consciousness). No, my consciousness responded to the letters in your post to decode a meaning, and then formulated my own meaning, and then I had the conscious need to respond. My consciousness caused this post. My awareness of your meaning caused me to formulate this specific meaning. Atoms don't understand meaning. Understanding is itself a phenomenon of consciousness.

Can we return to the stipulation that self-reflection should be ruled out as a tool to examine consciousness? If we can't trust our own powers of conscious observation when turned to the phenomenon and objects of consciousness itself, then how can we trust our powers of conscious observation when turned to "objective" things? In order to think about objective things, they have to be objects of thought. Every act of judgment uses the same capacity of conscious thinking that would be necessary for self-reflection. The only difference is the object being considered. Our judgment is always necessarily a subjective phenomenon, even when we're considering objective things. This is not exacerbated by considering subjective things. In fact, that would be the one time when the act of judgment is "pure," a subjective phenomenon examining a subjective phenomenon. The access here is not mediated through senses, not subject to illusions of that nature. The access is direct.

When we say we need objective tools to study consciousness, we mean (perhaps) examinations of the brain in a scientific manner. But all of these examinations have as their originating point a conscious mind conducting the examination. The observations, the judgments, even the choice of deciding what to examine are all made by a subjective consciousness. The idea that this is an "objective" process is an illusion. It is not even the observations themselves--the empirical evidence--that ultimately grounds the truth of these examinations. It is the explanations that we come up with that ground the observations. Observation itself is a subjective process subject to illusion and bias. It is our capacity for understanding what we are observing that grounds the observations, and this capacity is subjective.

Therefore, it is entirely off base to say that consciousness is an inappropriate tool to examine consciousness. It is not only the sole tool available to us in *any* examination, but its direct access to the object in question makes it the ideal tool.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

Skyweir wrote:And I love the distinction between program and data.... but is not coding the merging of the two? And the coding provides the parameters and enter data to define its behaviour? Could an AI or a computing replicant define or write its own behaviour?
This is an important question.

There is, indeed, some blurring between what is program and what is data. It is less than you might imagine, but it is more than zero.

But suppose a program could write programs. (Hint: They can.) It could then modify it's own programming. But that isn't as exciting as it sounds when you first imagine it. Because before a program could change it's programming, it would first need to determine what it WANTS it's programming to be. That's a calculation. And so it would be limited to what it was programmed to want it's programming to be. You never really escape from the limitations of being a program.

Furthermore, the original program could have been made versatile enough, generalized enough, that it could have been able to do whatever it wanted to do without needing to be re-programmed. It's like your car - it was built sufficiently versatile and general that you can drive it anywhere - you don't need to rebuild it with different parts when you want to get to a new place you haven't been before. A good program is the same way.

You experience this every day with video games. Simple video games only let you make certain moves. But more sophisticated games are more open-ended as to what kinds of things you can do. They are versatile and generalized.

So this whole "self-programming" thing isn't the pathway to consciousness as you might first think. It's just a hard way to do something more easily done another way.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Zarathustra wrote:Of course consciousness has casual agency. We intentionally shape our world in ways that would not arise without the conscious, willful direction of matter into the forms that make up our industrial, computerized society. That doesn't happen by the accidental interactions of matter.


It is not only the sole tool available to us in *any* examination, but its direct access to the object in question makes it the ideal tool.

On the first, I tend to think/believe that. But it is a hard question...in the set of hardest of hard questions, I suspect.
But there are many people very deep in the field who say no. That all consciousness is a byproduct at the end, it is caused by and has no mechanism to cause. Even they aren't arguing that it's all accidental, though...there is a lot of territory BETWEEN accidental interactions and consciousness as causal agent. The agency side absolutely requires a mechanism and direct evidence that currently isn't known. [[cross-topical with numerous Close threads, 99.999% of all that overlaps with free will. Show that agency mechanism for consciousness, you also show free will is possible.

On the second---I'm not completely sure it is the ideal tool necessarily. It would be nice to have at least one complementary tool/perspective. I don't know what it would be/be like, because the first part is true...it is the only tool we have available. It is [as you seem to be intending, but is implied even if you're not] really the Meta-Tool. The tool that makes possible and creates all the "lesser" tools like formal systems, computers, LIGO, and cultures. [[if it is, in fact, real and causal of course.]]
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Vraith, as David Hume pointed out, we don't EVER witness causation. We infer it. And our inference isn't strictly a logically sound inference. I'm sure you've heard about the problem of induction.


So finding a causal mechanism to justify the agency of mind will always be just as problematic as finding a causal mechanism for any causation whatsoever.

Even if we deny that mind has causal agency, we have to admit that some events in our world can only come about by assuming teleology. Human inventions that serve a particular purpose are invented with that purpose in mind prior to the realization of that purpose. Even if the intention/will/vision is some kind of illusion, the fact that it happens prior to the realization of that vision is not. The chronology is clear and unambiguous. A blueprint is drawn up before the construction of a building.

Nothing else in nature happens like this, i.e. according to a plan. So if we deny that consciousness is playing a role here--that this is the unique feature that imbues human activity with purpose/teleology--then we have no other recourse to explain why a universe that isn't teleological nonetheless behaves in this way in limited cases that involve beings who just so happen to have illusions "in their heads" that precisely correspond to the idea of consciousness causing this teleological activity. If it's not mind, the problem still remains, and it's a problem that requires a solution that is just as "spooky" as mind. We would have to conclude that matter can have ideas on its own (without consciousness?), because the effect of buildings arising from the cause of blueprints is not merely a temporal quirk, but a DEEP connection between ideas and reality. If this idea was not the RIGHT idea, conceptually and mathematically, the building would fall down. It is no exaggeration to say that it depends crucially upon the idea. And that dependence is not the product of blind trial and error processes like natural selection. It takes an understanding of reality for this to become the right idea, not merely trials. I don't see how that this understanding can exist in any other way except as part of a consciousness. The understanding links so many different aspects of reality, from metallurgy to gravity to geology to meteorology, that insight and wisdom must be involved. It's not like a spider web or beaver's dam. It's not the product of habit and instinct, but analysis and desire. We *want* the building to stand. We also don't want to be sued for failing to build it right. :lol:

Unless our concern for each other, our concern for our bank accounts, and our quest for understanding are all just meaningless illusions and coincidences, the idea that consciousness isn't a causal agent here seems absolutely ludicrous. A beaver may not know what it is doing or why, it may not care about its success or learning what it would take to make its creation better . . . but this cannot be said for us.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Zarathustra wrote:So if we deny that consciousness is playing a role here--that this is the unique feature that imbues human activity with purpose/teleology--then we have no other recourse to explain why a universe that isn't teleological nonetheless behaves in this way in limited cases that involve beings who just so happen to have illusions "in their heads" that precisely correspond to the idea of consciousness causing this teleological activity.
What a great sentence!
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Zarathustra wrote: I'm sure you've heard about the problem of induction.

and our quest for understanding are all just meaningless illusions and coincidences, the idea that consciousness isn't a causal agent here seems absolutely ludicrous. A beaver may not know what it is doing or why, it may not care about its success or learning what it would take to make its creation better . . . but this cannot be said for us.
Heh...on the first, for one of my early philosophy classes, most of one paper I wrote was in the form of a comic Dialogue between Socrates "George" Carlin and Hume "Mongus" Ego.
I showed that IF H's argument was true, we'd have no reason to believe it, but if it was false we'd have good reasons to think it was true.
[[Prof's end comment roughly "An "A"[[me insert--hee, that's despite all the red ink and corrections, and "really? are you sure? show this" sprayed all over the body]] cuz the arguments were strong for a beginner, but a C on the comedy cuz the audience would be very limited and there was too much set-up for the pay-off's/punchline" And that I'd probably change my mind/arguments if I took more philosophy]].

On the second...yea, but there are a lot of people smarter than either of us arguing it IS illusion. And they have points/evidence that can't be easily/definitively refuted or ignored.

Anyway, do you know the great smokey dragon metaphor for quantum?
Seen different versions, but "The tail is sharp, the head is sharp, but the body is forever hidden in smoke."
I sometimes suspect consciousness is at least analogically similar...and may, possibly, be actually similar or connected/related. It is, or happens in/with/due to the smokey body. [].

Tangent/reference: the guy who came up with it is damn interesting. Here's his wiki page [in case you don't already know about him, which you might.]:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Arch ... and_legacy
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Wow awesome

.. the illusory illusion of consciousness .. its not all its cracked up to be ;)
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Esmer
Giantfriend
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:18 am
Location: Infinity
Contact:

Post by Esmer »

Skyweir wrote:Wow awesome

.. the illusory illusion of consciousness .. its not all its cracked up to be ;)
Quacks Like A Duck wrote:it's still an omelette
even God must bend the knee
to the tyrant of eternity
having always been, to always have to be
Post Reply

Return to “The Loresraat”