Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intell...
May 21, 2014 at 12:43 am (This post was last modified: May 21, 2014 at 12:47 am by Rampant.A.I..)
(May 21, 2014 at 12:34 am)bennyboy Wrote:
(May 20, 2014 at 10:55 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Probably because your question makes no sense.
Consciousness is an evolved mechanism of problem solving for survival.
No. The brain is an evolved mechanism of problem solving for survival. It takes in physical input, processes it through an algorithm, and outputs behaviors. You haven't explained why it is necessary for a person's brain to ACTUALLY experience its environment as a sentient agent, rather than just processing its inputs and dutifully outputting its behaviors.
On the contrary, as many animals display the same sort if consciousness, you haven't explained why it's unnecessary, nor why evolutionary psychology is highly accurate at explaining behavior.
Simply, you are arguing that less complex algorithms are better adaptations to the environment than more complex abstract thought.
You're still working off the idea that all nonhuman animals are not conscious, and are mere automatons, a 17th century view you've been informed is not accurate, and yet you continue to strawman with it.
Quote:The adaptationist approach is steadily increasing as an influence in the general field of psychology.[2][3]
Evolutionary psychologists suggest that EP is not simply a subdiscipline of psychology but that evolutionary theory can provide a foundational, metatheoretical framework that integrates the entire field of psychology, in the same way it has for biology.[4][5][6]
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 21, 2014 at 2:27 am
(May 21, 2014 at 12:43 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: On the contrary, as many animals display the same sort if consciousness, you haven't explained why it's unnecessary, nor why evolutionary psychology is highly accurate at explaining behavior.
Simply, you are arguing that less complex algorithms are better adaptations to the environment
I don't think you're on the same page as me with regard to how the term consciousness is being used. I'm talking about the existence, rather than the non-existence of qualia.
Given that qualia are only the subjective awareness of the "algorithms" you're talking about, the elephant in the room isn't about comparative bioligy-- it's about why qualia exist rather than not-- since there's no good reason a brain (or any other machine) couldn't process any amount of information without having subjective experience about it.
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 21, 2014 at 4:22 am (This post was last modified: May 21, 2014 at 4:31 am by Hegel.)
(May 19, 2014 at 5:45 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I guess we both agree that the theory needs to mature a bit more until it's to be taken seriously... so I'll reply only to a few things.
Ok. Let me just try to clarify where I think we disagree and agree.
We certainly agree there is not enough evidence for the theory; it might be false, but it also might be (in principle) true.
But we seem to disagree at least on couple of crucial things.
1) You give much lower subjective prob. value on the possibility that the theory might turn out to be true than I do.
2) You think the theory is not "mature enough" (even if you don't really understand it, as you admit) where I think it is really no better nor worse than its alternatives.
3)You think its should not be taken "seriously" (first you ridiculed it openly, now you seem to have slightly more moderate attitude), whereas I think it should.
Now, my point was and is and has been and will be simply and only this: in such a situation as we are with consciousness, its genuine mystery (not some pseud-mystery like astrology), it is un-ethical not to take all options that make sense (and Orc OR certainly makes sense, however miserable the evidence for it were) seriously.
As we're dealing with real mystery, none of the competing theories have real evidence, and practically everyone working on the field agree at least on this point.
In such situation the recourse to "intuitions" or "common sense" is really only an euphemism for dogmi; if no-one takes a theory seriously (and when you ridicule it, you aim precisely at that), it will not be researched; but when a theory might really, even if it is not seen as the most probable one, be true, this would be bad option; thus, one must encourage also the research of those theories, which one finds less attractive which is to say, take them seriously. a circle: there is no evidence for T, and because there is no evidence, it is not seriuos, and as it is not serious, no evidence should be searched for it, and as no evidence is searched, if T is correct, that will never be found out.
=A bad outcome.
Quote:I even once had to solve it for a Hydrogen atom... yeah, every grad student's dream!
I don't know how to build up S's equation for complex systems (and the Penrose model deals with quantum gravity which I understand nothing on mathematical level and I guess he gives some sort of geometrical form to the equation) ... but it can be done as you know.
Anyway, the major evidence for the theory is precisely that the original major counter-argument of Tegmark by which it was debunked in 90's based of decohenrence for the theory has turned out to be false. That is proves that the theory does make sense in the light of current understanding of physics.
Quote:
(May 19, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Hegel Wrote: inductionist fallscy. (And you have no idea what that means)
No, and I don't care.
Well, its a real epistemological fallacy. Not rocket science, but it's easy to make mistakes on these things.
Quote:Just because the man is smart, doesn't mean he's correct.
That's right. As I said, I do not believe his gödelian argument is correct. Yet, I find it, again, a matter of ethics that I grant him the chace of possibly correcting my criticism, if there is some blind spot in it, etc.
Quote:Like I said on day one, he's biased.
Might be the case, but don't forget that so are coputer-scientists, who love the idea of hard AI, neuro-physiologists, who have faith in the "weteware", etc. Everyone is "biased" on the field.
Quote:He may be correct, to some extent... But the theory is not tested enough to become the mainstream notion.
Now, I think we have reached the point at which we have some sort of understanding what we disagree on.
But I would like to make a question: which one of the mainstream theories (soft AI is, I guess the most mainstream) then has some "real evidence" and what that evidence is?
That something is "mainstream" does not mean it does not have burden of proof. I asked Cato this question, but he did not answer. So, are you accusing me of "creationism" because of this skepticism? I think that's a false accusation: right accusation would be: I am like a lamarcist, for I am not some dualist denying that brains and neurons &c are extremely crucial. That would be like creationism! But lamarcism ... that was like "there might be more to it than you darwinists (although Darwin himself was a lamarcist) think", and that's also my position with the "orthodox" neuro-cognitive theories (as corresponded with darwinism). And how is happening to Lamarcism? That seems to be a happy ending now. But for decades ... it was according to the mainstream "non-sense", "falsified", etc.
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 21, 2014 at 5:10 am
(May 21, 2014 at 4:22 am)Hegel Wrote:
(May 19, 2014 at 5:45 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I guess we both agree that the theory needs to mature a bit more until it's to be taken seriously... so I'll reply only to a few things.
Ok. Let me just try to clarify where I think we disagree and agree.
We certainly agree there is not enough evidence for the theory; it might be false, but it also might be (in principle) true.
But we seem to disagree at least on couple of crucial things.
1) You give much lower subjective prob. value on the possibility that the theory might turn out to be true than I do.
2) You think the theory is not "mature enough" (even if you don't really understand it, as you admit) where I think it is really no better nor worse than its alternatives.
3)You think its should not be taken "seriously" (first you ridiculed it openly, now you seem to have slightly more moderate attitude), whereas I think it should.
Now, my point was and is and has been and will be simply and only this: in such a situation as we are with consciousness, its genuine mystery (not some pseud-mystery like astrology), it is un-ethical not to take all options that make sense (and Orc OR certainly makes sense, however miserable the evidence for it were) seriously.
As we're dealing with real mystery, none of the competing theories have real evidence, and practically everyone working on the field agree at least on this point.
In such situation the recourse to "intuitions" or "common sense" is really only an euphemism for dogmi; if no-one takes a theory seriously (and when you ridicule it, you aim precisely at that), it will not be researched; but when a theory might really, even if it is not seen as the most probable one, be true, this would be bad option; thus, one must encourage also the research of those theories, which one finds less attractive which is to say, take them seriously. a circle: there is no evidence for T, and because there is no evidence, it is not seriuos, and as it is not serious, no evidence should be searched for it, and as no evidence is searched, if T is correct, that will never be found out.
=A bad outcome.
Quote:I even once had to solve it for a Hydrogen atom... yeah, every grad student's dream!
I don't know how to build up S's equation for complex systems (and the Penrose model deals with quantum gravity which I understand nothing on mathematical level and I guess he gives some sort of geometrical form to the equation) ... but it can be done as you know.
Anyway, the major evidence for the theory is precisely that the original major counter-argument of Tegmark by which it was debunked in 90's based of decohenrence for the theory has turned out to be false. That is proves that the theory does make sense in the light of current understanding of physics.
Quote:No, and I don't care.
Well, its a real epistemological fallacy. Not rocket science, but it's easy to make mistakes on these things.
Quote:Just because the man is smart, doesn't mean he's correct.
That's right. As I said, I do not believe his gödelian argument is correct. Yet, I find it, again, a matter of ethics that I grant him the chace of possibly correcting my criticism, if there is some blind spot in it, etc.
Quote:Like I said on day one, he's biased.
Might be the case, but don't forget that so are coputer-scientists, who love the idea of hard AI, neuro-physiologists, who have faith in the "weteware", etc. Everyone is "biased" on the field.
Quote:He may be correct, to some extent... But the theory is not tested enough to become the mainstream notion.
Now, I think we have reached the point at which we have some sort of understanding what we disagree on.
But I would like to make a question: which one of the mainstream theories (soft AI is, I guess the most mainstream) then has some "real evidence" and what that evidence is?
That something is "mainstream" does not mean it does not have burden of proof. I asked Cato this question, but he did not answer. So, are you accusing me of "creationism" because of this skepticism? I think that's a false accusation: right accusation would be: I am like a lamarcist, for I am not some dualist denying that brains and neurons &c are extremely crucial. That would be like creationism! But lamarcism ... that was like "there might be more to it than you darwinists (although Darwin himself was a lamarcist) think", and that's also my position with the "orthodox" neuro-cognitive theories (as corresponded with darwinism). And how is happening to Lamarcism? That seems to be a happy ending now. But for decades ... it was according to the mainstream "non-sense", "falsified", etc.
I sure hope some theory does get on with evidence for it...
The trouble is accounting for everything consciousness, or self-awareness, seems to be dependent on a few structures in the brain, macroscopic structures, as evidenced by the changes in personality (could we say personality is related to self-awareness?) brought upon by damage, or absence of these structures.
Sure, one could argue that a single neuron (and its microtubules) is the one responsible for that change, not the whole missing structure, but then, what was all that matter doing?
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 21, 2014 at 11:21 am (This post was last modified: May 21, 2014 at 11:26 am by Chas.)
(May 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:
(May 20, 2014 at 11:32 am)Chas Wrote: You did not source your quote. You're not very good at this, are you.
He follows that statement, according to this blog, with:
So, his opinion is not based on evidence. He has no proof, he cites no proof. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.
His opinion is based on studies like those I mentioned earlier. The full quote only reinforces mery statement. After psi researchese have found positive results and satisfied the strict protocols required by skeptics, the skeptics like Wiseman raise the bar after the fact. Science is supposed to be objective. When you insert a very subjective judgment into the process, like calling some things ordinary and others extraordinary, then you lose all credibility as a neutral experimenter. It injects bias.
No, his opinion is that it is true by his opinion of the standards of other sciences.
He states that there is insufficient evidence for the claims.
(May 20, 2014 at 7:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote:
(May 20, 2014 at 10:00 am)Chas Wrote: I have no problem whatsoever with the universe ticking along without any conscious beings, and I don't accept any kind of universal consciousness as no credible mechanism has ever been proposed.
I'm sure that a credible mechanism has never been proposed for the experience of qualia at all. There's a lot of narrative about how useful awareness is to an evolving species, etc., but that's just a two-step, because it's not the kind of causation that people are interested in.
We experience consciousness/qualia, therefore we are sure that it exists - we don't need to know a mechanism for that.
Quote:
Quote:I definitely view consciousness/mind as emergent from brain, with the definition of 'brain' being either wetware or hardware. Therefore, I don't discount the possibility of strong AI.
I think it's clear that the brain is very important to human consciousness. But there are some aspects of the brain which are unique only to brians, and some which are much more universal. The particular chemistry of the brian may be unique in all the universe, for example. However, the ability to receive and process photons is intrinsic to all matter-- on some level.
Yes, consciousness may require a biological brain, or maybe not.
But I don't care for your use of the term 'process' in that sentence. What do you mean by it?
(May 20, 2014 at 9:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The one question materialists never answer is this: "What does consciousness actually do?"
And what is your answer?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?
May 21, 2014 at 1:18 pm (This post was last modified: May 21, 2014 at 1:19 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
What a silly question. Santa Claus and his magical elves sneak into your bedroom every night, and fill your brain with consciousness that lasts until tomorrow night, allowing the body/vessel/consciousness to engage in magical thinking, and conclude that brain activity ceasing with brain death must necessarily mean the mind flys away in an invisible rocket ship to orbit Pluto and obtain immortality.
(May 21, 2014 at 12:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:
(May 21, 2014 at 11:58 am)Cato Wrote: Discriminates stimuli, reports information, monitors internal states, directs behavior and experiences the aforementioned.
Really? Where in the chain of physical causes does consciousness insert itself? What gap does awareness, as awareness, fill?
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?
May 21, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Not quite...you don't know therefore you have nothing that supports your conviction that mind is an emergent property. In fact, you don't know because your materialist theories are incoherent promissory notes.
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 21, 2014 at 2:27 pm
(May 21, 2014 at 1:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Not quite...you don't know therefore you have nothing that supports your conviction that mind is an emergent property. In fact, you don't know because your materialist theories are incoherent promissory notes.
So you are justified in just making some shit up and saying you're right.
OK, got it.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
