Pleasure and Joy

[genkaus]

I think in the case of colors, that's exactly how it would work. But when it comes to things like recognizing animals and playing 20 questions (my personal standard for AI), I'm not sure how you could do that. Hmmmmm.

I think that for an AI the desired behavior would not be recognition but concept formation.

In your example, the AI would have preset categories of different colors - red, blue, yellow etc. and it would simply match the given input to the color. Take this a step further - with preset categories of physical structure, behavior, DNA etc. and you have something capable of identifying animals. The the AI isn't 'learning' anything here. That would require the capacity to create those categories based on the input. If after being shown different inputs, it can identify different traits (color, shape, texture, sound) and if it can then categorize them independently from the input, then that would be a better indicator of intelligence.

Intuitively, I would imagine that the closer you could come to simulating brain function, the most efficiently the system would be able to learn (and retain learning) in a complex environment. After that, you'd drop the physical constraints of humanity, and end up with something smarter than all humans.

But back to the philosophy-- even if I could program a computer to learn as humans do, and output responses with the same degree of predictability/inpredictability for any context, I'm still not confident that it would really be exeriencing the redness of an apple as redness.

I have thought of a way in which I might be convinced, though. If you could map the output of such a device TO the human brain, and end up with an extended awareness, then that could be a start.

While there is no such device yet, the experimental premise you've laid out can answer your other question - about the nature of human experience. Now, if there was such a device that could 'connect' your brain to another person's brain, then - if there is any shared experience - then that should establish that experience is a brain function and it is possible for another person's experience to be directly accessible to you, correct?

---

Genkaus's arguement in summary:

I am sentient and engage in certain behaviors.
Other is behaving in a certain way.
Thus Other is sentient.

or

I am human and can run.
Fido can run.
Thus Fido is human.

You missed a line in both.

I am sentient and engage in certain behaviors.
I find that sentience is necessary for those behaviors.
Other is behaving in the same certain way.
Thus Other is sentient.

or

I am human and can run.
I find that being human is necessary to run.
Fido can run.
Thus Fido is human.

[bennyboy]

While there is no such device yet, the experimental premise you've laid out can answer your other question - about the nature of human experience. Now, if there was such a device that could 'connect' your brain to another person's brain, then - if there is any shared experience - then that should establish that experience is a brain function and it is possible for another person's experience to be directly accessible to you, correct?

It would be a step in that direction, particular if you could connect/disconnect to a person at random and experience what they experience.

However, I think even now it's not disputed that the content of experience is mediated by the brain. You'd have to take a strong solipsistic or idealistic position not to accept that drugs affect both experience and behavior. I personally think that we will eventually be able to augment the brain with hardware that interfaces it.

The issue, though, is the ontology of qualia at all, regardless of the physical mechanism underlying it. In the experience, billions of pieces of data are processed in parallel. Some of that processing must be self-referential in the way that you claim "is" experience. However, the various processes of sight and sound are unified into a single complex of experiences, related to each other in an apparent individual agency.

Given that there is no organ of the brain responsible for this assembly, then why does a person have a single conscious stream? Where is that canvas, or agent, or unifying principle that allows ideas to share the same mental space?

[Neo-Scholastic]

You missed a line...

I am human and can run.
I find that being human is necessary to run.
Fido can run.
Thus Fido is human.

Except Fido is a dog.

The proposition that certain behaviors require sentience is an unsupported claim anyway.

---

...why does a person have a single conscious stream? Where is that canvas, or agent, or unifying principle that allows ideas to share the same mental space?

Upon further introspection you may discover multiple streams of awareness within you. The little voice is one among many. The other include, visual imagination, intuitive awareness, emotion, and the various sense channels. Because they act simultaneously you may think they act in unison. That is not always the case.

[genkaus]

It would be a step in that direction, particular if you could connect/disconnect to a person at random and experience what they experience.

Then you should look up the example of Craniopagus twins.

However, I think even now it's not disputed that the content of experience is mediated by the brain. You'd have to take a strong solipsistic or idealistic position not to accept that drugs affect both experience and behavior. I personally think that we will eventually be able to augment the brain with hardware that interfaces it.

Isn't that what we are disputing right here? Whether the content of experience is mediated by the brain or generated by it.

The issue, though, is the ontology of qualia at all, regardless of the physical mechanism underlying it. In the experience, billions of pieces of data are processed in parallel. Some of that processing must be self-referential in the way that you claim "is" experience. However, the various processes of sight and sound are unified into a single complex of experiences, related to each other in an apparent individual agency.

Its not that surprising when you think about it. Even in a simple computer application, multiple processes are going on in parallel under the surface, but on the user end, they appear quite unified.

Given that there is no organ of the brain responsible for this assembly, then why does a person have a single conscious stream? Where is that canvas, or agent, or unifying principle that allows ideas to share the same mental space?

That's where neuroscience comes in. We don' know yet that there isn't a specific section of brain responsible for this assembly. In fact, current studies suggest there may not be a single unifying principle. Different sections of brains may be responsible for joining different data-streams and yet other sections for joining those combined streams and so on and on.

---

Except Fido is a dog.

That's because my statement "being human is necessary to run" is provable incorrect. That is not the case with experience.

The proposition that certain behaviors require sentience is an unsupported claim anyway.

Then how do you address the 14 pages worth of support I've provided for it?

[bennyboy]

Its not that surprising when you think about it. Even in a simple computer application, multiple processes are going on in parallel under the surface, but on the user end, they appear quite unified.

Yes, but it is the conscious mind which imposes that sense of unity on the various pixels flashing on and off. There's a 3rd party involved. However, you cannot find a central physical entity in the brain which coordinates the various inputs into a unified whole. (again so far as I know)

That's where neuroscience comes in. We don' know yet that there isn't a specific section of brain responsible for this assembly. In fact, current studies suggest there may not be a single unifying principle. Different sections of brains may be responsible for joining different data-streams and yet other sections for joining those combined streams and so on and on.

That's what I'm talking about. So far as I know, there is one stream of consciousness, with various sense impressions and abstract ideas being coordinated within that one stream. That is how I experience my mind. I recognize that different parts of the brain bring in visual memory, current touch sensations, and chunk them into symbols that I can work with. I don't have a problem with that.

But where is this mental "space" on which all these projections end up being experienced? Just saying it's in the brain doesn't really do much, because it is that unified mental screen which defines my experience of my mind, and it is the one component which they can't find.

Let me put it this way. How do you know that if you remove ALL those sensory symbols, you don't still have a kind of content-less mind? Why not? If you remove all objects from space, you'd still have space right? Or would you?

[genkaus]

Yes, but it is the conscious mind which imposes that sense of unity on the various pixels flashing on and off. There's a 3rd party involved. However, you cannot find a central physical entity in the brain which coordinates the various inputs into a unified whole. (again so far as I know)

And why can't it impose that same sense of unity on itself?

That's what I'm talking about. So far as I know, there is one stream of consciousness, with various sense impressions and abstract ideas being coordinated within that one stream. That is how I experience my mind. I recognize that different parts of the brain bring in visual memory, current touch sensations, and chunk them into symbols that I can work with. I don't have a problem with that.

But where is this mental "space" on which all these projections end up being experienced? Just saying it's in the brain doesn't really do much, because it is that unified mental screen which defines my experience of my mind, and it is the one component which they can't find.

Let me put it this way. How do you know that if you remove ALL those sensory symbols, you don't still have a kind of content-less mind? Why not? If you remove all objects from space, you'd still have space right? Or would you?

That's my point - what you regard as a unified stream of consciousness may not be that. In fact, current studies would suggest there are multiple mental screens on which these projections end up being experienced and the illusion of unity is the result of only one being in the forefront at a time.

Consider, for example, ventriloquism. The reason why it works - the reason why you believe that the doll is talking instead of the person - is because your visual experience holds primacy over the auditory one. Your vision gives you the data that the doll's mouth is moving - not the man's and your auditory information is automatically corrected to match it as a result.

Or consider a simpler and more universal example - daydreaming in class. Your imagination stream of consciousness takes the fore-front. Your eyes are open, your ears are open, you are taking in all the information coming in - but you are not experiencing it. If, at that moment, the question was asked "what did X say?" you won't be able to answer it, not because of memory issue, but because you didn't experience it. As soon as the teacher notices you and starts walking towards you, your self-preservation instinct kicks in and pushes the sensory-stream of consciousness into focus. However, since all throughout this, only one 'canvas' of experience is apparent, you get the mistaken impression that there is only one stream of consciousness into which all the others converge. While the simpler answer would be that there are multiple streams simultaneously going on and your brain switches priority based on input.

[downbeatplumb]

[Harris]

Before starting my responses, I would like to make an apology for the delay in replying. I am really enjoying having discussions with you guys.

Thank you all for your kind attention.

Faith is a convenient excuse for intellectual laziness or incapacity. Believing in something is not the same as having faith - especially if that belief is justified. Your personal interests are molded according to your understanding of the world - so your simplistic statement interests molding the understanding is not only wrong, its foolish. This applies to phenomenological concepts as well - which are well within range of scientific inquiry. As a matter of fact, the science that studies them is referred to as psychology.

Psychology deals with human behaviourism. It only deals with hard facts, means it can’t answer why we have phenomenal experiences and what in fact are those. Factually, science can’t explicate anything which transcends the boundaries of matter.

As for faith, check this quote:

Quote
Faith cannot be solely analysed as something negative, irrational or as Camus would picture it, compared to a blind leap onwards. Faith, according to German philosopher should be always engaged from the standpoint in which it is strictly related to human knowledge.

Second argument raised by Jaspers is that faith should not be analysed from subject-object division. If phenomenons of existence are looked upon on basis of these two categories, the problem of transcendence in regard to the human desire for totality becomes impossible to achieve. The transcendent being, according to Jaspers cannot be understood in such manner, making space for one of the most interesting concepts of Jaspers’ philosophy – das Umgreifende – encompassing. The understanding of the transcendent as encompassing allows to look upon it without treating the transcendence as the object of human endeavour. The encompassing is, from what we start and towards which we proceed in our existence without dogmatizing the lively human thought. The encompassing is founded both on the existence – as the external world of phenomena and the internal world of experience, on the consciousness relating to the object of perception and in spirit as the idea inside me and the idea i am confronted with. …

…Faith, reaching towards the encompassing must be done in full awareness of freedom, granting an open status of the existence, not allowing the individual to withdraw towards establishing a permanent feeling of understanding or objectifying the transcendent. The only way towards such belief leads through philosophical standpoints, founded on Kantian critique and existential understanding of human condition. THIS MEANS THAT THE PARTICIPATION IN TRANSCENDENCE CANNOT BE APPROACHED WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE NATURAL PHENOMENOLOGICAL ASPECT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND REASONING.

Page 343
Essay by Maciej Kałuza
Transcendental in Philosophy of Faith (paper)
Transcendentalism Overturned (book)

More bullshit. We define what constitutes "running systematically" based on how the universe runs. Saying that the universe runs "systematically" is tautological. Further, the universe is not an agent - so the question of controlling anything and anyone is foolish. As to its cause - we do not even know if there can be a cause - so quranic speculations on its existence and nature are also bullshit.

You are wrong in stating, “As to its cause - we do not even know if there can be a cause”. We have firm evidences on philosophical and scientific grounds that Universe has a Cause. What was that cause? It’s a different area of discourse.

Do you have any scientific proof in support of your statement “UNIVERSE IS NOT AN AGENT” or is it only your opinion?

So I'm guessing you must have proven each and every one of errors and contradictions presented to be wrong and the website hosting them must have realized the error of their ways and taken them down? No? Then you are simply blinding yourself to the unnatural parts of the quran - and therefore, blind faith.

Without knowing Quran, you can’t distinguish between right and wrong. None of Atheist scholars (including staunchest of all Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, etc.) is using any of those false allegations to prove Quran to be wrong in their debates (especially with the Muslim Scholars) neither have they mentioned any of those allegations in their writings.

All non-Muslim scholars discern exactly why those false accusations are floating over the net. The purpose of these web sites is only to spread misconceptions about Quran. It is something similar to the spreading of wrong meaning of Jihaad (to strive) by replacing it with the meaning (Holy War against non-Muslims). Word for war in Arabic is Qitaal.

[paulpablo]

Harris.

Most biologists also disagree that genes of apes can be developed through evolutionary route into human genes,

Human genes developing into ape genes makes no sense.
It's the same as saying biologists disagree that felines can be developed into cats, cats are felines.
Biologists classify humans as apes, great apes (hominidae) The family also includes chimpanzees and gorillas. Human genes are the genes of apes.

Harris.

Web is full of such controversies.

The web is full of controversies that giants exist, this point is irrelevant.

Harris.

Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad were intended to humiliate Islam based on hatred and Jealousy. There was no literary contention behind that act.

This is another irrelevant point.
Harris

They are well aware about their audiences in Muslim world who are around 2 billion in numbers.

This is a relevant point which supports my argument, why would the BBC one of the most politically correct tv stations look at the political climate, muslims murdering cartoonists, book publishers and other people in the media then come to the conclusion that they should commission a program which intentionally tries to debunk the quran. Also being aware of how many muslims are in the audience?

Harris

Now Quran claims it is a Divine Word. It built its case based on the claim that it has no discrepancies and holds this claim for last 1400 years. So far, no one was able to challenge this claim but if someday someone will

Again people have challenged this but no one seems to know what the quran actually says and the people who do disagree on what it says.

Harris

You truly said there are many things in Quran, which seems to be ambiguous. Those things are ambiguous because we have not yet reached to the level of understanding based on our acquired knowledge.

No there are many ambiguous statements in the quran that are ambiguous because of the definition of the words they use.

Here is one example.

And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember (the Grace of Allah).

I've heard muslims say this verse is talking about electrons, and talking about pairs of sexual mates which they insist do all come in pairs.

This verse is giving no information. If I worked as a top scientist and one day I came into work and said to my colleges who were other respectable scientists. "Everything is created in pairs so that we be mindful" it wouldn't be a breakthrough, it's not a revelation. No one can prove it wrong or right or do any testable experiments on it because it isn't specific enough information.

Harris

A group of Muslims had presented this verse along with other similar verses to Dr. Keith Moore. Dr. Keith Moore is an eminent embryologist in the University of Toronto

Wikipedia.

In 2002, Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that "it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an."

I assume he's actually embarrased about the work he did with the quran. Even in the interviews I've seen he did not say he converted to Islam. I could be wrong though.

Again this is a perfect example of a verse which is ambiguous, when PZ myers was interviewed by muslims who told him the quran says specifically the bones come first then the flesh he said it was incorrect because the bones and the flesh form simultaneously, to which the muslims responded by saying the words in the quran could also be taken to mean the bones and the flesh form simultaneously.

So again if muslims haven't agreed even in their own minds as to what the quran means then it can't be proven right or wrong, you need to first know what a book actually says before it can be proven right or wrong.

Harris

Does man (a disbeliever) think that We shall not assemble his bones?
Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.
Al Qiyaamah (75)
-Verses 3 & 4-

Above verses are talking about disbelievers’ distrust in the resurrection. Sir Frances Gold in 1880 had discovered that prints on our fingertips are not identical with the prints of another person even in million people

So what? You have just done exactly what I said is illogical about the way muslims look at verses of the quran.
You have took a verse which is saying god will be able to put every part of a mans body back together including the finger tips.
It is totally illogical and conjecture to think this is talking about unique fingerprints.
No where in the verse does it mention finger prints being unique.
If finger prints weren't identical it wouldn't make the verse false therefore the verse is not actually providing information that can be proved true or false.
I genuinely hope you will at least try to understand the point I'm trying to get across to you here.
I'm not saying it's definitely all bullshit, I'm saying from what I've seen it isn't valid information that can be proved true or false to any serious degree at all.


I just needed to repost this in order to have some chance of you replying to it.

---

The purpose of these web sites is only to spread misconceptions about Quran. It is something similar to the spreading of wrong meaning of Jihaad (to strive) by replacing it with the meaning (Holy War against non-Muslims). Word for war in Arabic is Qitaal.

Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.
Muhsin Khan
Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.
Pickthall
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
Yusuf Ali
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
Shakir
Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.
Dr. Ghali
Prescribed for you is fighting, and you have a hatred for it; and it may be that you hate a thing, while (Literally: and) it is most charitable for you; and it may be that you love a thing while (Literally: and) it is evil for you; and Allah knows and you do not know.

These are quotes from the website simply titled the noble quran, according to you every single translation is wrong?

[Harris]