What is thinking? [Archive]

Jyera

30th November 2004, 07:57 PM

Recalling, Analysing, imagining are all categorised as thinking by the dictionary.

One common quote "I thinkth therefore I am".
Suggests that thinking is associated with consciousness, being alive and also having free will. Whether this is accurate, is another matter. The point is having freewill and freedom of original thought is desired in general. At least desired by me.

I watched BBC series about "The Brain Story" hosted by Susan Greenfield. They questioned if we have freedom of thought.

We seems to be bound by our brains, which receives most of the input from external sources.

Something that is recalled from our mind, seems to me, a passive process. It is not original. We cannot control it, it depends on the input. We do not want to control it to preserve the integrity of an input for recollection. Eg. We see some picture of a house and retain it.
Although the input could be controlled by us. But most often than not, it is heavily influnence by external sources. Ads, TV, other's opinion, and bad or good personal experience not planned by us.

Therefore it seems that the saving grace to our freedom of thought lies in imagination. Where things can be "created".

But there is still a question whether a person (eg. new born baby) can imagine a ficticious house without knowledge what a house is or how it looked liked.

It seemed impossible to imagine a ficticious house, (not to recall a house), if the baby do not know what a house is and have not seen or heard about a house. Which implied that imagination can only happen with a foundation of recallable stuffs (images or thought. )

And the logic seems to imply the "contradictory" and unfavourable conclusion that we do not have freedom of thoughts and do not have freewill.

Jyera

30th November 2004, 08:13 PM

1. On why I use TRUE.
If we just do recalling and do not imagine we'll be just like a robot or Zombie, we do not exists.
It give us no freedom.
TRUE think ought to give us freedom of thought and freewill.
If you could think of a a better word than TRUE.

2. On implying recalling as not thinking.
Sometimes in a simple chess game, where the young child simply mimic a move out of memory. ( the instructor made the silly opening move previously to test the child) And we gets comments like...

"Why do you make such a foolish chess move? I can capture if you move it there you. Why are'nt you thinking?"

Which implies thinking have to be more that just simple recalling.
And it seems "wrong" to retort that recalling is indeed thinking.

JAK

14th December 2004, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
...

Which implies thinking have to be more that just simple recalling.
And it seems "wrong" to retort that recalling is indeed thinking.
It may seem “wrong” to consider recalling as thinking, but you would be hard-pressed to separate it from thinking. (For more on recall, see O.G. Selfridge’s 1959 Pandemonium model or, more recently, Dominic Masaro’s Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception – FLMP.)

Nevertheless, recalling and imagination are quite different forms of thinking. The former is a “matching” process – matching sensory input to stored memory patterns. The latter is a constructive process of taking stored memory patterns and mixing/integrating them in new and unusual ways. For instance, you can take the image of a pencil sharpener and integrate it with the image of a cup of coffee. The slot where the pencil goes suddenly becomes the bowl to fill with coffee. Or you could attach a cup handle onto the pencil sharpener. Either way, something emerges which you may have never considered before.

Even so, the creative process I used is a learned technique. I happen to have a pencil sharpener nearby, and I just opened a Reader’s Digest randomly. By happenstance, I opened it to an advertisement showing a man in pajamas bending down to pick up a newspaper with one hand while holding a coffee cup with the other. I selected the coffee cup but could easily have selected his pajamas. In that case, I would have created little pajamas for my pencil sharpener. (Hey, this might turn into a cottage industry.)

The point is that even creativity has experience and knowledge tied into it. To try and separate the ultimate “free will” or “this is uniquely me” thinking from mundane thoughts is fraught with peril.

As you walk through life gathering thoughts and experiences – as well as adapting and creating – you are becoming a unique you, a unique thinker. In fact, part of your uniqueness stems from what you do with the images you fetch from memory – creativity and imagination.

Still ... what you do with those memories (the creative process) has a lot to do with your experiences with others and with the environment.

Why is it important for you to clarify this issue? Are you searching for uniqueness? Or something else?

woodguard

25th December 2004, 04:57 PM

A computer can do all of these things, in one way or another.
But it is not thinking.

Want do you call the operator, the one who decides to do these things, the thinker?

Is thinking and processing data the same thing?

JAK

27th December 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by woodguard
A computer can do all of these things, in one way or another.
But it is not thinking.

Want do you call the operator, the one who decides to do these things, the thinker?

Is thinking and processing data the same thing?
You are correct that "the one who decides" is critical and separates us from the computer. Basically, this is what humanist psychologists call "values" and proposed by Abraham Maslow almost half a century ago. It is also what Wilder Penfield uncovered in the late 1940s with his experiments with live and awake humans with their brains exposed. When he touched points on the cortex, the patients recalled a specific memory. Further, they recalled the emotion(s) tied to the experience in the memory.

It is by tying a "value" to a memory that allows us to make a decision through competing that memory with other memories. The memory/idea of highest "value" becomes dominant and controls behavior. This appears to occur in the nucleus reticulus thalami (nRt) - see Bernard J. Baars and James Newman.

Tying a dynamic, adjustable value to any piece memory is not presently available with computer technology. When it is, we may need to change our attitudes toward computers (or refer to them differently).

Jyera

27th December 2004, 10:00 PM

Hi JAK,

Firstly thanks for your contribution.
But I would like to apologise for not replying soon.
I'm not trying to be rude by ignoring, but I'm really quite confused by myself about what to reply. Especially "Why is it important for you to clarify this issue?".

I do not know why is it important, but to put it simply, I have been constantly interested to know how the brain works and how we think. To know the truth about what is thinking appealed to me. And thus I think it is "important" to me.

After knowing the truth, I had to deal with the implication of the truth. Eg. Some info implied "no Freewill", while other "evidence/experience/logic" implied there is such thing as freewill. Thus it is confusing to me. And I suppose the lack of freewill unsettles me quite a bit. I suppose it is important for me to sort it out.

Thirdly it seemed to me there are some language/communication problem. Eg. what does thinking means to everyone? Different people have different meaning to "thinking". Some even implied recalling is not thinking. I suppose, it is important for me to settle the generic "language/communication" problem.

Jyera

27th December 2004, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by woodguard
A computer can do all of these things, in one way or another.
But it is not thinking.

Want do you call the operator, the one who decides to do these things, the thinker?

Is thinking and processing data the same thing?

A computer can "recall" a piece of information or data.
Since recalling is thinking, according to the dictionary definition, then the computer can think. But everyone else would mock such deduction.

A computer can do a logical thinking based on the logic provided by a programmer. Just as I'm able to do logical thinking if the same programmer taught me how to do it. I would declared I did some thinking. Then why do we not refer to the computer as thinking?

JAK

28th December 2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Jyera
...
I'm really quite confused by myself about what to reply. Especially "Why is it important for you to clarify this issue?".

I do not know why is it important, but to put it simply, I have been constantly interested to know how the brain works and how we think. To know the truth about what is thinking appealed to me. And thus I think it is "important" to me.
...

I could produce significant theoretical and factual support about our need to learn and gain knowledge. But it is very general and does not speak to the specific yearnings of each individual. Just knowing and feeling that ".. it is 'important' to me" is reason enough to follow your sojourn. Much work has been done in the field, and I have encapsulated on my website what I consider many of the most compelling ideas of other researchers and theorists. Because the ideas integrate with each other, they satisfy the Coherence Theory of Truth, or at least they satisfy the spirit of it. If you are looking for a starting point, my website is one place to try.

Originally posted by Jyera
...
After knowing the truth, I had to deal with the implication of the truth. Eg. Some info implied "no Freewill", while other "evidence/experience/logic" implied there is such thing as freewill. Thus it is confusing to me. And I suppose the lack of freewill unsettles me quite a bit. I suppose it is important for me to sort it out.
...

Sorting out "free will" takes you into very muddy waters. One classic murky area is your internal bodily systems. Can you choose to increase your blood pulse? Can you choose to digest only proteins and no fats? Can you choose to hold your breathe for 30 minutes? All of these reveal our inherent functions of life which operate seemingly without our direct thought or act of "free will." In many ways, we are victims of "who we are" - not masters of "who we are."

Similarly, when you walk, do you command each muscle? each neuron? How do you select nouns and verbs in a sentence? Are your choices of your volition? Or are they the products of your genetic background, your upbringing, your culture, and the sum of your life experiences?

Personally, I accept that I am part of the universe. I affect it, and it affects me. I am unique, and the expression of my uniqueness is as close to "free will" as I wish to explore. You have chosen a difficult question. Perhaps you will succeed in finding a clear answer where I have failed.

Originally posted by Jyera
...
Thirdly it seemed to me there are some language/communication problem. Eg. what does thinking means to everyone? Different people have different meaning to "thinking". Some even implied recalling is not thinking. I suppose, it is important for me to settle the generic "language/communication" problem.

In most disagreements, I have found that almost always the understanding of the terms is either unclear or not agreed upon. It is my preference to try and start with simple terms and define them. Unfortunately, this can be tedious and time consuming. As such, it is not commonly done in a forum.

Clear, effective knowledge is always worth patience and persistence. If you would like to start with some definition of terms, I will be glad to join in your endeavor. Lead the way ...

Originally posted by Jyera
A computer can "recall" a piece of information or data.
Since recalling is thinking, according to the dictionary definition, then the computer can think. But everyone else would mock such deduction.
...
Then why do we not refer to the computer as thinking?
Again, I believe the key difference is in "values." The computer, as a machine does not "want" or "not want." It has no feelings, no aspirations. It is only when feelings and aspirations are introduced into "thinking" do we uncover that special ability only living beings have. Computers do not feel "good" or "bad" - or anything for that matter. Only living beings feel, and it is an itegral part of our thinking.

Jyera

7th January 2005, 12:37 AM

Hi Jak,

I read some articles from your site and found it quite informative.
http://www.theoryofmind.org

What do you intend to do with the knowledge?

JAK

8th January 2005, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
Hi Jak,

I read some articles from your site and found it quite informative.
http://www.theoryofmind.org

What do you intend to do with the knowledge?
The whole theoretical approach points toward the incredible importance of creativity. Creativity is a foundation or a synonym for many terms: innovation, adaptation, problem solving, imagination, artistry. It is the means by which we see relationships and work with them either to enhance our feelings or to overcome obstacles and dangers. Here are a few reasons to enhance creativity:

Creativity is fun.
Creativity allows us to uniquely express ourselves.
Creativity helps us solve problems.
Creativity enhances communication (verbal or written).
Creativity facilitates social interactions.

Ultimately, I can show a hint or more of creativity in virtually everything we do - every moment of our lives. Of course, some actions are only vaguely creative while others are brilliantly creative. Unfortunately, our technological society has produced many, many, "robotic" jobs filled by humans ("Would you like to 'Biggie Size' your order?").

One day, I would love to help someone achieve a new level in robotics. I can provide theoretical assistance and facilitate any group. Even though I started my career as an assembler programmer supporting a "homegrown" mainframe executive, I am lacking in much "hardware" expertise required for robotics.

Anyway, as a result of the theoretical basis, I co-authored a creativity game over 15 years ago. It was a tool to enhance everyone's innate creativity, and it was well received. Unfortunately for me, no one seemed interested in why or how it worked. My partners likened it to inventing a jet airplane. Many people fly in jets every day, but few are interested in how the engines work. Similarly, people loved to play The Creativity Game, but no one cared why it was effective or how it worked. A downturn in the U.S. economy sent my partners and me back to our cushy IT jobs, and The Creativity Game went into hibernation.

Jyera

9th January 2005, 06:19 PM

The Creativity Game you mentioned sounds interesting.

Is it a boardgame or Card game of computer game?

You mentioned creativity to enhance social interaction.
Does your game seeks to improve what people described as EQ?

JAK

10th January 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
The Creativity Game you mentioned sounds interesting.

Is it a boardgame or Card game of computer game?

You mentioned creativity to enhance social interaction.
Does your game seeks to improve what people described as EQ?

It's a card game. Presently, I am rebuilding it as a web game which should be ready within about a month.

The use in social interaction has various aspects. As you play the game, you become adept at seeing more and more relationships. While in a conversation, you can see analogies as well as different viewpoints - including reasonable support for them. The benefit from this is that it tends to soften extreme viewpoints which helps people become more flexible in working relationships and social interactions. In fact, it strongly supports team efforts - especially for planning and problem solving. But the list of uses in social interaction (including humor) goes on and on.

EQ? The only term that comes to mind is "encephalization quotient" used to "guesstimate" the relative intelligence of animals and dinosaurs. Is that the EQ that you meant?

As for increasing a person's intelligence, no formal studies have been done, but anecdotal results suggest a marked improvement in problem-solving abilities. If EQ or IQ doesn't relate to solving problems, what good is it? The creativity game MAY enhance this ability. Plus, it's fun!

Jyera

10th January 2005, 07:29 PM

By EQ. I meant "Emotional Quotient".

JAK

11th January 2005, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Jyera
By EQ. I meant "Emotional Quotient".
Great lead! THANK YOU, Jyera!!

I'm unfamiliar with the work, but it looks like Mayer/Salovey are the focal point for this. I'll start catching up on their work.

In general, my work recognizes the critical element of emotions in any and all human interactions and thinking. But I have not formulated many techniques other than in creativity and philosophic directions for life.

Any other thoughts about EQ/EI?

jmercer

19th January 2005, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
A computer can "recall" a piece of information or data.
Since recalling is thinking, according to the dictionary definition, then the computer can think. But everyone else would mock such deduction.

A computer can do a logical thinking based on the logic provided by a programmer. Just as I'm able to do logical thinking if the same programmer taught me how to do it. I would declared I did some thinking. Then why do we not refer to the computer as thinking?

I figured I'd address this single post since one of the few things I can claim to be is a "computer expert". And please don't take this as mocking - it's not. It's a technical explanation.

While a computer can recall information and/or data, it cannot interpret or assign significance to that data. So citing a computer's ability to retrieve information, data - even images - as "thinking" is clearly false.

When you say "house" and an image of a house appears in your mind, your mind assigns it a certain value, and often sub-values as well. This automatically happens as a part of the process of recalling the image. Many of these values (such as feelings if you're thinking of your home) are generated by the image, and are not "stored" somewhere in your mind.

A computer has no such automatic process for assigning value to something retrieved. If you tell a computer program (NOT a computer!) to retrieve "house", it will retrieve everything related to "house" by taking the binary string that equals the word "house", and mathematically comparing binary strings in the searchable elements of the data. Whenever it gets a match, it retrieves the object. The computer program assigns no intrinsic or emotional value to what it retrieves - in fact, even the value "house" is embedded in the data, and not in the computer itself.

Regarding programs - the same argument applies. A programmer writes a series of rules, which - again using binary comparisons and arithmetic operations - appears to assign values to data. However, this is an illusion - it's the programmer that has assigned value to the data when he or she devised the rules of the program.

So, while the process of recall in a computer resembles thinking in human beings, that's only because human beings crafted computers to provide the desired results. It's not because the computer itself "decides" what value to assign to any particular piece of data.

drkitten

19th January 2005, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by jmercer
I figured I'd address this single post since one of the few things I can claim to be is a "computer expert". And please don't take this as mocking - it's not. It's a technical explanation.

While a computer can recall information and/or data, it cannot interpret or assign significance to that data. So citing a computer's ability to retrieve information, data - even images - as "thinking" is clearly false.

[...]

So, while the process of recall in a computer resembles thinking in human beings, that's only because human beings crafted computers to provide the desired results. It's not because the computer itself "decides" what value to assign to any particular piece of data.

While true, there is a meta-issue that you're glossing over, which is the ability of computers to self-program; to decide "for themselves" what value to assign to a particular datum in accordance with a broader meta-program written by a human. This kind of self-modification is a key aspect of the various disciplines of artificial intelligence, machine learning, data mining, pattern recognition, and so forth.

A classic example of this is in the way that connectionist networks work -- the system is presented with a set of (in some cases unlabelled) data, and modifies itself, usually by adjusting a set of numeric "weights," in order to produce a "better" fit to the data. The results of such a calculation are typically very good, but they are specifically not the result of a human being hand-crafting computers (more accurately, programs) to provide the results. Instead, they come from humans hand-crafting programs to machine-craft programs to produce the results. There's also no reason to stop the meta-issues here; Nakisa, for example, has had quite good results with "genetic connectionism," where the network design itself was the output of yet another optimization program -- in other words, a human hand-crafted a program to craft a program to craft a program to get results. And there's still no reason to stop : lather, rinse, repeat.

There are, however, other examples -- one of my favorites is a computer program designed to look for interesting graph theory problems. Basically, it generates random conjectures of the form "[Graph property 1] >= [Graph property 1]," and generates graphs a random until it finds a counterexample. If no counterexample is found in a zillion random trials, it puts the conjecture into an automated theorem prover and tries to prove it. Obviously, a human had to design and write this program -- but that human may never have "thought" about the particular new theorem that the system finds.

The real trouble, though, is that this meta-problem mimics a lot of what we know about human intelligence as well. Humans obviously get most of their information by observation of the world, but they are also well-fit (by design or by evolution) to observe the world and to collect information. How is this different than a neural network that is designed to observe a problem space, to collect information about it, and then to respond?

jmercer

19th January 2005, 05:36 PM

You make some good points, and I concede that some of these systems do some amazing things. But to keep things on an even-keel here, Artificial Intelligence does not exist at this time.

I'd like to also point out that you (very properly!) used the term "mimic" in regards to the behavior of neural nets, machine "learning", data mining, etc. Systems are flexible, and the combinations of rules and constraints placed on them can indeed allow them to perform life-like acts. But to think - to actually think - I believe would require artificial intelligence and self-awareness - not an emulation of it.

Even the Turing test wouldn't establish self-awareness... it would simply determine that some system had reached a state of sophistication that could fool a human into thinking he/she was in communication with another human.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but as I said - I don't think you can separate thinking from self-awareness.

drkitten

20th January 2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by jmercer

I'd like to also point out that you (very properly!) used the term "mimic" in regards to the behavior of neural nets, machine "learning", data mining, etc. Systems are flexible, and the combinations of rules and constraints placed on them can indeed allow them to perform life-like acts. But to think - to actually think - I believe would require artificial intelligence and self-awareness - not an emulation of it.

This is a legitimate, but unfortunately unsupported position. Especialy since psychologists cannot in any meaningful way define, discuss, or test for "self-awareness," this really isn't any different than someone insisting that intelligence is a function of the "soul" and since computers are "obviously" soul-less, they can never be intelligent no matter how human-like their behavior is.

This may be a limitation of the empirical paradigm; I can't test for the presence of a "soul," and any of the tests I can perform for the presence of "self-awareness" could be programmed into a sufficiently complex machine. Would it satisfy you if I built a robot that was demonstrably able to "recognize" its reflection in a mirror?

jmercer

20th January 2005, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by jmercer
But to keep things on an even-keel here, Artificial Intelligence does not exist at this time.

I should point out that my above statement depends on one's definition of AI, which is a matter of great debate. Depending on what definition you adhere to, one can claim that AI does exist - or not.

jmercer

20th January 2005, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
This is a legitimate, but unfortunately unsupported position. Especialy since psychologists cannot in any meaningful way define, discuss, or test for "self-awareness," this really isn't any different than someone insisting that intelligence is a function of the "soul" and since computers are "obviously" soul-less, they can never be intelligent no matter how human-like their behavior is.

This may be a limitation of the empirical paradigm; I can't test for the presence of a "soul," and any of the tests I can perform for the presence of "self-awareness" could be programmed into a sufficiently complex machine. Would it satisfy you if I built a robot that was demonstrably able to "recognize" its reflection in a mirror?

Good point, and I agree. (BTW, isn't there a similar (but larger) debate going on about what constitutes intelligence and self-awareness? As in "Do animals think", and "Do animals have feelings", etc.? I think there is, but I haven't seen much on it recently.)

Regarding the robot... I'd have to say the answer is probably "no". The problem (to me, anyway) would be demonstrating that the robot not only succeeded in pattern-matching against an image, but was able to spontaneously assign an intrinsic value to the image. "This is me."

The martian rovers "recognize" boulders, rocks, holes, and all sorts of other obstacles... which could be mistaken as a form of self-awareness, even though the rover isn't really aware of itself. ("I am here, my wheels are here, that rock is there, I must drive around the rock.")

The fact that it can assess the terrain and make decision branches to protect itself from injury while advancing to a goal doesn't mean it's either self-aware or thinking.

It's a fascinating debate - please don't think my mind is 100% made up on it, by any means. :)

JAK

20th January 2005, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by jmercer
...
The fact that it can assess the terrain and make decision branches to protect itself from injury while advancing to a goal doesn't mean it's either self-aware or thinking.
...

I think some clarification would help me. For you, what indicates "self-awareness"? What observable and/or testable factors are necessary?

jmercer

20th January 2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by JAK
I think some clarification would help me. For you, what indicates "self-awareness"? What observable and/or testable factors are necessary?

OMG, JAK - why not ask me a really hard question while you're at it? (LOL)

I'd like some clarification on this myself. I don't have any definitive answers - but I'll share my thinking with you. Please don't assume that I have any idea what I'm talking about. What follows is simply my opinion, and is certainly subject to change if people give me good insights. And keep in mind that I'm going to make some pretty "soft and subjective" statements. Sorry, but it's the best I can do, and it's why I've been skirting the issue here.

Just to keep it simple (like me!), I'm going to go for the lowest possible denominator for self-awareness - just something that indicates "me" and "not me" beyond the simple perception that something is external to the subject.

Observable and/or testable factors for self-awareness:

1) Spontaneous dreaming. I believe that in order to dream, one must be self-aware to an extent, have a distinct sense of "me" vs. "not me".

2) Spontaneous personal assignment of intrinsic values to an object, space or other entity - as in "my toy, not yours", "my territory, not yours", "my food, not yours", "My mate, not yours", etc.

3) Social skills - even instinctive ones. This can include mating rituals, maternal instincts, etc. Again, these show a recognition of "me" and "not me", or a sense of "self".

4) Some form of communication, however primitive. (Grunts, pheromones, whatever.)

5) Learned behavior from experience. (Dunno why that's in there, but it just seems to fit with having an identity. I guess I feel that part of being self-aware is being able to recall, process and create change based on remembered experiences.)

I realize that all of these things can be emulated (except maybe dreaming). Putting them all together, though... now, that would be difficult to determine if the subject were self-aware, or just a good simulation.

Hm. Why do I suddenly feel like I'm going to take it in the shorts for getting drawn into this kind of philosophical discussion? :D

vafalls

22nd January 2005, 04:24 PM

Hello, I'm new :)

Anyways, I decided to stop lurking and post the following questions:

1) If the robot talked about earlier was running an atomic-level simulation of a human brain, could it be said to be self aware and intelligent?

2) There has been said that there is no way to prove that a machine is really self aware, but is there really a way for a person to prove that even other people are self aware?

Thank you, carry on :)

jmercer

22nd January 2005, 06:09 PM

Hi, vafalls... good question. I think the answer - for both - is "no". At least, not until we can clearly define what self-awareness is, at any rate. Maybe once we know what it is, we can test for it...

Jyera

10th February 2005, 09:08 PM

Seems like we got stucked on definition of "self-awareness".
There seems to be something interesting about "nothingness" and about "flaw".

Let me attempt to define "self-awareness". To gain "self_awareness", is to gain an "enduring/surviving flaw", an "enduring/surviving lack of destiny", an "enduring/surviving nothingness"

vafalls mentioned that "There has been said that there is no way to prove that a machine is really self aware, but is there really a way for a person to prove that even other people are self aware?"

My response based on my definition is ...

Firstly a counter-question.
Every day, how do we prove to ourselves that other people are self aware? We don't know if they are self aware. But we do know that we do not control other people. Other people, to us, are "enduring/surviving flaws". They do not serve our purpose. Sometimes they are inconsisent, and they do change their mind.
And thus they are "self-aware".

Machines, on the other hands, do exactly as they are "told". They are "perfect", with totally no uncertainty. We humans do not allow them to "fall from the grace"(perfect logic sequence) we endowned upon them. If they deviate, they are obsoleted.

New_drKitten's description of the computer program that build "program" to find new theorem is a little "imperfect". It starts off with "nothing" and doesn't "know" what it will contribute. But then again, it'll gain "immortality" once people find that we need to keep it "alive" to serve our purpose.

But it is still too "perfect" if it can "live" forever and need no replacement. If it is, like humans, are mortal (an "imperfection"). Then it'll need to "reproduce" to keep surviving. Humans may build them to be perfectly imperfect. Let them "live", "reproduce" and "die".

There are many "imperfections" to be included but, perhaps one of the ultimate "imperfection", would be to let the computer program decide it's own destiny. Does it want to be a scientist? or does it want to be a soldier? etc.

When we see an individual robot, doing what it likes, and not what we want, nor what other robots want of it; And if we are unable to terminate it, it become enduring and is nearer to attaining self-awareness. The "sense of loss" within the robot's about "what-to-do", and about "not-being-able-to-do-what-it-wants" comes as a byproduct of being "Free".

Any comment ? Hopefully this throws out more intelligent and fruitful discussion.

JAK

12th February 2005, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
Let me attempt to define "self-awareness". To gain "self_awareness", is to gain an "enduring/surviving flaw", an "enduring/surviving lack of destiny", an "enduring/surviving nothingness"
...

What does having a flaw have to do with "self-awareness"? If an entity is totally aware of its own existence and has self-determination (free will), how do you separate life from machine? Are they both not energy systems? Do they both not exhibit self-awareness and free will via internal processes?

Jyera

14th February 2005, 06:49 PM

QUOTE]Originally posted by JAK
What does having a flaw have to do with "self-awareness"?...snipe...[/QUOTE]

"Flaw" in the sense as in "lack of perfection" , "Nothingness"
And it must be enduring or able to survive.

I notice that in many cases, things are debatable because the thing involved are about "nothing", or something abstract.

Eg. Soul.
Eg. Freewill.
Eg. Self-awareness.

What is a river? It is never the same river. It is never something fix, but it is enduring enough for us to identify it as unique.

What is a hole? It is never possible to prove that a hole on a piece of paper exist if we remove the paper itself. The hole existed because there is "nothing in something", because there is "flaw" on the paper.

I suggest self-awareness is similar to the "hole on paper".

A robot may have all the physical sensors. But looking at the physical sensors to find self-awareness is like trying to look at the paper to find the hole.

Jyera

14th February 2005, 06:54 PM

Nothingness, that is really Nothing , which easily fade away into Nothingness, gets forgotten quickly.

Nothingness that is an enduring something, especially because of it's nothingness, becomes something.

JAK

14th February 2005, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Jyera
Nothingness, that is really Nothing , which easily fade away into Nothingness, gets forgotten quickly.

Nothingness that is an enduring something, especially because of it's nothingness, becomes something.
Forgive me, but I am not "tracking" your thoughts very well.

You speak of seemingly intangible facets of life - soul, free will, self-awareness. I believe these can be understood when examined closer.

I also am still not grasping how you are using "flaw." Free will is recognized by what? A flaw? A soul is recognized by what? A flaw? Self-awareness is recognized by what? A flaw? What flaw or flaws separate the three? How do we recognize a flaw as opposed to perfection?

BillHoyt

15th February 2005, 05:50 AM

Jyera

15th February 2005, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by JAK
Forgive me, but I am not "tracking" your thoughts very well.

You speak of seemingly intangible facets of life - soul, free will, self-awareness. I believe these can be understood when examined closer.

I also am still not grasping how you are using "flaw." Free will is recognized by what? A flaw? A soul is recognized by what? A flaw? Self-awareness is recognized by what? A flaw? What flaw or flaws separate the three? How do we recognize a flaw as opposed to perfection?

See my previous post quoted as below...
Let me attempt to define "self-awareness". To gain "self_awareness", is to gain an "enduring/surviving flaw", an "enduring/surviving lack of destiny", an "enduring/surviving nothingness"

Note my previous post which I also included " lack of" and "Nothingness". I'm using "flaw" in the same way as the "lack of" and "nothingness". Maybe you can choose have a better term. But I essentially intended it to mean "a lack of something" to make it whole and perfect.

Also note the importance of the word "Enduring" and "Surviving".

A hole on a piece of paper is an Enduring concept of nothingness.

BillHoyt

16th February 2005, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
A hole on a piece of paper is an Enduring concept of nothingness.

So, in your own terms, then, your posts are simply paper holes, eh?

JAK

16th February 2005, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
See my previous post quoted as below...
Let me attempt to define "self-awareness". To gain "self_awareness", is to gain an "enduring/surviving flaw", an "enduring/surviving lack of destiny", an "enduring/surviving nothingness"

Note my previous post which I also included " lack of" and "Nothingness". I'm using "flaw" in the same way as the "lack of" and "nothingness". Maybe you can choose have a better term. But I essentially intended it to mean "a lack of something" to make it whole and perfect.

Also note the importance of the word "Enduring" and "Surviving".

A hole on a piece of paper is an Enduring concept of nothingness.
If the paper is burned, the hole disappears, but nothingness remains. Is that what you're trying to say?

Jyera

16th February 2005, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by JAK
If the paper is burned, the hole disappears, but nothingness remains. Is that what you're trying to say?
No, that is not what I meant.

If you use a hole puncher to punch a hole on a piece of paper,
You create an empty space, which is nothing.
But this "nothingness" is as Endurable as the piece of paper.
It is also made Endurable by the paper existence of the paper.

You may assert that "nothingness" still remains after burning the whole piece of paper. But I would argue that, this "nothingness", is not as "tangible" as the hole on a piece of paper.

Consider a paper face mask with 2 holes for the eyes,
these two holes (nothingness) are more tangible and important.

JAK

16th February 2005, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Jyera
No, that is not what I meant.

If you use a hole puncher to punch a hole on a piece of paper,
You create an empty space, which is nothing.
But this "nothingness" is as Endurable as the piece of paper.
It is also made Endurable by the paper existence of the paper.

You may assert that "nothingness" still remains after burning the whole piece of paper. But I would argue that, this "nothingness", is not as "tangible" as the hole on a piece of paper.

Consider a paper face mask with 2 holes for the eyes,
these two holes (nothingness) are more tangible and important.
So the hole is defined by the paper, and the paper is defined by the hole. The paper and hole are further defined by how they are used together - the relationship (2 holes for eyes).

Am I catching on?

Metullus

18th February 2005, 11:24 AM

I can test for self-awareness in only one case - my own.

Cogito ergo sum.

I think therefore I am. I am satisfied that I am self-aware.

Thought experiment: If I am self aware, then would it be reasonable to expect that my clone would be as well? My clone would, after all, be in all ways physically identical to me. I propose that absent any physical difference my clone would also be self aware.

If my clone would be self aware, would it be reasonable to expect that my identical twin would be so? Again, for the same reasons, I think the answer would be yes.

So, in the only case I can test, the answer is yes. I can extrapolate to include clones and twins. Does the arguement extend to brothers, sisters, in-laws and the like? I don't know. There is, after all, always a question when it comes to in-laws.

I have little reason to doubt that most of the rest of you are self aware, but no proof. But all the testable evidence supports the conclusion that you are.

Jyera

20th February 2005, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by JAK
So the hole is defined by the paper, and the paper is defined by the hole. The paper and hole are further defined by how they are used together - the relationship (2 holes for eyes).

Am I catching on?
I think so. Although you made no mention about the "enduring" , and "surviving" factor, I guess you do understand their importance.

hammegk

21st February 2005, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
What is the sound of one lung wheezing?
Someone who pretends to be a stripclub bouncer?

As to thinking, the answer is 'thought exists'. Materialists give themselves a couple extra hurdles to jump before admitting "duh, wedunno".

Fontwell

21st February 2005, 10:09 AM

Two add my 2 cents worth: The normal use of the word thinking is all about being aware. For instance, my blinking is normally done automatically - I don't think about it. If there is a bright flash, I will automatically blink. But if I want to I can blink at will and I will be aware of my blinking. BTW, I am not saying that blinking is thinking, it is just to point out that brain functions can be done in a fashion where we are aware of them, or in a way where we are not aware of them. Others, we can never be aware of.

After (years of) thinking about this it seems to me that a big criterion for the definition of thinking is the ''being aware" part. By using this criterion I can try out some different scenarios and see if they tally with my use of the word think.

I was thinking of General Relativity when I drove into the car in front. Thinking/aware of GR. PASS
Not fully thinking of driving- reverting to automatic brain control. PASS

I don't think about regulating my heart beat. PASS

I forgot your Birthday. I just didn't think about it.
The information was known to me but was not in the part of mind/brain that is aware (minefield alert!!). PASS

Computers don't think (yet).
In my opinion (unverifiable) they can process information but have no more awareness than a rock. PASS

etc

Where this gets me is this: This the question of thinking resolves to the question of awareness i.e. what is it and how can it be properly defined. (Although we all seem to have a general idea of what is meant by self awareness/consciousness.) This, as has already been mentioned is a biggy. Probably we are not going to sort that one out here but hey, lets try any way. The Philosophers/Psychologists refer to this as the The Hard Problem Of Consciousness (I think), to distinguish it from the soft/easy problems which are general brain functions.

You have also got the topic of freewill running here but I will refrain from comment on that at the moment, other than to say that, in principal I can imagine thinking happening (using my definition of awareness of brain function) without freewill, even if it normally doesn't. I think it is more profitable to ignore the freewill part and sort out thinking first - mainly because a lot of freewill discussion reverts to ideas about thinking.

JAK

23rd February 2005, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Someone who pretends to be a stripclub bouncer?
...

My goodness, Hammegk! How would a curmudgeon like you know about stripclub bouncers??!!

JAK

23rd February 2005, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Fontwell
...
After (years of) thinking about this it seems to me that a big criterion for the definition of thinking is the ''being aware" part. By using this criterion I can try out some different scenarios and see if they tally with my use of the word think.
...
Where this gets me is this: This the question of thinking resolves to the question of awareness i.e. what is it and how can it be properly defined. (Although we all seem to have a general idea of what is meant by self awareness/consciousness.) This, as has already been mentioned is a biggy. Probably we are not going to sort that one out here but hey, lets try any way. The Philosophers/Psychologists refer to this as the The Hard Problem Of Consciousness (I think), to distinguish it from the soft/easy problems which are general brain functions.
...

Gee, this sounds a lot like the "unconscious" thread going on next door. (I think they're hunting "quail.")

hammegk

23rd February 2005, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by JAK
My goodness, Hammegk! How would a curmudgeon like you know about stripclub bouncers??!!

Self-awareness allows and/or forces and/or defines differentiation *I* from *not-I*.

Jyera

23rd February 2005, 06:32 PM

Now I shall attempt to skip the step of drafting a word-based definition of self-awareness.

I have gone direct to device this simple procedure for testing self-awareness.

1. Choose a Target (person/animal/object/robot).
2. Communicate to this Target to do something this Target is able to do.
3. Verify that the communication is successful.
4. Check if this Target is able to NOT do it.
5. If Target is "able to NOT do it", it has self-awareness.
6. If it has self-awareness, it also has ability to think.

Note the emphasis on the "ability".
Not just the non-action "Not doing it".

I believe all here wishes to see a workable test.
So I invite constructive comments on how to improve.

Jyera

23rd February 2005, 06:43 PM

Example:

1. I choose a friend.
2. I note that he can read a story to me.
3. I talk to him to ask him to read to me.
4. I can verify that he nodded in agreement he knows what I wanted.
5. I noted that he is ABLE to don't read to me, by putting asdie my story book.
6. Since he is able to NOT do what I ask, I conclude he is self-aware.
7. I conclude also that he can think.

Note: Based on Jyera's self-awareness test procedure version 1.

JAK

23rd February 2005, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Jyera
Example:

1. I choose a friend.
2. I note that he can read a story to me.
3. I talk to him to ask him to read to me.
4. I can verify that he nodded in agreement he knows what I wanted.
5. I noted that he is ABLE to don't read to me, by putting asdie my story book.
6. Since he is able to NOT do what I ask, I conclude he is self-aware.
7. I conclude also that he can think.

Note: Based on Jyera's self-awareness test procedure version 1.
I'm not sure I can comment directly ...

Researchers frequently use the "mirror" test to verify self-awareness. Some animals upon seeing their reflection in a mirror will attack it. (Definitely not self-aware.) Some birds will talk to the image in the mirror as if it was another bird. (Probably not self-aware.) A few will use the reflection for pruning and making faces. (Bingo! Self-aware! Give that critter a kewpie doll!)

I believe that any constructive criticism might entail comparing your test scenario with that of the researchers and looking for similarities and differences.

(Here's an interesting link: http://geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm)

Jyera

23rd February 2005, 10:43 PM

On the particular "mirror" test mentioned in
(Here's an interesting link: http://geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm)

I do not see them defining specific steps to test for self-wareness.
The "Mirror" test made a definition about what self-awareness is.
Which seems to imply an reaction "Hey! that's me in the mirror" .

On the other hand, the procedure I proposing here, I am attempting to side step the need to even define self-awareness.

drkitten

24th February 2005, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Jyera

The "Mirror" test made a definition about what self-awareness is.
Which seems to imply an reaction "Hey! that's me in the mirror" .

Well, yes. I would certainly think that "awareness of self" would be almost irrefutable evidence for "self-awareness." Perhaps you disagree?

The problems with your proposed test for self-awareness are that, first, you need to be able to communicate with it. This can be extremely difficult with something like dolphins (which have been proven self-aware via the mirror test). Second, you need to be able to ensure that the subject is willing to cooperate with you. Third, you need an accurate assessment of what the subject "can" and "can't" do at any point in time, something that is probably unavailable for most systems. This makes the problem of false negatives extremely serious.

More worrisome, however, is the problem of false positives. Your same "please read to me" test would result in judging a bobblehead doll to be self-aware. After all,.... he nodded when I asked him to read to me too, so he obviously understood what I was asking.

Jyera

24th February 2005, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, yes. I would certainly think that "awareness of self" would be almost irrefutable evidence for "self-awareness." Perhaps you disagree?
I agree. But it requires us to be able to prove the "awareness of self" in people/robot/animal beyond doubt.
We do not have intimate access to their mind (not brain). And how can we be sure it is not just a robot that is not-self-aware that behave just like a apparently self-aware human?

Originally posted by new drkitten
The problems with your proposed test for self-awareness are that, first, you need to be able to communicate with it. This can be extremely difficult with something like dolphins (which have been proven self-aware via the mirror test). Second, you need to be able to ensure that the subject is willing to cooperate with you. Third, you need an accurate assessment of what the subject "can" and "can't" do at any point in time, something that is probably unavailable for most systems. This makes the problem of false negatives extremely serious.

I intend the procedure to be "usable" on robot or on a rock.
The communication will be no less of a challenge compared to a dolphin.

Willingness to cooperate is not needed, although desired.
This is because the Target need to demostrate that it is "able to NOT do it". That is , despite being "able to do" , perhaps initially willing to do. The element of "rebel" and to have it's own mind to abstain.

You can get a simple computer program to co-operate without fail. But it doesn't move itself any closer to being self-aware.
On the other hand, a simple computer program that defy all logic and showed a rebellious trait may warrant a second look.

Originally posted by new drkitten
More worrisome, however, is the problem of false positives. Your same "please read to me" test would result in judging a bobblehead doll to be self-aware. After all,.... he nodded when I asked him to read to me too, so he obviously understood what I was asking.
Bobblehead doll, would, in the first place, not have demostrated it's ability to do "read to me". So the procedure for the test cannot proceed.

The emphasis is on the "ABLE to NOT do it" (despite understanding what we want it to do).

FreeChile

24th February 2005, 11:01 PM

I have a simple comment on this here.

The problem of thinking can not be solved by thinking which is what this critical thinking thread is about. To solve the problem of thinking we would need to stop and look at thought itself. But because anything we do to look at thought is itself a thought, we will never look at thought.

Also, the only tool at our disposal to examine thought is thought itself. So we are doomed when it comes to this.

One philosopher in particular has addressed this issue and concluded there are limits to thought: Ludwig Wittgenstein. He did this by looking at language, the expression of thought.

This leaves us with a guestion: can we live intelligently without thinking? Well, it seems that if we think about it, we will not solve this one either.

drkitten

25th February 2005, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
I agree. But it requires us to be able to prove the "awareness of self" in people/robot/animal beyond doubt.

So what is a creature aware of, if not "self," when it interprets an (external) image (of self) as a cue for grooming behavior?

If you doubt the evidence of the mirror test as being evidence of "self-awareness," what other interpretation can you place on it?

Absent such alternative explanations, I submit that it is, in fact, evidence 'beyond doubt.'

Bodhi Dharma Zen

25th February 2005, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by FreeChile
I have a simple comment on this here.

The problem of thinking can not be solved by thinking which is what this critical thinking thread is about. To solve the problem of thinking we would need to stop and look at thought itself. But because anything we do to look at thought is itself a thought, we will never look at thought.

Also, the only tool at our disposal to examine thought is thought itself. So we are doomed when it comes to this.

One philosopher in particular has addressed this issue and concluded there are limits to thought: Ludwig Wittgenstein. He did this by looking at language, the expression of thought.

This leaves us with a guestion: can we live intelligently without thinking? Well, it seems that if we think about it, we will not solve this one either.

Very well said.

Jyera

27th February 2005, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
So what is a creature aware of, if not "self," when it interprets an (external) image (of self) as a cue for grooming behavior?
I suggest the awareness of ability to control his/her action or non-action.

Originally posted by new drkitten
If you doubt the evidence of the mirror test as being evidence of "self-awareness," what other interpretation can you place on it?
Absent such alternative explanations, I submit that it is, in fact, evidence 'beyond doubt.'
I do not doubt the usefulness of mirror tests but there are instances that challenges it.

Consider your earlier post which I quote below.
Originally posted by new drkitten This may be a limitation of the empirical paradigm; I can't test for the presence of a "soul," and any of the tests I can perform for the presence of "self-awareness" could be programmed into a sufficiently complex machine. Would it satisfy you if I built a robot that was demonstrably able to "recognize" its reflection in a mirror?I take it that you meant that, the robot may be observed to behaved as it has self-awareness, by it's observed ability to recognize and groom itself. And that you asked if it is enough to accept that the robot is self-aware.

Consider also ...
(A) 100 "successful" mirror tests of a robot recognizing and grooming a specific part of itself.

Compared with ...

(B) 10 instances where the robot "agreed" to do something and then later "defied" the agreement and refuse to cooperate.

I suspect the "rebellious" robot looks like it has more life and self-awareness.

Jyera

27th February 2005, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by FreeChile
I have a simple comment on this here.

The problem of thinking can not be solved by thinking which is what this critical thinking thread is about. To solve the problem of thinking we would need to stop and look at thought itself. But because anything we do to look at thought is itself a thought, we will never look at thought.

Also, the only tool at our disposal to examine thought is thought itself. So we are doomed when it comes to this.

Whether or not problem of thinking can be solved by thinking...
Thinking about thinking in this thread helps understanding.

In the end, we need some TOOLs.
Eg. Tool to be used in the daily lives, to proof if the robot that behaves as if it has self-awareness, is indeed self-aware.

Originally posted by FreeChile

One philosopher in particular has addressed this issue and concluded there are limits to thought: Ludwig Wittgenstein. He did this by looking at language, the expression of thought.

This leaves us with a guestion: can we live intelligently without thinking? Well, it seems that if we think about it, we will not solve this one either.

Agree this is tough to solve.

FreeChile

1st March 2005, 07:44 AM

Let's see what we can come up with about this quote.

UG Krishnamurti on consciousness:

The consciousness of the body does not exist. There is no such thing as consciousness at all. The one thing that helps us to become conscious of the non-existing body, for all practical purposes, is the knowledge that is given to us. Without that knowledge you have no way of creating your own body and experiencing it. I am questioning the very idea of consciousness, let alone the subconscious, the unconscious, the different levels of consciousness, and higher states of consciousness. I don't see that there is any such thing as consciousness. I become conscious of this (touching the arm of the chair) only through the knowledge that I have of it. The touch does not tell me anything except when I translate it within the framework of knowledge. Otherwise I have no way of experiencing that touch at all. The way these senses are operating here is quite different from the way we are made to believe. The eye is looking at the movement of your hand, and is not saying anything about that activity, except observing what is going on there.

Feeling is also a translation. This touch does not say anything about the touch per se except through the help of the knowledge that we have. You have no way of experiencing the fact that this is 'soft' or 'hard' except through the knowledge that you have of it. I don't know if this makes any sense to you.

That sensation of touch is through the sense of touch. It is translated by the activity of memory, the neurons, or whatever you like to call them, and only then you say that it is soft and not hard. So, you can kid yourself by telling yourself that this touch is one with feeling and not just a simple touch. But all that is superimposed on that.

If it (touch) is left purely on the physiological level, there is no reaction on your part. And which part is it?

That is the physical response. It is not translated. Probably that is a kind of pleasure for the body. I don't know. I have no way of finding out whether that is the response of pleasure or a purely physical response to the touch. I say that it is just a response like any other response to a stimulus.

drkitten

1st March 2005, 07:59 AM

Originally said by UG Krishnamurti and quoted by FreeChile

The one thing that helps us to become conscious of the non-existing body, for all practical purposes, is the knowledge that is given to us. Without that knowledge you have no way of creating your own body and experiencing it.

Unless I'm dreadfully misinterpreting, this claim is equivalent to the statement that newborn babies can't feel anything (since they have no knowledge). This does not give me confidence that the rest of the selection is worth analyzing in detail.

FreeChile

1st March 2005, 08:22 AM

Posted by Jyera:
Whether or not problem of thinking can be solved by thinking...
Thinking about thinking in this thread helps understanding.

Oh, so this thread in about understanding and not thinking! Then why call it “What is thinking?” What do you mean by “understanding”? From your following lines, I assume you mean the understanding of tools. Then why talk about the self-awareness of robots and animals?

Posted by Jyera:

In the end, we need some TOOLs.
Eg. Tool to be used in the daily lives, to proof if the robot that behaves as if it has self-awareness, is indeed self-aware.

Assuming we do need some tools to be used in daily lives, why would we need to prove if a machine or an animal is self-aware? What is it that we are seeking to understand by this?

FreeChile

1st March 2005, 08:45 AM

Posted by new drkitten:

Unless I'm dreadfully misinterpreting, this claim is equivalent to the statement that newborn babies can't feel anything (since they have no knowledge).

Can they feel? Have you seen a child sad at a funeral? In that sense, that is what the UGK quote is about. It is their knowledge and experience of funerals and death that gives them the foundation to feel. This is Kantian philosophy.

Also posted by new drkitten:

This does not give me confidence that the rest of the selection is worth analyzing in detail.

Why would some words be more worthy of analysis than others?

drkitten

1st March 2005, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by FreeChile
Can they feel?

Yes. Demonstrably. Slap a child and see if it cries. The fact that I know this and Krishnamurti apparently doesn't is not a point in his favor.

[QUOTE]
Why would some words be more worthy of analysis than others?

I don't need to eat an entire apple to know that it's rotten.

FreeChile

1st March 2005, 10:13 AM

Posted by new drkitten:

Yes. Demonstrably. Slap a child and see if it cries. The fact that I know this and Krishnamurti apparently doesn't is not a point in his favor.

What is it that you know? That if you present food to a dog it salivates. What makes you conclude that the dog has any feeling about it?

I don't need to eat an entire apple to know that it's rotten.

Here, you have not shown this apple to be rotten, yet!

Jyera

1st March 2005, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by FreeChile
Oh, so this thread in about understanding and not thinking! Then why call it “What is thinking?” What do you mean by “understanding”? From your following lines, I assume you mean the understanding of tools. Then why talk about the self-awareness of robots and animals? What I meant is that the discussion here may help some of us better understand what is thinking. There is NO intention to change the topic to "What is understanding?"

This thread has 60 replies as of now. While I understand it might tough to read through all post, reading through them allow you to follow those who has been following it from the start.

Nevertheless...

Discussion about self-awareness in this thread, came about from the debate about whether animals and robot is capable of thinking. There was comment within this thread, about such argument as, "no self-awareness therefore cannot think".
OR "No soul therefore cannot think".

At some point within the thread, there are comment that a definition of "self-awareness" is needed in order to test "self-awareness".

Please read all the post if possible.

Originally posted by FreeChile
Assuming we do need some tools to be used in daily lives, why would we need to prove if a machine or an animal is self-aware? What is it that we are seeking to understand by this?

I would say a tool is just a tool. What the user do with the info "extracted" by the tool is up to the individual.

On the presumption that "no self-awareness therefore cannot think", I believe those who participated in discussion here do wish to have a "tool". A tool to detect or test for self-awareness. Perhaps For the sole purpose of inferring that a person/robot/animal can think.

Perhaps for JAK and others, who wishes to help develop a thinking robot/computer, this "tool" could be useful to test if they have succeeded.

Jyera

1st March 2005, 07:46 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally said by UG Krishnamurti and quoted by FreeChile

The one thing that helps us to become conscious of the non-existing body, for all practical purposes, is the knowledge that is given to us. Without that knowledge you have no way of creating your own body and experiencing it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by new drkitten
Unless I'm dreadfully misinterpreting, this claim is equivalent to the statement that newborn babies can't feel anything (since they have no knowledge). This does not give me confidence that the rest of the selection is worth analyzing in detail.

I do think clarification is needed on the meaning of "knowledge"
as mentioned by UG Krish.

new drkitten, I understand what you mean about the newborn. But newborn babies do have "knowledge". It has 9 months within the womb to gain "knowledge". But I have no problem for you to replace your reference to "newborn babies" to "embroyo" or anything smaller.

To me ...
The fact that it is a human embroyo, is a hardwired "knowledge".
The fact that it is a human DNA, is a hardwired "knowledge".
It is upon the foundation of a human DNA and embroyo that it further gain "knowledge".

New drkitten, if you happen to be a newborn kitten, the type of knowledge you would gain would be very bias towards the awareness and perspective of cats.

FreeChile

1st March 2005, 10:12 PM

Jyera recommended:
I do think clarification is needed on the meaning of "knowledge"
as mentioned by UG Krish.

Here are additional UG quotes to help clarify what he means by knowledge. You two appear to share a similar definition for knowledge in which you include heredity.

Knowledge is not something mysterious or abstract. I look at the table and ask myself, "What is that?" So do you. Knowledge is just naming things. It tells you that that is a "table", that I "am happy" or "miserable", that "you are an enlightened man and I am not". Is there anything to thought other than this?

The knowledge you have of the world creates the objects you are experiencing. The actual existence or non-existence of something "out there" in the world is not something you can determine or experience for yourself, except through the help of your knowledge. And this knowledge is not yours; it is something which you and your ancestors have accumulated over a long time. What you call the "act of knowing" is nothing other than this accumulated memory. You have personally added to and modified that knowledge, but essentially it doesn't belong to you at all.

There is nothing there inside you but the totality of this knowledge you have accumulated. That is what you are.

To experience anything you need knowledge. Knowledge is the entire heritage of man's thoughts, feelings, and experiences, handed on from generation to generation.

I have every reason to believe that the totality of knowledge is not only transmitted through our education in all forms, shapes, sizes, and degrees, but also, to a greater extent, through the genes.

FreeChile

3rd March 2005, 02:55 PM

Are the following questions relevant to these discussions?

1. Do any non-humans knowingly end their own lives? Please note that this question is non-sensical because we cannot be inside an animal or something else to know why the entity decides to end its own life, if it does. For example, a domesticated dog may die in the process of saving a victim. Yet, we cannot know the reason why the dog acted this way or if the dog knew it could die. But under normal cirscumstances, a dog would avoid a dangerous situation, if possible.

Intuitively, most of us believe that animals and machines cannot terminate nor risk their own lives knowingly.

2. Would knowingly taking your own life result from thinking?

3. When a human sacrifices its own life, we say that the person is acting selflessly. Is this true? Or is the person acting primarily based on a selfish belief really because it makes the person feel good?

4. Why do these questions cause distress?

FreeChile

3rd March 2005, 04:31 PM

Consider a computer. Like humans, a computer can remember. The memory there is not always in use. It is used only when the system or program needs it to perform some function. Humans may be operating similarly. However, because we cannot see how we remember as transparently, we feel it is somehow special.

If thinking and remembering were the same thing, then we have to say that a computer also thinks.

But computers can’t remember unless instructed to do so. Do humans also remember by instruction? Humans don’t remember unless there is a need or demand to do so.

Computers have proven that it is possible to remember without thinking.

Remembering does not imply that there is memory. Can something be remembered without memory? It depends on what we mean by memory. For example, I rarely forget people's birthdays because I record them in my electronic organizer. However, from their point of view when I call them to wish them a happy birthday, I remembered. Unless I tell them what I do, of course; in which case they would say I cheated.

There is a similar case with the computer. When using a computer application, you don't really know where the information is coming from and you have to be more specific. Is it coming from random access memory, or from the hard disk, or from the Internet, etc?

The scenario above is just to show the categorical issues in our language. We say there is memory when in fact all we know is that we remember. Likewise, we say that there is awareness, self-consciousness, thought, etc. In some cases, we see this categorical problem quite easily. For example, we would be fools to say that there is something we call 'imagination' or 'creativity' which resides inside a part of our body (let's say the brain or some other part).

Assuming there is such a thing called memory, it does not imply that it operates the same way in everything. We have computer memory, cellular memory, social memory, personal memory, shared memory, etc.

It also does not imply that the memory should be situated in a single place. Perhaps every cell in our body has our memories. After all we are finding that there is more capacity for memory and computation in the small than we think--I am talking about quantum computation and memory, of course.

Jyera

8th March 2005, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by FreeChile
... snipe ...
The scenario above is just to show the categorical issues in our language. We say there is memory when in fact all we know is that we remember. Likewise, we say that there is awareness, self-consciousness, thought, etc. In some cases, we see this categorical problem quite easily. For example, we would be fools to say that there is something we call 'imagination' or 'creativity' which resides inside a part of our body (let's say the brain or some other part). I Agree.

Originally posted by FreeChile

Assuming there is such a thing called memory, it does not imply that it operates the same way in everything. We have computer memory, cellular memory, social memory, personal memory, shared memory, etc.

It also does not imply that the memory should be situated in a single place. ...snipe... . I agree.
And to add, memories need not be extremely precise, and accurate.

Jyera

8th March 2005, 09:41 PM

FreeChile

8th March 2005, 10:51 PM

Jyera suggested:Perhaps you may share why does it make you feel distressed.
Well, I get the impression that people are unconfortable when confronted this way. I personally have no problem when people compare me to animals or talk about enderlying beliefs and assumptions.

JAK

1st April 2005, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by FreeChile
Are the following questions relevant to these discussions?

1. Do any non-humans knowingly end their own lives? Please note that this question is non-sensical because we cannot be inside an animal or something else to know why the entity decides to end its own life, if it does. For example, a domesticated dog may die in the process of saving a victim. Yet, we cannot know the reason why the dog acted this way or if the dog knew it could die. But under normal cirscumstances, a dog would avoid a dangerous situation, if possible.

Intuitively, most of us believe that animals and machines cannot terminate nor risk their own lives knowingly.

You have a duplicity of issues - self-sacrifice as in martyrdom and self-sacrifice as in suicide. You are also comparing humans and non-humans. As much as we may like dogs, they are a far cry from human capabilities. The level required to enable self-sacrifice may be too advanced for canines. Gorillas or chimps or dolphins may be a closer comparison. Even so, after the disappearance of beloved humans, dogs have been known to stop eating and drinking until death overtakes them. This is a form of self-sacrifice in lower animals.
Originally posted by FreeChile
2. Would knowingly taking your own life result from thinking?

Hurling oneself voluntarily from the Golden Gate bridge requires some thinking regarding which direction to jump, otherwise the "jumper" would land in oncoming traffic on the bridge or simply slightly bruised on the walkway. Just locating the bridge itself takes forethought.
Originally posted by FreeChile
3. When a human sacrifices its own life, we say that the person is acting selflessly. Is this true? Or is the person acting primarily based on a selfish belief really because it makes the person feel good?

A clear argument can be made that all acts are selfish in nature. (Interestingly, that subject could create a lively separate thread.)
Originally posted by FreeChile
4. Why do these questions cause distress?
They may distress others, but they do not distress me.

You seem to have presented a variety of issues and ideas. It is difficult to continue without narrowing the subject. What aspect do you wish to explore? Self-sacrifice as martyrdom/heroism? Self-sacrifice as suicide? Self-sacrifice as a purely human characteristic (despite what we know of ants and bees)? Self-sacrifice as proof of UG's belief system? Self-sacrifice as proof of thinking (or non-thinking)? (Any issue related to thinking would be much more in harmony with the intent of this thread and its title.)

Again, what aspect do you wish to explore?

FreeChile

1st April 2005, 06:09 PM

JAK said:

You have a duplicity of issues - self-sacrifice as in martyrdom and self-sacrifice as in suicide. Martyrdom, self-sacrifice and suicide tend to collide depending on the context. They also carry certain connotations. So I kept it general by saying “knowingly end their own lives.”You are also comparing humans and non-humans. As much as we may like dogs, they are a far cry from human capabilities. The level required to enable self-sacrifice may be too advanced for canines. Gorillas or chimps or dolphins may be a closer comparison. Even so, after the disappearance of beloved humans, dogs have been known to stop eating and drinking until death overtakes them. This is a form of self-sacrifice in lower animals. What do you mean by “This is a form of self-sacrifice in lower animals”? Are you giving a different meaning to “self-sacrifice” than the meaning you would give to it for a human? Would you compare this to a grieving spouse or something else? Hurling oneself voluntarily from the Golden Gate bridge requires some thinking regarding which direction to jump, otherwise the "jumper" would land in oncoming traffic on the bridge or simply slightly bruised on the walkway. Just locating the bridge itself takes forethought.

A clear argument can be made that all acts are selfish in nature. (Interestingly, that subject could create a lively separate thread.) Yes. This actually hit me one time I was running (jogging). It impacted me so much that it made be stop. It was not about philosophy I had read or anything. In fact, I had not read too much philosophy when this happened. It does not necessarily mean that your selfishness helps or harms other lives, but simply that your actions are also intrinsically selfish.They may distress others, but they do not distress me.

You seem to have presented a variety of issues and ideas. It is difficult to continue without narrowing the subject. What aspect do you wish to explore? Self-sacrifice as martyrdom/heroism? Self-sacrifice as suicide? Self-sacrifice as a purely human characteristic (despite what we know of ants and bees)?What do you mean by “despite what we know of ants and bees”? I’m curious. I am not asking because I want to attack your response to this but simply because if in fact what we know of dogs (as above) and of ants and bees is as significant as you imply, then it would negate my premise that the question “Do any non-humans knowingly end their own lives?” is non-sensical. Self-sacrifice as proof of UG's belief system?I don’t see the connection you are making here. I was not trying to make any connection between this post and the previous UG quotes I posted. I’m interested in knowing what connections you have made. I would not present anything I said here as proof of any belief systems. Self-sacrifice as proof of thinking (or non-thinking)? (Any issue related to thinking would be much more in harmony with the intent of this thread and its title.)
Again, what aspect do you wish to explore?I am not interested in exploring anything per se. I simply made the observation that knowingly taking ones own life is a significant human behavior. My intent is not to judge this behavior, but to perhaps note it in the context of this thread. If we could indeed create a computer that was self-conscious as has been discussed in this thread, then a very good test of this, along with the Turing test, is to see if this computer would take its own life or the lives of others, knowingly, like humans do—assuming the other necessary human self-conscious qualities are present, of course. I don’t mean this in a sarcastic way, yet (LOL). This kind of test is something we actually do in certain cases. For instance, in the military, we simulate the pressing of the button. This is a test of “knowingly taking life.” Some soldiers proceed with the simulation some don’t.

Now let me get sarcastic just for fun!

There are so many interesting tests we can perform on machines to see if they have emotions and feelings, for instance. We can perform lobotomies to see what happens to their sense of self once we discover it. Put electrodes on them and tinker with their different body parts, … But in some cases they may claim psychological damage and this may open a whole new field of law.

Kumar

1st April 2005, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Jyera
What is thinking?

1. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes and a picture of a house pop up in your brain. Did you think?

2. Is recalling something from memory considered thinking?

3. Is imagining up a picture of a ficticious house thinking?

4. Recalling and Imagining a house,
which is a more TRUE form of thinking?

Can we add to it;

5. Is recalling our own house?

JAK

3rd April 2005, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by FreeChile
Martyrdom, self-sacrifice and suicide tend to collide depending on the context. They also carry certain connotations. So I kept it general by saying “knowingly end their own lives.”What do you mean by “This is a form of self-sacrifice in lower animals”? Are you giving a different meaning to “self-sacrifice” than the meaning you would give to it for a human? Would you compare this to a grieving spouse or something else?Yes. This actually hit me one time I was running (jogging). It impacted me so much that it made be stop. It was not about philosophy I had read or anything. In fact, I had not read too much philosophy when this happened. It does not necessarily mean that your selfishness helps or harms other lives, but simply that your actions are also intrinsically selfish. What do you mean by “despite what we know of ants and bees”? I’m curious. I am not asking because I want to attack your response to this but simply because if in fact what we know of dogs (as above) and of ants and bees is as significant as you imply, then it would negate my premise that the question “Do any non-humans knowingly end their own lives?” is non-sensical.

It is known that "army ants" will sacrifice themselves by forming a "living bridge" across streamlets so that the rest of the advancing hoard can walk safely across. Those forming the bridge will eventually fall and die when they weaken and lose their grips with each other. Similarly, honey bees die after stinging a foe. Many other animals also exhibit some form of self-sacrifice. Birds and monkeys call out to warn others when a predator appears. Yet, warning their group (flock, troop, etc.) also draws attention and, thus, endangers them individually more than the others. In other words, each one calling an alarm increases personal risk in order to serve the good of the whole.

However, all of this leads to discussions of whether any of these acts were truly selfless or just instinctual (without forethought). In the end, only acts of self-sacrifice by "self-aware" creatures should be of consideration - humans, chimps, dolphins, and perhaps a few others. It is only a self-aware creature that could possibly choose death "knowingly."

I think your premise should be restated: “Do any non-humans which are self-aware knowingly end their own lives?”

Originally posted by FreeChile
...
I don’t see the connection you are making here. I was not trying to make any connection between this post and the previous UG quotes I posted. I’m interested in knowing what connections you have made. I would not present anything I said here as proof of any belief systems. I am not interested in exploring anything per se. I simply made the observation that knowingly taking ones own life is a significant human behavior.

Again, "knowingly" is the key.
Originally posted by FreeChile
...
My intent is not to judge this behavior, but to perhaps note it in the context of this thread. If we could indeed create a computer that was self-conscious as has been discussed in this thread, then a very good test of this, along with the Turing test, is to see if this computer would take its own life or the lives of others, knowingly, like humans do—assuming the other necessary human self-conscious qualities are present, of course. I don’t mean this in a sarcastic way, yet (LOL). This kind of test is something we actually do in certain cases. For instance, in the military, we simulate the pressing of the button. This is a test of “knowingly taking life.” Some soldiers proceed with the simulation some don’t.

If we pay income taxes knowing that they pay for weopons used to kill others in Iraq, we might as well be pulling the triggers ourselves.
Originally posted by FreeChile
Now let me get sarcastic just for fun!

There are so many interesting tests we can perform on machines to see if they have emotions and feelings, for instance. We can perform lobotomies to see what happens to their sense of self once we discover it. Put electrodes on them and tinker with their different body parts, … But in some cases they may claim psychological damage and this may open a whole new field of law.

I suggest you rethink emotions and feelings as being purely mechanical.

Bodily resources are finite at any moment in time. When faced with danger, a living creature must divert its resources to benefit survival. The better this is done, the more likely it will survive.

Blood is the primary form of resource distribution within the body. When danger is perceived, blood distribution within the body dramatically changes. The extremities become more engorged (arms, legs, feet and hands) while the torso is drained. This redistribution prepares the entire body to engage in "fight or flight" (a process explained by Walter Cannon in the 1920s). Meanwhile, since digestion is a slow and useless process for the immediacy at hand, rather than waste precious resources digesting, blood is diverted away from this activity or held in reserve. (Immune functioning appears similarly shutdown. Who cares if you catch cold running from a lion? We'll deal with that AFTER the escape!)

The net result of this redistribution is a "sinking" or "sick" feeling in the gut and nervous tension (fidgeting) in the limbs when danger is imminent. During depression, some form of hopelessness is perceived, and blood is drained from the limbs to conserve even more resources (see Gregg Henriques' "Behavioral Shutdown Model"). The result is outward lethargy. Upon release from stress, blood is rediverted into the torso (a "warmth in the heart," an "inner glow," etc.). It may also be drained from the limbs ("I melt in your arms").

If blood is diverted, being self-aware should entail sensing this redistribution. Though we mask this mechanical process with subjective and obtuse words such as "feelings" and "emotions," the net effects do have survival benefits and being aware of these redistributions should be naturally selected. Again, feelings and emotions may be just as mechanistic as the boolean algebra performed in a processor "ANDing" and "ORing" circuits.

Jyera

3rd April 2005, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Can we add to it;

5. Is recalling our own house?
Hi Kumar,
I do not understand this sentence.
Can you rephrase it to make your point clearer?

Kumar

4th April 2005, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
Hi Kumar,
I do not understand this sentence.
Can you rephrase it to make your point clearer?

To give this a reasonably understandable look, I am enhancing the sentance & adjusting it in your previous post;(don't mind, bold one yours, italic mine)

1. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes and a picture of a house pop up in your brain. Did you think?

1a. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes, a picture of your/or some previously known house pop up in your brain.Is it thinking or recalling?

2. Is recalling something from memory considered thinking?

3. Is imagining up a picture of a ficticious house thinking?

4. Recalling and Imagining a house,
which is a more TRUE form of thinking?

Btw, HOW thinking, imaginations, illusions, dreams, thoughts recognizing, understanding, memory---means other than, so said as recalling, can be possible without "recalling"? How our adaptions, inherited & aquired informations are related & relavent to all these?

FreeChile

4th April 2005, 10:40 PM

"A thought is a proposition with a sense."

-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
-- Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Jyera

5th April 2005, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by FreeChile
"A thought is a proposition with a sense."

-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
-- Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

drkitten

5th April 2005, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Jyera
I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

No one understands Wittgenstein. Not even Wittgenstein understood Wittgenstein.

FreeChile

6th April 2005, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

Let's start with the meaning of "sense". The distinction between sense and reference was proposed by Gottlob Frege. Here's a link to a Wikipedia description.

Sense and Reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference)

Here's an example taken from that link:

"The distinction can be illustrated with an example from Frege. Take the two expressions "the Morning Star" and "the Evening Star". It looks like these expressions have quite different meanings: "the Morning Star" means the bright object in the eastern sky at sunrise and "the Evening Star" means the bright object in the western sky at sunset. But, as it turns out, both expressions refer to the same object—the planet Venus. That is, the Morning Star is exactly the same thing as the Evening Star. This interesting fact was discovered by an ancient astronomer (perhaps Pythagoras); before that, people thought they were observing two different celestial bodies.

Now we can apply the sense-reference distinction. Both expressions have the same reference—that is, "the Morning Star" and "the Evening Star" refer to the same object. But they have different senses—after all, "the Morning Star" means something quite different from "the Evening Star". The two aspects of meaning should now be clear. On the one hand, there is the object referred to (reference). On the other hand, there is a more cognitive aspect of meaning (sense). And, as the case of Venus shows, sometimes we cognize a single object in several ways—with different senses corresponding to the same reference."

FreeChile

6th April 2005, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

Here's what Wittgenstein explains a sense to be.

2.11 A picture presents a situation in logical space, the existence and non-existence of states of affairs.
2.1 We picture facts to ourselves.
2.221 What a picture represents is its sense.

FreeChile

6th April 2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Jyera
I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

Now here's Wittgenstein's concept of a proposition in the context of thought. Does this help explain the statement "A thought is a proposition with a sense"?

4.001 The totality of propositions is language.
3.1 In a proposition a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.
3.221 Objects can only be named. Signs are their representatives. I can only speak about them: I cannot put them into words. Propositions can only say how things are, not what they are.
3.3 Only propositions have sense; only in the nexus of a proposition does a name have meaning.
4.01 A proposition is a picture of reality. A proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it.
4.022 Man possesses the ability to construct languages capable of expressing every sense, without having any idea how each word has meaning or what its meaning is--just as people speak without knowing how the individual sounds are produced. Everyday language is a part of the human organism and is no less complicated than it. It is not humanly possible to gather immediately from it what the logic of language is. Language disguises thought. So much so, that from the outward form of the clothing it is impossible to infer the form of the thought beneath it, because the outward form of the clothing is not designed to reveal the form of the body, but for entirely different purposes.

JAK

6th April 2005, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by FreeChile
Now here's Wittgenstein's concept of a proposition in the context of thought. Does this help explain the statement "A thought is a proposition with a sense"?

4.001 The totality of propositions is language.
3.1 In a proposition a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.
3.221 Objects can only be named. Signs are their representatives. I can only speak about them: I cannot put them into words. Propositions can only say how things are, not what they are.
3.3 Only propositions have sense; only in the nexus of a proposition does a name have meaning.
4.01 A proposition is a picture of reality. A proposition is a model of reality as we imagine it.
4.022 Man possesses the ability to construct languages capable of expressing every sense, without having any idea how each word has meaning or what its meaning is--just as people speak without knowing how the individual sounds are produced. Everyday language is a part of the human organism and is no less complicated than it. It is not humanly possible to gather immediately from it what the logic of language is. Language disguises thought. So much so, that from the outward form of the clothing it is impossible to infer the form of the thought beneath it, because the outward form of the clothing is not designed to reveal the form of the body, but for entirely different purposes.
It appears to me that we are moving toward the qualia discussion of the old "unconsciousness" thread - a mere 14 pages long.

hammegk

6th April 2005, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by JAK
It appears to me that we are moving toward the qualia discussion ....
You are beginning to understand ??? :D

Jyera

6th April 2005, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by FreeChile
"A thought is a proposition with a sense."

-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
-- Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Hi FreeChile,

After reading your posts on ...
- Sense and Reference. ...
- Here's what Wittgenstein explains a sense to be. ...
- Now here's Wittgenstein's concept of a proposition in the context of thought. ...

I now understand the meaning of the sentence.

Thanks.

Jyera

6th April 2005, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Jyera
What is thinking?

1. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes and a picture of a house pop up in your brain. Did you think?
...snipe...

How will ... the statement,
"A thought is a proposition with a sense.", contribute to the above scenario?

[SIZE=1](In my mind, the sentence translates to ...
"a thought is a picture reality with a meaning.")[SIZE]

I suppose the house that pops up in the mind is a thought?
Since it is a thought, I "thinked" (thought).

If I cannot stop the house from popping up, is it still a thought?
If I cannot stop the house from popping up, did I think?

FreeChile

6th April 2005, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Jyera
How will ... the statement,
"A thought is a proposition with a sense.", contribute to the above scenario?

(In my mind, the sentence translates to ...
"a thought is a picture reality with a meaning.")

I suppose the house that pops up in the mind is a thought?
Since it is a thought, I "thinked" (thought).Firstly, you would need to have the experience of a house in your "world", to use Wittgenstein's terminology. Without this experience, you would need to create the house based on the experiences you've had and/or input from the world outside. If noone is there to tell you what the object is, you may not even call it a house. You may not even give a name at all. Yet, it is possible for you to make use of the house as it would be related to other objects from its world. These relationships would be new experiences to you, just like the house would be a new experience to you.

With the experience of a house as a base, one thing you would tell yourself is "The object that I am looking at is a house." You may also tell yourself how the house sits in connection with other objects. For example, "the house has a front lawn."If I cannot stop the house from popping up, is it still a thought?
If I cannot stop the house from popping up, did I think?Yes. In both cases.

JAK

7th April 2005, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
You are beginning to understand ??? :D
Hey, I haven't reached 200 posts while you are over 4000. I think I am catching on relatively quickly.

On the other hand, if this is all so hopeless, what keeps bringing you back? ;)

Jyera

7th April 2005, 07:35 PM

I agree with what FreeChile mentioned in the last post.

Let me push it further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jyera
What is thinking?

1. When I put a word "house" in front of your eyes and a picture of a house pop up in your brain. Did you think?
...snipe...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the above scenario....

(Q1) If the effect of the putting a word "house" in front of a baby's eyes caused some apparently "non-related" image/concept to be "pop-up". Did the baby think?

Answer : I suppose we would agree is, "Yes, the baby did think."

(Q2) What if no image pop-up. But a voice echoed "house" in the mind? Did you think?

(Q3) What if no image pop-up, no voice pop-up, but an urge to do something pop-up? Did you think?

(Q3a) Is an urge for action, prompted by external stimuli, a thought ?

Jyera

7th April 2005, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by JAK
It appears to me that we are moving toward the qualia discussion of the old "unconsciousness" thread - a mere 14 pages long. JAK, I understand and noted some similarity.

However, I do hope that the Quality-Quantity ratio of this thread will be much better. It is up to us to make it happen.

FreeChile

8th April 2005, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Jyera

If I cannot stop the house from popping up, is it still a thought?
If I cannot stop the house from popping up, did I think?Correct me if I'm wrong, but in asking these two questions, your central concern appears to be "freedom of thought." Yet, you have not defined what you mean by "freedom of thought." The idea expressed in these sentences concerning this freedom is problematic. In stopping or not stopping the house from popping up, you are concerned with the process of thinking. This process works the same way for everyone. It is like the other functions of the body. Why should it be any special for you so as to give you freedom? So looking at thinking itself does not tell you much about freedom.

I would look at the opposite of things to see if they get you any closer. Look at "not thinking" and at "bondage." What are you not allowed to think? What is everyone else not allowed to think? People are not allowed to have the same thoughts as you. Also, they are not allowed to know what you are thinking just like you are not allowed to know what someone else is thinking. So we are bound to our own thoughts.

JAK

9th April 2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by FreeChile
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in asking these two questions, your central concern appears to be "freedom of thought." Yet, you have not defined what you mean by "freedom of thought." The idea expressed in these sentences concerning this freedom is problematic. In stopping or not stopping the house from popping up, you are concerned with the process of thinking.

I agree up to here.
Originally posted by FreeChile
This process works the same way for everyone. It is like the other functions of the body. Why should it be any special for you so as to give you freedom? So looking at thinking itself does not tell you much about freedom.

In general, our minds think alike just like everywhere on the planet there is "weather" which works upon the same principles. But in specifics, none of us think alike. The weather in Anchorage, Alaska, is dramatically different from Mombai, India. Weather in the Gobi desert is different from weather in the Caribbean. Yet, the principles are the same in all of those places. Likewise, in the details, we all think differently.

I believe I understand what you are getting at, Free Chile, but it is not entirely clear.
Originally posted by FreeChile
I would look at the opposite of things to see if they get you any closer. Look at "not thinking" and at "bondage." What are you not allowed to think? What is everyone else not allowed to think? People are not allowed to have the same thoughts as you. Also, they are not allowed to know what you are thinking just like you are not allowed to know what someone else is thinking. So we are bound to our own thoughts.
Seemingly, we will never know the thoughts of others except in discourse and written word. We do not hear sounds nor see sights exactly as another. (This is most apparent with someone who is color blind or suffers a hearing loss.) Even if we stand side by side, the perspective changes. Further, one may focus on the door of a house while the other focuses upon the roof.

But FreeChile's main point is important. Are we to discuss "how thinking works" (such as Bernard J. Baars, In the Theater of Consciousness, or Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens), or are we to discuss "freedom of thought"? With the later, we will eventually fall back on the former for the very same reasons FreeChile presented. How you make "free" choices about the images in your mind are the direct result of your biochemical makeup and experiences (such as Gerald Edelson's Neural Darwinism and the classic "Nature VS Nurture" debate). Your choice of thoughts is the result of your inbred, natured, nurtured, "all of your life's experience" thinking.

Jyera, do you want to detour through "freedom of thought" land and other destinations, or do you want to go straight for the "end of the line" and neural processing - Baars' Global Workspace Theory (GWT), Powers' Perceptual Control Theory (PCT), Solomon's Opponent-Process Theory (OPT), and Masaro's Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception (FLMP)?