On Consciousness - Page 45

PixyMisa · 9th July 2012, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Tell that to a vinyl collector.

Well, yeah. They're wrong.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIdDA4xdTf8&sns=em

You will finally understand a human when this video leaves you in awe.

Could you please at least pretend to be following the discussion?

tensordyne · 9th July 2012, 12:47 AM

A post I meant to finish but didn't. Just some ideas.

Originally Posted by Piggy

I have found this to be consistently true of the comp.lits.

I have found it annoying in the extreme myself. If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc... without once acknowledging that red is first encountered and only then are objective ideas associated with it. In terms of epistemology, sensation is primary! There are major consequences to studying consciousness because of this fact.

Comp.lit want to start with objective ideas because that is a method that has worked so well in the past for science. Think of the world 'out there' as being the real center of attraction and come up with various ideas to encompass what is observed about it. When it comes to sensation and consciousness, it is no longer about 'out there', it is about 'in here'.

I wonder, I remember that on a video linked by Zeuzzz the topic of mirror neurons as it relates to autism was brought up. I do not think of comp.lits as dumb (just not wise per se), it seems like they do not have a full Theory of Mind or something (like my supposed autistic people missing mirror neurons, if such is the case). We could test this by doing autopsy studies of people who self-describe to various ideas associated with comp.lit (for it to be a real study the sample would have to be randomized as much as possible, so that the participants will be representative of the whole populace and not just comp.lit, but you get my drift I hope).

When the people in the study die, make note of how well developed the mirror neuron areas are in the various brains (or at least, observations of that kind). If the comp.lit's in the survey have less well developed mirror neuron areas than the rest of the participants, it would hopefully show them they are missing something from the conversation (I can not a priori get rid of the possibility that the mirror neurons in the comp.lit's are more developed than average as a possibility, but given their collective behavior, I find the possibility slim; however, that is the beauty of science, you can be shown to be wrong if you are intellectually honest).

Perhaps then comp.lits will listen if such was shown, but I doubt it. Like an ignorant blind child they want to tell everyone else with vision they are wrong, there is nothing going on. I would rather talk with those who have eyes that see (speaking metaphorically here, I have nothing against blind people).

PixyMisa · 9th July 2012, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

I have found it annoying in the extreme myself. If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc... without once acknowledging that red is first encountered and only then are objective ideas associated with it. In terms of epistemology, sensation is primary!

Let me get this straight: You're complaining that we're talking about physics when you want to talk about metaphysics?

Quote:

There are major consequences to studying consciousness because of this fact.

What fact?

Quote:

I wonder, I remember that on a video linked by Zeuzzz the topic of mirror neurons as it relates to autism was brought up. I do not think of comp.lits as dumb (just not wise per se), it seems like they do not have a full Theory of Mind or something (like my supposed autistic people missing mirror neurons, if such is the case). We could test this by doing autopsy studies of people who self-describe to various ideas associated with comp.lit (for it to be a real study the sample would have to be randomized as much as possible, so that the participants will be representative of the whole populace and not just comp.lit, but you get my drift I hope).

I see. So rather than pointing out a problem with the argument, you launch into a rambling ad-hominem attack against people to whom you ascribe a strawman argument of your own invention.

!Kaggen · 9th July 2012, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Well, yeah. They're wrong.

No, they are conscious.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Could you please at least pretend to be following the discussion?

The discussion is whether math gets you hot or not. Obviously not in my case.

Mr. Scott · 9th July 2012, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

The discussion is whether math gets you hot or not. Obviously not in my case.

Ignorance isn't knowledge.

Mr. Scott · 9th July 2012, 01:00 AM

Lots of magic beans of understanding in IBM's Watson:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Like "computers understand ones and zeroes," the brain understands action potential spikes. Organize either properly and magic beans of understanding emerge.

!Kaggen · 9th July 2012, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

Ignorance isn't knowledge.

LOL. I think I will use this classic in my sig.

PixyMisa · 9th July 2012, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

No, they are conscious.

They are conscious. Also, wrong.

Quote:

The discussion is whether math gets you hot or not. Obviously not in my case.

If Cantor's diagonalization argument^WP doesn't fill you with a sense of wonder, I have to question whether you are truly human.

Roboramma · 9th July 2012, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

No, they are conscious.

It's pretty awesome that you think that "conscious" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive.

Mr. Scott · 9th July 2012, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

LOL. I think I will use this classic in my sig.

Thank you! I await its fulfillment.

You do understand my point, don't you?

Ignorance of the power of mathematics does not give one priveleged insight on the limits of its power.

Again, the Dunning–Kruger effect^WP.

Quote:

a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority

!Kaggen · 9th July 2012, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

If Cantor's diagonalization argument^WP doesn't fill you with a sense of wonder, I have to question whether you are truly human.

Wonder, yes, at Cantor's ability's.

!Kaggen · 9th July 2012, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

Thank you! I await its fulfillment.

You do understand my point, don't you?

Ignorance of the power of mathematics does not give one priveleged insight on the limits of its power.

Again, the Dunning–Kruger effect^WP.

Assumptions, assumptions.....

Mr. Scott · 9th July 2012, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Assumptions, assumptions.....

I await your corrections of my assumptions.

PixyMisa · 9th July 2012, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Wonder, yes, at Cantor's ability's.

That's one aspect of it, yes. I'll classify you as provisionally human.

There's something deeper, though, that such an elegant argument can teach us something about mathematics that we never suspected.

!Kaggen · 9th July 2012, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

It's pretty awesome that you think that "conscious" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive.

No, they are not wrong because conscious appreciation of music is not a matter of logic.

!Kaggen · 9th July 2012, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

There's something deeper, though, that such an elegant argument can teach us something about mathematics that we never suspected.

Ah the "magic mathematics bean" argument.

PixyMisa · 9th July 2012, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

No, they are not wrong because conscious appreciation of music is not a matter of logic.

Ah, so they're not even wrong.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Ah the "magic mathematics bean" argument.

I refer you to my earlier request to at least pretend that you are following the discussion.

Belz... · 9th July 2012, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

In certain respects, it is like a computer. In other's it's not. I posted some differences earlier.

Yes, and your differences were irrelevant because they only apply to _some_ computers.

Quote:

A computer emulating a brain isn't a brain.

Yes, and a plane imitating a bird isn't a bird, but it still flies.

Belz... · 9th July 2012, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Ah the "magic mathematics bean" argument.

Since you admit to not having the "hots" for math, it seems like you're ignoring it because you don't understand it.

!Kaggen · 9th July 2012, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Ah, so they're not even wrong.

I'll let Roboramma answer this.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

It's pretty awesome that you think that "conscious" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I refer you to my earlier request to at least pretend that you are following the discussion.

The discussion is clear.
Comp.lit's are defending a modernist version of Platonism where maths is the "magic bean" answer to consciousness and skeptics are pointing out that consciousness has less to do with the "magic math bean" and more to do with empirical studies.

!Kaggen · 9th July 2012, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Since you admit to not having the "hots" for math, it seems like you're ignoring it because you don't understand it.

You have that the wrong way around.

I don't have the 'hots' for maths because I understand it is a human invention.

PixyMisa · 9th July 2012, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I'll let Roboramma answer this.

Yes, he was mocking the inanity of your post. Your point?

Quote:

The discussion is clear.

Then why are you so confused about it?

Quote:

Comp.lit's are defending a modernist version of Platonism where maths is the "magic bean" answer to consciousness and skeptics are pointing out that consciousness has less to do with the "magic math bean" and more to do with empirical studies.

Nope.

tensordyne · 9th July 2012, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Let me get this straight: You're complaining that we're talking about physics when you want to talk about metaphysics?

Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical. Figuring out a logical basis for studying consciousness is not metaphysics (in modern terms the study of the non-empirical aspects of reality, whatever those may be), it is epistemology (the study of how we 'know' things). I can understand the confusion though. Metaphysics and Epistemology are both areas of study in philosophy.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

What fact?

The fact is that in terms of epistemology, sensation is primary. We use sensation and abstract thought to investigate phenomena that are external to us. The observer is not the focus. When investigating consciousness, the observer is the focus. That presents its own difficulties (some examples: How do I know your experience of red is the same as my experience of red? How do I know when someone reports not experiencing some event that it is not just a memory issue? etc...).

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I see. So rather than pointing out a problem with the argument, you launch into a rambling ad-hominem attack against people to whom you ascribe a strawman argument of your own invention.

There are at least two possibilities when a set of people do not get an idea. One idea is that cultural bias gets in the way. The other is that the people are too dumb in some way to understand. Either way, it is still pretty annoying.

The message was mostly for Piggy (hence, I do not have to defend between the two of us that comp.lit is crazy) but I thought it would be a good idea to share. If it pisses you off that I think you are dumb in some way, sorry, at least I am being honest. I am sure you think the same of me, not that I really care.

PixyMisa · 9th July 2012, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical.

No.

tsig · 9th July 2012, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

Ignorance isn't knowledge.

The most common defense for believers is saying "I don't know and you don't either therefore god".

tsig · 9th July 2012, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

A post I meant to finish but didn't. Just some ideas.

I have found it annoying in the extreme myself. If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc... without once acknowledging that red is first encountered and only then are objective ideas associated with it. In terms of epistemology, sensation is primary! There are major consequences to studying consciousness because of this fact.

Comp.lit want to start with objective ideas because that is a method that has worked so well in the past for science. Think of the world 'out there' as being the real center of attraction and come up with various ideas to encompass what is observed about it. When it comes to sensation and consciousness, it is no longer about 'out there', it is about 'in here'.

I wonder, I remember that on a video linked by Zeuzzz the topic of mirror neurons as it relates to autism was brought up. I do not think of comp.lits as dumb (just not wise per se), it seems like they do not have a full Theory of Mind or something (like my supposed autistic people missing mirror neurons, if such is the case). We could test this by doing autopsy studies of people who self-describe to various ideas associated with comp.lit (for it to be a real study the sample would have to be randomized as much as possible, so that the participants will be representative of the whole populace and not just comp.lit, but you get my drift I hope).

When the people in the study die, make note of how well developed the mirror neuron areas are in the various brains (or at least, observations of that kind). If the comp.lit's in the survey have less well developed mirror neuron areas than the rest of the participants, it would hopefully show them they are missing something from the conversation (I can not a priori get rid of the possibility that the mirror neurons in the comp.lit's are more developed than average as a possibility, but given their collective behavior, I find the possibility slim; however, that is the beauty of science, you can be shown to be wrong if you are intellectually honest).

Perhaps then comp.lits will listen if such was shown, but I doubt it. Like an ignorant blind child they want to tell everyone else with vision they are wrong, there is nothing going on. I would rather talk with those who have eyes that see (speaking metaphorically here, I have nothing against blind people).

You would like to talk about red without talking about red?

What is this red that doesn't have a wavelength or activate cells in the eye that sends signals to the brain?

tsig · 9th July 2012, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

You have that the wrong way around.

I don't have the 'hots' for maths because I understand it is a human invention.

So was that flying suit you were in awe of.

tsig · 9th July 2012, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical. Figuring out a logical basis for studying consciousness is not metaphysics (in modern terms the study of the non-empirical aspects of reality, whatever those may be), it is epistemology (the study of how we 'know' things). I can understand the confusion though. Metaphysics and Epistemology are both areas of study in philosophy.

The fact is that in terms of epistemology, sensation is primary. We use sensation and abstract thought to investigate phenomena that are external to us. The observer is not the focus. When investigating consciousness, the observer is the focus. That presents its own difficulties (some examples: How do I know your experience of red is the same as my experience of red? How do I know when someone reports not experiencing some event that it is not just a memory issue? etc...).

There are at least two possibilities when a set of people do not get an idea. One idea is that cultural bias gets in the way. The other is that the people are too dumb in some way to understand. Either way, it is still pretty annoying.

The message was mostly for Piggy (hence, I do not have to defend between the two of us that comp.lit is crazy) but I thought it would be a good idea to share. If it pisses you off that I think you are dumb in some way, sorry, at least I am being honest. I am sure you think the same of me, not that I really care.

The less one knows about a subject the easier it seems.

Fudbucker · 9th July 2012, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yes, and your differences were irrelevant because they only apply to _some_ computers.

Yes, and a plane imitating a bird isn't a bird, but it still flies.

There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly?

Belz... · 9th July 2012, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

You have that the wrong way around.

I don't have the 'hots' for maths because I understand it is a human invention.

That's what I said.

Belz... · 9th July 2012, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly?

1) In the simulation, yes.
2) I expected someone would get caught by that word. Yes, in a way a plane emulates a bird flying, in the sense that it flies, like a bird, but it does not fly like a bird.

AlBell · 9th July 2012, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly?

IIRC, modern jet fighters require computers to actually fly, and cannot be effectively flown by a human; Airbus craft have also reached that point.

So in some sense 'yes'.

Regarding cosciousness, I agree that human level public behavior could be demonstrated by a computer controlled system of sensors and moving servers.

I, and others I suspect, quibble with private behavior, since that *is* my consciousness as I understand it. How does your computer system manage that, and how would anyone ever know it did?

As an aside my conscious thoughts are streams of words, which of course at times are interrupted by external stimuli needing attention.

Fudbucker · 9th July 2012, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

1) In the simulation, yes.

What does "in the simulation" mean? A simulation is just a bunch of code being run. So what's flying? The code? Transistors?

"Fly" is an action that can only apply to physical things. The simulated plane is SIMULATING flying, which is not the same thing. A simulated brain could engage in SIMULATED thinking or consciousness, which again, would not be the same thing.

Quote:

2) I expected someone would get caught by that word. Yes, in a way a plane emulates a bird flying, in the sense that it flies, like a bird, but it does not fly like a bird.

But it flies. If you build a mechanical brain, it may think and feel. If you simulate a plane, it won't fly, so why should a simulated brain be able to think or feel?

dlorde · 9th July 2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You'll know that you finally understand what a computer is when that video leaves you in awe.

Thanks for that - it's an extraordinary piece of work.

Belz... · 9th July 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

What does "in the simulation" mean? A simulation is just a bunch of code being run.

And our world is just a bunch of subatomic particles running around. Your point ?

Quote:

So what's flying? The code? Transistors?

The object "plane" in the simulation.

Quote:

"Fly" is an action that can only apply to physical things.

Depends on your point of view. If you're in a simulation, you could never tell the difference.

Quote:

The simulated plane is SIMULATING flying, which is not the same thing. A simulated brain could engage in SIMULATED thinking or consciousness, which again, would not be the same thing.

You are making a huge mistake, which is to assume that all these things are the same thing. If consciousness is computational, which it seems to be, then simulating consciousness creates consciousness. Think of it like this: when my computer makes a calculation, it doesn't actually add numbers, nor does it do so on a piece of paper with a pencil. And yet it calculates just as fine as I can, and faster, too. It doesn't 'simulate' calculations.

Quote:

But it flies.

I just said that.

dlorde · 9th July 2012, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

In certain respects, it is like a computer. In other's it's not. I posted some differences earlier.

Never mind - I was hinting at the inherent contradiction in your statement, "if the brain is a computer (or a kind of computer), it's working in non-computerlike ways". If the brain is a computer, then it's working in computer-like ways by definition.

What about the computers below, posted by Pixy earlier - do you think they are working in non-computer-like ways?

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

and this

and this

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

To which I'll add this.

Quote:

it's not evident that computers think, feel, and are conscious in any way.

Of course they can think and feel. Do you believe IBM's Watson and Deep Blue defeated the world's best thinkers in their fields at their own game without thinking? and how do you think the computers that control systems from cars to factories, from washing machines to power stations, can do that if they can't feel stuff?

I don't believe they're yet conscious by my preferred definition, but by Pixy's preferred definition they are. What is your preferred definition of consciousness? does it allow for artificial consciousness?

Quote:

.. the brain is not a kind of computer we currently know of.

It computes, so it's a computer, and we currently know of it. You may not have realised that there were so many different forms of computer, and that the brain was one, but now you know

dlorde · 9th July 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Tell that to a vinyl collector.

There are many reasons why vinyl and digital media may sound different, but sampling frequency isn't one of them

dlorde · 9th July 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

No, they are not wrong because conscious appreciation of music is not a matter of logic.

My take is that conscious appreciation of music is not just a matter of logic.

Can you admit that there is some logic in the conscious appreciation of music? [i.e. it is often possible to find logical explanations for aspects of the conscious appreciation of music].

dlorde · 9th July 2012, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by tensordyne

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Let me get this straight: You're complaining that we're talking about physics when you want to talk about metaphysics?

Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical.

Wait... the statement Pixy was referring to was to do with the sensation of red (below); nothing to do with the (fabricated) attribution you make above.

Quote:

If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc..

How about addressing the actual point in context?

dlorde · 9th July 2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly?

Exactly what is the difference between imitating and simulating?

Is computer Solitaire a game of cards if it doesn't have a real pack of cards? is playing onscreen computer chess a game of chess if it doesn't have a physical board or pieces? (is the computer opponent a chess player?)

Is the simulation of a wall clock currently on my screen a clock? It certainly tells the right time.

Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in other substrates, such as general purpose computers.	81	86.17%
Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectable by scientific instruments	3	3.19%
On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines	10	10.64%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

9th July 2012, 12:38 AM	#1761
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Tell that to a vinyl collector. Well, yeah. They're wrong. Originally Posted by !Kaggen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIdDA4xdTf8&sns=em You will finally understand a human when this video leaves you in awe. Could you please at least pretend to be following the discussion?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

9th July 2012, 12:47 AM	#1762
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	A post I meant to finish but didn't. Just some ideas. Originally Posted by Piggy I have found this to be consistently true of the comp.lits. I have found it annoying in the extreme myself. If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc... without once acknowledging that red is first encountered and only then are objective ideas associated with it. In terms of epistemology, sensation is primary! There are major consequences to studying consciousness because of this fact. Comp.lit want to start with objective ideas because that is a method that has worked so well in the past for science. Think of the world 'out there' as being the real center of attraction and come up with various ideas to encompass what is observed about it. When it comes to sensation and consciousness, it is no longer about 'out there', it is about 'in here'. I wonder, I remember that on a video linked by Zeuzzz the topic of mirror neurons as it relates to autism was brought up. I do not think of comp.lits as dumb (just not wise per se), it seems like they do not have a full Theory of Mind or something (like my supposed autistic people missing mirror neurons, if such is the case). We could test this by doing autopsy studies of people who self-describe to various ideas associated with comp.lit (for it to be a real study the sample would have to be randomized as much as possible, so that the participants will be representative of the whole populace and not just comp.lit, but you get my drift I hope). When the people in the study die, make note of how well developed the mirror neuron areas are in the various brains (or at least, observations of that kind). If the comp.lit's in the survey have less well developed mirror neuron areas than the rest of the participants, it would hopefully show them they are missing something from the conversation (I can not a priori get rid of the possibility that the mirror neurons in the comp.lit's are more developed than average as a possibility, but given their collective behavior, I find the possibility slim; however, that is the beauty of science, you can be shown to be wrong if you are intellectually honest). Perhaps then comp.lits will listen if such was shown, but I doubt it. Like an ignorant blind child they want to tell everyone else with vision they are wrong, there is nothing going on. I would rather talk with those who have eyes that see (speaking metaphorically here, I have nothing against blind people).
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933

9th July 2012, 12:53 AM	#1763
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by tensordyne I have found it annoying in the extreme myself. If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc... without once acknowledging that red is first encountered and only then are objective ideas associated with it. In terms of epistemology, sensation is primary! Let me get this straight: You're complaining that we're talking about physics when you want to talk about metaphysics? Quote: There are major consequences to studying consciousness because of this fact. What fact? Quote: I wonder, I remember that on a video linked by Zeuzzz the topic of mirror neurons as it relates to autism was brought up. I do not think of comp.lits as dumb (just not wise per se), it seems like they do not have a full Theory of Mind or something (like my supposed autistic people missing mirror neurons, if such is the case). We could test this by doing autopsy studies of people who self-describe to various ideas associated with comp.lit (for it to be a real study the sample would have to be randomized as much as possible, so that the participants will be representative of the whole populace and not just comp.lit, but you get my drift I hope). I see. So rather than pointing out a problem with the argument, you launch into a rambling ad-hominem attack against people to whom you ascribe a strawman argument of your own invention.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

9th July 2012, 12:54 AM	#1764
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Well, yeah. They're wrong. No, they are conscious. Originally Posted by PixyMisa Could you please at least pretend to be following the discussion? The discussion is whether math gets you hot or not. Obviously not in my case.
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

9th July 2012, 12:56 AM	#1765
Mr. Scott Under the Amazing One's Wing Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,281	Originally Posted by !Kaggen The discussion is whether math gets you hot or not. Obviously not in my case. Ignorance isn't knowledge.
	__________________ "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end." A+ Global Moderator ceepolk, Dec. 9, 2012

9th July 2012, 01:00 AM	#1767
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott Ignorance isn't knowledge. LOL. I think I will use this classic in my sig.
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

9th July 2012, 01:01 AM	#1768
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by !Kaggen No, they are conscious. They are conscious. Also, wrong. Quote: The discussion is whether math gets you hot or not. Obviously not in my case. If Cantor's diagonalization argument^WP doesn't fill you with a sense of wonder, I have to question whether you are truly human.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

9th July 2012, 01:10 AM	#1769
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,096	Originally Posted by !Kaggen No, they are conscious. It's pretty awesome that you think that "conscious" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

9th July 2012, 01:22 AM	#1770
Mr. Scott Under the Amazing One's Wing Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,281	Originally Posted by !Kaggen LOL. I think I will use this classic in my sig. Thank you! I await its fulfillment. You do understand my point, don't you? Ignorance of the power of mathematics does not give one priveleged insight on the limits of its power. Again, the Dunning–Kruger effect^WP. Quote: a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority
	__________________ "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end." A+ Global Moderator ceepolk, Dec. 9, 2012

9th July 2012, 01:51 AM	#1771
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by PixyMisa If Cantor's diagonalization argument^WP doesn't fill you with a sense of wonder, I have to question whether you are truly human. Wonder, yes, at Cantor's ability's.
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

9th July 2012, 01:53 AM	#1772
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott Thank you! I await its fulfillment. You do understand my point, don't you? Ignorance of the power of mathematics does not give one priveleged insight on the limits of its power. Again, the Dunning–Kruger effect^WP. Assumptions, assumptions.....
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

9th July 2012, 01:55 AM	#1773
Mr. Scott Under the Amazing One's Wing Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,281	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Assumptions, assumptions..... I await your corrections of my assumptions.
	__________________ "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end." A+ Global Moderator ceepolk, Dec. 9, 2012

9th July 2012, 01:58 AM	#1774
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Wonder, yes, at Cantor's ability's. That's one aspect of it, yes. I'll classify you as provisionally human. There's something deeper, though, that such an elegant argument can teach us something about mathematics that we never suspected.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

9th July 2012, 02:07 AM	#1775
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by Roboramma It's pretty awesome that you think that "conscious" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive. No, they are not wrong because conscious appreciation of music is not a matter of logic.
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

9th July 2012, 02:10 AM	#1776
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by PixyMisa There's something deeper, though, that such an elegant argument can teach us something about mathematics that we never suspected. Ah the "magic mathematics bean" argument.
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

9th July 2012, 02:14 AM	#1777
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by !Kaggen No, they are not wrong because conscious appreciation of music is not a matter of logic. Ah, so they're not even wrong. Originally Posted by !Kaggen Ah the "magic mathematics bean" argument. I refer you to my earlier request to at least pretend that you are following the discussion.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

9th July 2012, 02:32 AM	#1778
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Originally Posted by Fudbucker In certain respects, it is like a computer. In other's it's not. I posted some differences earlier. Yes, and your differences were irrelevant because they only apply to _some_ computers. Quote: A computer emulating a brain isn't a brain. Yes, and a plane imitating a bird isn't a bird, but it still flies.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

9th July 2012, 02:34 AM	#1779
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Ah the "magic mathematics bean" argument. Since you admit to not having the "hots" for math, it seems like you're ignoring it because you don't understand it.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

9th July 2012, 02:35 AM	#1780
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Ah, so they're not even wrong. I'll let Roboramma answer this. Originally Posted by Roboramma It's pretty awesome that you think that "conscious" and "wrong" are mutually exclusive. Originally Posted by PixyMisa I refer you to my earlier request to at least pretend that you are following the discussion. The discussion is clear. Comp.lit's are defending a modernist version of Platonism where maths is the "magic bean" answer to consciousness and skeptics are pointing out that consciousness has less to do with the "magic math bean" and more to do with empirical studies.
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

9th July 2012, 02:37 AM	#1781
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by Belz... Since you admit to not having the "hots" for math, it seems like you're ignoring it because you don't understand it. You have that the wrong way around. I don't have the 'hots' for maths because I understand it is a human invention.
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/ Last edited by !Kaggen; 9th July 2012 at 02:43 AM.

9th July 2012, 02:39 AM	#1782
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by !Kaggen I'll let Roboramma answer this. Yes, he was mocking the inanity of your post. Your point? Quote: The discussion is clear. Then why are you so confused about it? Quote: Comp.lit's are defending a modernist version of Platonism where maths is the "magic bean" answer to consciousness and skeptics are pointing out that consciousness has less to do with the "magic math bean" and more to do with empirical studies. Nope.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

9th July 2012, 03:02 AM	#1783
tensordyne Muse Join Date: May 2010 Location: none of your business Posts: 693	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Let me get this straight: You're complaining that we're talking about physics when you want to talk about metaphysics? Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical. Figuring out a logical basis for studying consciousness is not metaphysics (in modern terms the study of the non-empirical aspects of reality, whatever those may be), it is epistemology (the study of how we 'know' things). I can understand the confusion though. Metaphysics and Epistemology are both areas of study in philosophy. Originally Posted by PixyMisa What fact? The fact is that in terms of epistemology, sensation is primary. We use sensation and abstract thought to investigate phenomena that are external to us. The observer is not the focus. When investigating consciousness, the observer is the focus. That presents its own difficulties (some examples: How do I know your experience of red is the same as my experience of red? How do I know when someone reports not experiencing some event that it is not just a memory issue? etc...). Originally Posted by PixyMisa I see. So rather than pointing out a problem with the argument, you launch into a rambling ad-hominem attack against people to whom you ascribe a strawman argument of your own invention. There are at least two possibilities when a set of people do not get an idea. One idea is that cultural bias gets in the way. The other is that the people are too dumb in some way to understand. Either way, it is still pretty annoying. The message was mostly for Piggy (hence, I do not have to defend between the two of us that comp.lit is crazy) but I thought it would be a good idea to share. If it pisses you off that I think you are dumb in some way, sorry, at least I am being honest. I am sure you think the same of me, not that I really care.
	__________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933 Last edited by tensordyne; 9th July 2012 at 03:04 AM.

9th July 2012, 03:04 AM	#1784
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by tensordyne Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical. No.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

9th July 2012, 04:36 AM	#1785
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,779	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott Ignorance isn't knowledge. The most common defense for believers is saying "I don't know and you don't either therefore god".

9th July 2012, 04:42 AM	#1786
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,779	Originally Posted by tensordyne A post I meant to finish but didn't. Just some ideas. I have found it annoying in the extreme myself. If you talk about the sensation of red they will talk about how many nanometers of light red corresponds to, which part of the brain gets activated when red is experienced (if you are lucky), etc., etc... without once acknowledging that red is first encountered and only then are objective ideas associated with it. In terms of epistemology, sensation is primary! There are major consequences to studying consciousness because of this fact. Comp.lit want to start with objective ideas because that is a method that has worked so well in the past for science. Think of the world 'out there' as being the real center of attraction and come up with various ideas to encompass what is observed about it. When it comes to sensation and consciousness, it is no longer about 'out there', it is about 'in here'. I wonder, I remember that on a video linked by Zeuzzz the topic of mirror neurons as it relates to autism was brought up. I do not think of comp.lits as dumb (just not wise per se), it seems like they do not have a full Theory of Mind or something (like my supposed autistic people missing mirror neurons, if such is the case). We could test this by doing autopsy studies of people who self-describe to various ideas associated with comp.lit (for it to be a real study the sample would have to be randomized as much as possible, so that the participants will be representative of the whole populace and not just comp.lit, but you get my drift I hope). When the people in the study die, make note of how well developed the mirror neuron areas are in the various brains (or at least, observations of that kind). If the comp.lit's in the survey have less well developed mirror neuron areas than the rest of the participants, it would hopefully show them they are missing something from the conversation (I can not a priori get rid of the possibility that the mirror neurons in the comp.lit's are more developed than average as a possibility, but given their collective behavior, I find the possibility slim; however, that is the beauty of science, you can be shown to be wrong if you are intellectually honest). Perhaps then comp.lits will listen if such was shown, but I doubt it. Like an ignorant blind child they want to tell everyone else with vision they are wrong, there is nothing going on. I would rather talk with those who have eyes that see (speaking metaphorically here, I have nothing against blind people). You would like to talk about red without talking about red? What is this red that doesn't have a wavelength or activate cells in the eye that sends signals to the brain?

9th July 2012, 04:48 AM	#1787
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,779	Originally Posted by !Kaggen You have that the wrong way around. I don't have the 'hots' for maths because I understand it is a human invention. So was that flying suit you were in awe of.

9th July 2012, 04:52 AM	#1788
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,779	Originally Posted by tensordyne Statements such as 'you are your brain function' and similar that come from comp.lit crowd are metaphysical as well as mystical. Figuring out a logical basis for studying consciousness is not metaphysics (in modern terms the study of the non-empirical aspects of reality, whatever those may be), it is epistemology (the study of how we 'know' things). I can understand the confusion though. Metaphysics and Epistemology are both areas of study in philosophy. The fact is that in terms of epistemology, sensation is primary. We use sensation and abstract thought to investigate phenomena that are external to us. The observer is not the focus. When investigating consciousness, the observer is the focus. That presents its own difficulties (some examples: How do I know your experience of red is the same as my experience of red? How do I know when someone reports not experiencing some event that it is not just a memory issue? etc...). There are at least two possibilities when a set of people do not get an idea. One idea is that cultural bias gets in the way. The other is that the people are too dumb in some way to understand. Either way, it is still pretty annoying. The message was mostly for Piggy (hence, I do not have to defend between the two of us that comp.lit is crazy) but I thought it would be a good idea to share. If it pisses you off that I think you are dumb in some way, sorry, at least I am being honest. I am sure you think the same of me, not that I really care. The less one knows about a subject the easier it seems.

9th July 2012, 07:21 AM	#1789
Fudbucker Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 503	Originally Posted by Belz... Yes, and your differences were irrelevant because they only apply to _some_ computers. Yes, and a plane imitating a bird isn't a bird, but it still flies. There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly?
Fudbucker Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 503

9th July 2012, 07:58 AM	#1790
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Originally Posted by !Kaggen You have that the wrong way around. I don't have the 'hots' for maths because I understand it is a human invention. That's what I said.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

9th July 2012, 08:00 AM	#1791
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Originally Posted by Fudbucker There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly? 1) In the simulation, yes. 2) I expected someone would get caught by that word. Yes, in a way a plane emulates a bird flying, in the sense that it flies, like a bird, but it does not fly like a bird.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

9th July 2012, 08:05 AM	#1792
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,501	Originally Posted by Fudbucker There's a difference between imitating and simulating. Does a simulated plane fly? IIRC, modern jet fighters require computers to actually fly, and cannot be effectively flown by a human; Airbus craft have also reached that point. So in some sense 'yes'. Regarding cosciousness, I agree that human level public behavior could be demonstrated by a computer controlled system of sensors and moving servers. I, and others I suspect, quibble with private behavior, since that is my consciousness as I understand it. How does your computer system manage that, and how would anyone ever know it did? As an aside my conscious thoughts are streams of words, which of course at times are interrupted by external stimuli needing attention.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,501

9th July 2012, 09:04 AM	#1793
Fudbucker Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 503	Originally Posted by Belz... 1) In the simulation, yes. What does "in the simulation" mean? A simulation is just a bunch of code being run. So what's flying? The code? Transistors? "Fly" is an action that can only apply to physical things. The simulated plane is SIMULATING flying, which is not the same thing. A simulated brain could engage in SIMULATED thinking or consciousness, which again, would not be the same thing. Quote: 2) I expected someone would get caught by that word. Yes, in a way a plane emulates a bird flying, in the sense that it flies, like a bird, but it does not fly like a bird. But it flies. If you build a mechanical brain, it may think and feel. If you simulate a plane, it won't fly, so why should a simulated brain be able to think or feel?
Fudbucker Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 503

9th July 2012, 09:40 AM	#1795
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,522	Originally Posted by Fudbucker What does "in the simulation" mean? A simulation is just a bunch of code being run. And our world is just a bunch of subatomic particles running around. Your point ? Quote: So what's flying? The code? Transistors? The object "plane" in the simulation. Quote: "Fly" is an action that can only apply to physical things. Depends on your point of view. If you're in a simulation, you could never tell the difference. Quote: The simulated plane is SIMULATING flying, which is not the same thing. A simulated brain could engage in SIMULATED thinking or consciousness, which again, would not be the same thing. You are making a huge mistake, which is to assume that all these things are the same thing. If consciousness is computational, which it seems to be, then simulating consciousness creates consciousness. Think of it like this: when my computer makes a calculation, it doesn't actually add numbers, nor does it do so on a piece of paper with a pencil. And yet it calculates just as fine as I can, and faster, too. It doesn't 'simulate' calculations. Quote: But it flies. I just said that.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

9th July 2012, 09:49 AM	#1797
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Tell that to a vinyl collector. There are many reasons why vinyl and digital media may sound different, but sampling frequency isn't one of them
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...