Hi, Obe, opposites are indeed “simply opposites”, but each of them can be wrong anyway.
i would like to leave it at that, but the problem with Your last statement here, is that currently, the above cited 2 views are the leading contenders for the ‘right’ approach. So, although they may be right/wrong as any theoretical viewpoint, so far they both have workable constructs, and leading child psychologists are using them in working with children. Psychology today is one of multi phasic approach where it is not a question of the right or wrong approach, rather, it is trying differing approaches and see which merits the best result
Obe,
You can say that i am Kantian. Though, i should rather say that i agree with him at many issues about the methosdology of the mind. To me, he is the height of pure intellectual (non-religious) phiolosphy as far as the philosophy of the mind is concerned. No intellectual and convention philosopher has cross that limit.
As i see it, this is how the ontology goes-
[b]First of all, there is some a priori capacity exist in the mind to sense and feel, whether he know, expreienced or thought about anything ever or not. This comes embeded with the mind at the time of birth. Not only humans, but every living entity use to born with this, though the quantum of the capacity differs in each case.
As this capacity enables us to sense and feel, and as circumstances use to change all the time, thus this capacity of the mind gets more and new feelings all the time. And, it start discerning and comapring between those, after a limit it starts emulating too. This is thinking[/b].
[b]When this manifested thinking needs to be communicated to the others, we invent some mutually agreed audiable sounds for our different thoughts. That is word or language.
So, language comes later. it is not the base. The base is our feeling capacity and that is precisely the language of our’s or anybody living creature’s mind.
We do not think in the terms of language or words. That is not even possible. Our invented languages used to be decoded by the mind into feeling for being understood. But, all this happens so instantly, we do not realize it generally[/b].
Thinking is nothing but the complex form of feeling. And, in the same way, language is the complex form of thinking and its translation into audio for communication.
Had there was a single human in the world, no verbal language would be invented. But, that does not mean that lone person would not be able to think either.
with love,
sanjay
He was an amateur.
The “language of the mind” is that of emulation. The mind emulates sensory responses in order to predict future situations, much as in a dream. The results of the emulation become the next stimulators (as though they were real experiences) that also send waves of emulated sensory events. It is a process of both parallel and serial processing of self-invoked, “artificial”, emulation more commonly known as “imagination”.
In AI, it is recursive neural networking.
Sanjay,
The first view places emphasis on the idea, the second the phenomena. The meaning theory associated with the first, view predisposes meaning with a view that change in meaning implicates very little difference on the understanding of the child. This is Piaget.
The other view emphasizes learning as considering changes in the ideas surrounding meaning, as pivotal. Here the primordial ideas are not entirely discounted, but are minimized, thereby shifting the emphasis.
Whether there are primordial, precognitive thoughts in either scenario, becomes not totally irrelevant, but mostly a hypothetical question.
In a sense, he was amatrue because he was not tranied for what he attempted. But, that does not mitigate his position. He still achieved that no other conventional philosopher could.
Secondly, You are not deducting the process completely.
How can a mind can even emulate ever if it does not has the capacity to feel/sense/understand that emulation, in the first place? And, why should mind even bother about emulation? It must have sensed something first, then would have desired emulation.
Why are you leaving that first stage?
Emulation is not the only capacity that mind has. Emulation is the combine effort of feel and will, which are the two different chatacters of the mind and both come embeded. Emulation cannot happen in the absense or either. Pure feeling cannot manifest emulation unless the feeling entity does not has the desire to emulate.
with love,
sanjay
I think the reason epistemology has-regressed to Sassure, is because it is both: a figurative and literal modus operandi of returning to the sources of symbol-sign formation. The existential reduction of bracketing meaning has proven ineffective , especially in the Continent, and pre cognitive literacy may re-enact in this way, the very earliest way symbols evolved. But thought in this cave picture age, is tantamount to thinking visually. Can visual presentation and re-presentation be interpreted as ‘thought’? If not, then there is no way that a break free continuity between pictures and signs can be established. There may at one time have been such, but if so, meaning has been degraded to the point where we have to return to it.
Emulation does not either escape criticism, nor sensation or will.
Emulation is the ONLY thinking that a mind does. The initial sensations and resultant verbiage use constitute the premise concepts and final actions involved. Everything between is entirely emulation.
That is why people learn more quickly through experience than reading or lectures and why symbols and sounds emulate their associated concepts.
Emulation of experience is mimicking not thinking, unless the use of the word think can be re-defined to include wider parameters. First, the meaning of thought has to be signified. What then is thought? Most will whip out Webster and 'look it up'. But James, the tension between referentiality and use has already been seen as variable and controversially , as of yet indefinite. So that does not work. What does?
Original ideas and their associative counterparts can not be emulated because there are none. That’s the point. There may be, but they are visual re-presentations. There is a break there, and no gap-less continuum can be demonstrated, where it can safely be said-‘that’s where it began’
Obe, you are conflating simulating with emulating. A simulation uses a proposed model to stand in for or represent a real entity and projects behavior based on presumed principles. An emulation uses artificial stimulations to trigger natural responses. The parts of the brain doing the thinking are the same parts that respond to real stimulation except the reactive output is turned off, else the person “sleep walks”, acting out his thoughts (such as talking to oneself out loud) or is “delusional”, not being able to distinguish real stimulation from his own artificial stimulation. That is why those maladies exist.
And no offense intended, but this whole issue of how the brain thinks is not really a philosophical issue any more. It is a hardcore engineering fact. There is actually very little mystery about it. Recursive, recurrent, and forwardfeeding processes are simply the way neural networks function, whether organic or mechanical. It doesn’t matter what we would like or fancifully imagine might be taking place. There is nothing that a human brain does that an artificial brain (a neural network) hasn’t been designed to replicate and surpass.
When they finally get to the point of allowing you to see what real neural androids can do, it is going to make you feel so mentally handicapped that it is going to scare and depress you pretty seriously. They very seriously don’t need You.
In Your previous posts You indicated semantic differences as significant, and the next blog dismissed any philosophical implications within the study of mind, based on the idea, that more and more emphasis is shifting toward the mechanistic wired in views of brain function, away from the neurological-psychological interpretation.
I tend to agree with You, but only with the following caveat. The fact that evolution has advanced to the point where brain function has been transplanted to the machine. The fact is that it was the human brain which thought of the computer is significant, because it was within the potential of the human brain to come up with it. The computer may be looked at as the evolutionary extension of the brain, and even if, the capabilities of the computer far exceed in certain functions, it is to the credit of the human brain that this became a possibility.
The question of whether the artificial brain will ever become smarter, other then faster and more efficient, is highly questionable, since smartness begs semantic questions as to what being 'smart' actually mean. My feeling is that artificial intelligence will outpace the natural brain quantitatively ,whereas, the human brain will become ever more important in qualifying factors relating processing of information.
Sorry, that was supposed to be a “…no offense intended…”. 
I’m not sure what you said, but what I was saying is that it isn’t a matter of interpretation any more. People like Kant had to guess about such things. Science has gone far pass any speculations on the matter other than small sophisticated details. The military has had the brain mapped with extreme accuracy for decades, fully aware of exactly how much EMR or chemicals to use in order to cause exactly which effects. They have hypnosis down to instant perfection. They don’t really need to experiment or hypothesize any longer. It would be about like experimenting to see what air is really made of.
Machines have nothing to do with evolution other than interfering with it. And yes, Man is to be credited for being so stupid as to create a life form so very much more advanced than his own.
Only to people who have no idea of how far past those questions the world really is. It is about like wondering if a machine could ever outrun a horse. When they hadn’t seen it yet, they wondered if there wasn’t some mysterious phenomenon that would prevent it. After they saw machines out run not only horses but everything else, they stopped asking the question. But the question was silly to begin with. And right now it is seriously silly to wonder if AI systems can be more intelligent than humans. They can be as far past human intelligence as how much they can outrun horses.
The human brain has only fading residual use, soon to be none.
James,
You are yourself saying that that initial sensations. That is what i am sugesting.
The first thing that the mind has to do is to sense. Eeverything else is secondary and secondry things cannot be the original language.
Emulation happens when sensing gets complex and will tries to emulate those.
I can agree with the rest.
with love,
sanjay
Sanjay, apparently what you don’t understand is that those “initial sensations” is ALL the brain does throughout, except that they are no longer “initial”. The reverberating of sensations is what causes the actions to be taken. They ARE the “thinking”. And when I say “reverberating”, I am talking about waves of sensation reflecting through the brain in limited ways that form an “algorithm” for thought and the production of symbolic and spoken communication languages. That reverberating is nothing more than emulation of sensations along limited pathways such as to produce triggers toward action. Any kind of other language is a by product of systematically emulating sensations until a “positive” sensation is the result. That last “positive” internally produced sensation triggers the action to be taken. That is ALL that your brain ever does.
In effect, your brain is merely a sensation resonance cavity. If the sensations (“feelings”) resonate “properly”, you behave “properly” (whatever that might be). If for any reason, they do not resonate sufficiently, you misbehave and die out. And that is all there is to it, other than biochemical details.
All right. Apart from significant doubt still, over Your arguments, as per the machines outpacing man, qualification of any system does have a requirement, nevertheless that the system would need to prescribe to fail-safe requirements. The nuclear arsenals of the world illustrate this, by the fact, that since their inception, the nuclear age has not had any malfeasance in terms of an uncontrolled delivery of a nuclear weapon. It is controlled. Control of any system is a sine non quo of it's very use, and artificial intelligence is no exception. I am confident, that the designers of any system , however sophisticated, will develop a con current fail safe system, in accordance to specified safety rules. It is inconceivable, that an artificial intelligence would emerge, able to override these controls. Anti missile systems doomed the nuclear arms race because they short circuited further development, from logistical and financial considerations. Likewise with artificial intelligence. Even if a war of the worlds scenario develop where computers would wage a virtual cyber war, such a race would ultimately fail if for no other reason then un affordability for a defensive/offensive cyber race. It's simply beyond the scope of even the most thorough speculation that such a possibility could even be imagined, since, defensive systems are always congruously and simultaneously developed, as a matter of course.
The history clearly shows that all previous socialisms, because they were modern, were either national or - in the worst case - imperial totalitarianisms. The current globalism is also such an modern imperial totalitarianism, namely the worst case of the worst cases because it is the greatest of history.
The two ways to get out of the imperial madness are the alternatives as city states or as nation states; but because both are about to be destroyed (and even are going to destroy themselves), only one possibility remains: the very small social units, for example something like the "communal particles". But this only possibility will come again anyway, because history repeats its form.
So one could think one has only to wait. But there is another modern problem: the modern trend itself which means also - and amongst other powerful things - MACHINES]! You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true.
And if someone has an idea like James with his “SAM” / “communal particle” (see above), then he is threatened with lies, that he were a “friend” of the “bad socialists” of the past (for example: Babeuf, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot), although / because the liars themselves are this bad socialists, even in a global scale of imperialism.
Do what thou wilt. Ye watch thee.
The middle class has to carry everything and everyone. The only difference between former modern times and curent modern times is that the nobility and clergy have been becoming globalists.
[size=77]The middle class carries the globalists.[/size]
Although mind (spirit, consciousness) is more than just a hardcore engineering fact, but the hardcore engineers do not need this “more” in order to do the stuff they want to do.
You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true. And b.t.w.: not later than since the beginning of the history of the words „joblessness“ and „unemployment“ it has been being obvious! Johann Wolfgang Goethe knew that already towards the end of the 18th century!
… and what they “want to do” is everything any mind can do, just faster and better.
It is all going in accord with the plan. 
Arminius, just curious, the table describing , those for and those against the op’s proposition has been a while. Would/could a more upgraded version be printed? Or, as it looks, the number of participants have narrowed down a bit. May this be significant/ as far as the holding of pro/con opinions, or may be the narrowing down of opinions to only a few, be of some significance in it’s self?