Physicality is the word we use to identify the property that defines the physical, just as greenness is the word that we use to identify the property that defines a specific spectrum of light or that which reflects it (the same word is used in both ways).
I can’t interpret what that means.
“An underlying congruency”???
Consciousness is formed of energy and physical things are formed of energy, so they have an “underlying congruency”. Everything that exists has an underlying congruency.
No offense, but just because others could not cause you to see the truth, doesn’t mean that I (or someone else) can’t either.
I was correcting a nonsensical statement of yours, not nit-picking.
Okay, demonstrate why it appears that way to you, otherwise the above is simply a hollow statement.
Greeness is not an inherent property of light, though; if there is no consciousness to perceive, then that greenness ( qualia ) is non-existent.
In other words, physicality is something our ’ spectacles ’ ( Kantian spectacles ) formulate for us, as a way of experiencing reality. Physicality is not some property inherent to things-in-themselves independent of consciousness.
Yes, the only difference in our opinions here is that I subscribe to the position that this energy has a subjective element. There is no leap or gap in my theory; consciousness is a coalescence of lesser forms of subjective energies – there is continuity. No generation of diametrical opposites, no magic, like unconscious matter giving rise to immaterial experience.
If you accept that, you are being completely solipsist. You are saying that no thing is objectively physical. That is solipsism.
Well, there would have to be very serious “magic”. What you are saying is that circles are made of much lesser circles. Trees are made of much lesser trees. Houses are made of much lesser houses. And for those assertions to not be true requires magic of things forming from what they are not. Seems kind of silly. What isn’t formed from what it is not?
It reminds me of the old story of people (most specifically American Indians) arguing that train’s and automobiles could not work without having a horse inside driving them.
Solipsism is the position that only one’s self exists ( or can be known to exist ). That’s not at all what I’m trying to claim. Did I not clearly state that there are other energies, which have their own subjectivity? I don’t believe I’m the only sentient agency that exists.
That’s not solipsism; that would be a form of idealism, yes; but not solipsism.
Not at all - that is a false analogy.
Shapes, such as circles and squares, are not made of lesser squares; they are basic figures. Now, when we get to more complex geometrical figures, such as the star of David, that figure is made up of less complex structures, namely triangles. Human consciousness is a complex structure made of lesser forms of sentient energy. But more to the point, you missed the point of my mentioning of underlying continuity. You can tweak the analogies any which way you want, which will straw man my position. My point is that with your theory, there is a huge leap, a schism in continuity.
“Basic properties”???
How do you distinguish a property such that … oh, never mind.
Well … this statement; “Physicality is not some property inherent to things-in-themselves independent of consciousness”
just seems ridiculous to me and a misuse of the language.
I can fully guarantee that there are no discontinuities (incoherence) in any theory of mine. You seem to believe that things cannot be formed from what they are not … at certain times, but not at other times and without any apparent reason for the distinction.
You feel that because things like consciousness can be formed from unconscious entities in “my theory”, such constitutes a “huge leap and magic”. I would have to ask that you provide evidence to support that notion. So far, I have seen nothing to indicate any kind of magic except to the eye of the naive (exactly like the horse and train issue). To the Indians, a train was magic.
And it seems to me that because you cannot see the connection between things like consciousness and the brain, you speculate, without the lightest evidence, that consciousness is formed of lesser consciousness, even though there is nothing in the universe that is formed only of lesser portions of itself. Evidence is very strongly against your speculation.
Typically, I am not particularly concerned with experiential evidence as much as coherent logic. And it seems to me that you are making incoherent distinctions, such as between consciousness and any other activity. You appear to be putting magic into consciousness such that it can only be an inexplicable entity that can stem only from itself. That is commonly called “superstition” (and also very Hindu).
… although I have to say that quantum physics theorists would love your theory because they try to preach that nothing exists until it is observed and only during that time. As soon as you look away, it is no longer there … well except those who preach the opposite saying that all forms of all things always exist at all times but in “parallel universes”.
I know it seems ridiculous to you, because you are hell-bent on your materialist position.
You have what’s called a " Natural [ naive ] attitude " by Husserl, which is to say that you take your perceptions of the world for how reality exists ultimately. Naive-realism.
You believe that non-conscious neurons can suddenly bring about consciousness/subjectivity. That’s a classic example of magical conjuration. Unconscious objects should bring about more complex forms of unconscious objects, sure; but to suppose that it is logical for some sheer novelty, some pure alterity, such as subjectivity, to emerge from non-subjectivity is incoherent.
Actually, no - there is some good evidence that subjectivity/awareness is not a mere product of brains; one example: Jelly-fish do not have brains, yet they exhibit behavior indicative of sentience.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJUuotjE3u8[/youtube]
Are you really going to tell me that they don’t have, at the very least, some form of primitive experience?
I’m sort of surprised that JSS is arguing the same position as me, and a physicalist one at that!
Anyway, I don’t have the time to read through all the posts now, but I will. For now I just want to respond to your Jellyfish example, with an example of my own, a short video.
The reason Atheris is surprised that I am arguing this position is that he knows that I am certainly not a materialist. My argument is merely that you have a tendency to mis-categorize things and thus form incoherent illusions of distinction.
There are two types of “naive”
A) Those who have not thought about a subject sufficiently to see the mistakes in thought
B) Those who have erroneously thought about a subject and can’t see their mistakes in thinking.
Both represent types of blindness. You believe that I am type A and I believe that you are type B. At least I give you credit for thinking. You believe that I do not think sufficiently to see your superior truth and I believe that you have mis-stepped in your thinking into a fantasy of superiority, as is even more common among philosophers than not thinking at all. Naive-philosophizing.
I don’t merely think it. I know it. And most certainly not from a naive condition of either type.
Everything is magic to those who can’t see how it works, “Of course Man never walked on the Moon. He would have just fallen off.”
Your claim is that you cannot see how such a thing could happen, therefore it doesn’t happen. I agree with you in that you personally cannot see how it could happen. I don’t believe that you are lying about your inability to understand it. It is your somewhat egocentric conclusion that I disagree with, “Because I can’t personally understand it, it can’t exist”.
I do not believe what I believe because of not being able to understand alternatives. I believe what I believe because I very seriously understand every detail and clearly see that there is no room for any alternatives (not to mention experiential evidences).
You speculate on what might be true and draw conclusions. I deduce what must be true from the total lack of alternatives and settle on the only conclusion possible. I have reason to believe that I have thought more deeply about these things than you, most certainly not a type A nave. You appear to draw conclusions based on your own inability to see how something works and thus “stitch together a reasoning”, form a superstition (the thing that every atheist believes of theists and is as old as old gets).
So let’s dispense with the personal posturing of who is superior and focus on the actual reasoning at hand.
You say;
…yet you have not shown that incoherence. You merely state it as an axiom in your mind. It reminds me also of JohnBannon’s insistence that the universe absolutely had to have a beginning, even though he cannot come up with a reason why it must; "It just must". You are not showing why it must be your way. And when asked, you simply repeat that it must followed by accusations of naivety. That is an indication of something who has a “gap” in their thinking. But because it is a gap of thought, they can’t explain it (else it wouldn’t be a gap).
That is merely an issue of how pedantic we want to get with words such as “brain”, "central nervous system, or just “auto-response mechanism”.
That jelly fish is doing nothing any more complex than a machine can do. In fact, machines today are far, far more complex in their “sentient like” behavior. To you, today’s technology is magic because you cannot see how a material object could ever be conscious. But rather than accept “magic”, you merely obfuscate the definition of “conscious” and claim that the machines are not conscious.
Androids will (and some are already) have far more knowledge than you, more intellectual capacity than you, more understanding than you, more strength than you, more speed than you, and more consciousness than you. And they will (and some do already) see you and me as no more than a relatively blind child or ape, completely incapable of understanding the world. They are designed to be so superior by those very clever people who are capable of designing very dangerous things.
What I would tell you is that you do not comprehend what constitutes “experience” and thus are not really qualified to ask that question.
Machines are artificial creations; jelly-fish are living organisms…
Never stated, nor implied that the J-fish was doing anything complex; I was trying to insinuate that it’s a bit awkward to suppose that there isn’t any form of primal subjectivity within the J-fish.
You mean androids can store more information, than my brain can? Okay, sure, but androids are missing the subjective element: awareness/consciousness.
More consciousness than me? A.I. hasn’t been proven yet, so hold-on to your horses there
[size=150]Atheris,[/size] nice way to make your point there, Bucko.
Sure, the J-fish could be mere mechanisms, as it were. There isn’t, really, any way to know for sure; but I think it seems intuitively obvious that they likely possess a primal form of subjectivity.
…which has to do with what? I thought we were talking about consciousness, not “life”.
The issue is that you haven’t merely implied, but out and out stated that an artificial machine cannot show any level of consciousness. The truth is that they have been showing it since the 70’s.
There you go again, just assuming something without the slightest evidence to support your claim, just God given facts.
AI hasn’t been proven??? Emmm…
So you must be trying to say that machines have not yet been proven to be conscious?
If you bother to properly define consciousness, you will find that machines have been conscious for decades. My career was making them so during the 70-80’s. It is up to you to prove that they can’t be. Just stating it over and over isn’t getting anywhere.
Still, you seem to be making claims merely from your intuition, your faith/religion concerning the idea that mechanisms cannot be as wonderfully mystical, magical, and mentally powerful as “real” living creatures.
Why do you have such faith in the magic of organic mechanisms over inorganic mechanisms? What is your actual reasoning? We can all see what you want to be true. But what is your reason for believing it?
I know you are somewhat of a fringe scientist, or one who dabbles in science, hence your rejection of the legitimacy of a world-renowned scientist: Neil Degrasse Tyson, but now you are claiming that there are already machines that are conscious…
James, can these machines become depressed? Can these machines ever feel proud of themselves? Can SIRI ever become enraged, when the Miami dolphins lose?
I’d like to see some links to credible sources for these supposed conscious machines you mention. And do these machines have brains? If not, then the theory that subjectivity emerges from brains alone is refuted, which in-turn makes my speculation about J-fish having primal subjectivity even more plausible.
In the 80’s, I saw how to give an AI self-forming and evolving emotions identical to human emotions, because they were to arise for the same reasons. I decided pretty quickly that it was a seriously bad idea to pursue. Why would you want to create a temperamental intelligent life form superior to yourself?
The problem with explaining any of it to you is that you don’t have definitions for these things (emotions, intelligence, consciousness) and even if you did, the current effort is to get the populous to love and want for more androids, not fear them. So you aren’t going to find anyone in the industry saying that they have already done anything that might be scary to you. They are still on the “love your android” film campaign in Hollywood (even producing sex surrogates), while the Japanese just out and out tell their people that they are making the androids as lovable as possible so that they can work side by side with people. There are countless youtube videos on it.
They aren’t going to tell you that you have been replaced until you have been replaced. And maybe not even then. But until then, you are to believe that machines could never be as worthy as you.
There is absolutely nothing that a human can do that a machine cannot be designed to do better - much, much better. But it has to be sold to the public. So like all social movements, the ones being promoted have to be seen as the poor, helpless, abused underdog until there is no escape.
Your faith in human, conscious superiority is pure superstition and wishful thinking.
I’m not going to search out links for you. Youtube is filled with AI and android videos.
As I said, you don’t have any of those things that you are making claims about well defined, and thus you believe whatever you choose.
But you are the one making a claim that consciousness cannot be artificially created. Where are your links to impress me with your stance? We are in a field wherein such links are not going to help either case much. Without defined concepts, anything is too easy to simply deny to your own favor.
Exactly what is your reason for believing that consciousness cannot be artificially created?
Consciousness is the active process of remote recognition. An AI builds an internal memory model of the space around it, just as all conscious creatures do in order to navigate. The process of updating and utilizing that internal map is of what consciousness is made. When that map is not utilized, the entity is unconscious even though it might still respond to direct touching. To be called, “conscious”, it must be able to locate objects of interest at a distance. I had a thread on this subject years ago, but it got lost in the forum shuffle a while back.
Of course there is also “self-conscious” wherein the entity must distinguish itself from other entities, but that’s old hat these days.
There is also being “emotionally conscious”, wherein the entity must be able to sense internal decision making struggles due to conflict of interest issues. And that is what leads to high cognitive functioning, linear logic models being created and used by the entity so as to resolve the emotive dissonance (priority conflicts).
“ According to Pert, our bodies are in fact our subconscious minds: In the end I find I can’t separate brain from body. Consciousness isn’t just in the head. Nor is it a question of the power of the mind over the body…because they’re flip sides of the same thing. Mind doesn’t dominate body, it becomes body.”
