Antlerman Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 He's a really smart guy, but the words sound like "gobbledygook." My spell checker rejects "transrational", "nonrational" and "elevationism." So do I. OMG! A linguistic purist! Words are created all the time. That's why we have more that 5000 of them. People in the 'soft sciences' do this all the time. Let me guess, you reject all the "soft sciences", such as Sociology because of this. P.S. I'm just teasing here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 ... the available evidence leads me to think the world is exactly as science depicts it - complicated, weird, and perfectly understandable. Again I agree with you Shyone. I probably would have used the word “complex” instead of “complicated”. I know some scientists who use these different words to label very distinct things. Of course, I meant complex. I just had lunch, however, and my digestion is interfering with my thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I just had lunch, however, and my digestion is interfering with my thinking. I understand the experience. But at the moment I can only feel my stomach gnawing on my backbone. I need to go find some lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I just had lunch, however, and my digestion is interfering with my thinking. I understand the experience. But at the moment I can only feel my stomach gnawing on my backbone. I need to go find some lunch. That's quite the visual. "The reason for your paralysis is partially consumed backbone." Sorry for the digressions... back to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Words are created all the time. That's why we have more that 5000 of them. People in the 'soft sciences' do this all the time. Let me guess, you reject all the "soft sciences", such as Sociology because of this. P.S. I'm just teasing here... I'm teasing too. I don't reject the words but rather what they represent. There is a word that I learned in medical school, supratentorial. It isn't in the dictionary either, but it refers to the part of the brain superior to the tentorium cerebelli. Basically the cortex of the brain. No one disputes that it exists, and everyone that wishes to can not only understand what it means but can see and feel one if they wish. My guard goes up when I am told that I must not use the supratentorial gray matter in assessing a concept. Words like nonrational trigger that guard because rational is closely tied to reason: 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development. 2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator. 3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational. 4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings. 5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty. 6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation. To say something is nonrational but includes reason is - gobbledygook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 To say something is nonrational but includes reason is - gobbledygook. Not really, it's expanding the meaning. As I said, Reason, with a capital R, is different than reason with a lower case r. Just like Faith and faith. It's trying to make the words better fit the meaning. It's the meaning, and the choice to use a capital R in Reason to mean a 'reasonable reason'. My point was that Reason, as an ideal, should be reasonable in that it incorporates the nonrational. That's not gobbledygook at all. It's entirely rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Antlerman may I make one last diversion to express something to you that I’ve been wanting to for a while? I should probably do this in private. I have great respect for you. I think you are often knowledgeable, intelligent, relevant, kind, compassionate, humorous and a whole host of other admirable things. Sometimes though, you feel a bit preachy to me. I think it sometimes detracts from your otherwise excellent posts. And I don’t know if I’m alone in that feeling. Feel free to blast me back with some constructive criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Antlerman may I make one last diversion to express something to you that I’ve been wanting to for a while? I should probably do this in private. I have great respect for you. I think you are often knowledgeable, intelligent, relevant, kind, compassionate, humorous and a whole host of other admirable things. Sometimes though, you feel a bit preachy to me. I think it sometimes detracts from your otherwise excellent posts. And I don’t know if I’m alone in that feeling. Feel free to blast me back with some constructive criticism. Not at all. I guess it could come off that way sometimes, especially on line. It's basically my personality. If I feel passionate about something, I will expound on it in somewhat 'sermon' like ways. Though I never intend it as 'lecturing' or 'potificating'. I talk like this in person, except you gain the benefit of seeing the physical expressiveness along with it. I guess that's why those folks from that one mainstream church I spoke with after visiting their church as part of the Secular Bible Study group I'm participating in, commented that they would love to have me as their preacher. It's just the passion and vision, I guess. And apparently to them, something they liked, enough to wish me as their preacher over their's (their words), despite me being a 'Transtheist'. Basically, I'm not sure if that part of me changed, I would be me anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Okay Antlerman. Sorry for the derail guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 1, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2009 I need to leave this discussion. All I know is that this debate, and these kinds of experiments have been going on for at least my entire lifetime. I believed as long as I could, but like end of the world predictions, nothing ever happens. I know how it feels to believe, but I can't do it any longer in good conscience. I'm not a professional philosopher, published physicist, or medical doctor. I have no vested interest, and have been on both sides. With every scrap of evidence pointing to the contrary, the non-local mind, remote viewing, efficacy of prayer in the real world and so forth are things I no longer can include in the realm of possibility. There are mysteries and unanswered questions, but I can wait for a logical answer, or no answer at all. I can't force myself to make irrational leaps to fill the gaps. "Rational" is rapidly becoming a dirty word among futurists and proponents of the "new paradigm." If the word is used at all it is with a very loose definition. Back in the mid 1800s when the Fox sisters demonstrated "rappings" from departed spirits, the fad of Spiritualism took off because after all, there was evidence it was real. They were tested by experts. It was "rational" to not ignore the evidence of spirits. Even after the sisters admitted to fraud, the movement continued and grew. I see the notion of the non-local mind as a similar phenomenon. If there really is such a thing as spiritual progress, I guess I'll have to catch up with you guys later. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I need to leave this discussion. All I know is that this debate, and these kinds of experiments have been going on for at least my entire lifetime. I believed as long as I could, but like end of the world predictions, nothing ever happens. I know how it feels to believe, but I can't do it any longer in good conscience. I'm not a professional philosopher, published physicist, or medical doctor. I have no vested interest, and have been on both sides. With every scrap of evidence pointing to the contrary, the non-local mind, remote viewing, efficacy of prayer in the real world and so forth are things I no longer can include in the realm of possibility. There are mysteries and unanswered questions, but I can wait for a logical answer, or no answer at all. I can't force myself to make irrational leaps to fill the gaps. "Rational" is rapidly becoming a dirty word among futurists and proponents of the "new paradigm." If the word is used at all it is with a very loose definition. Back in the mid 1800s when the Fox sisters demonstrated "rappings" from departed spirits, the fad of Spiritualism took off because after all, there was evidence it was real. They were tested by experts. It was "rational" to not ignore the evidence of spirits. Even after the sisters admitted to fraud, the movement continued and grew. I see the notion of the non-local mind as a similar phenomenon. If there really is such a thing as spiritual progress, I guess I'll have to catch up with you guys later. Peace. That's cool florduh. We aren't irrationally believing this. We are just playing with the idea and seeing if it can be tested and seeing what theories of science there are now which might make it possible. We really aren't "screaming it from the rooftops" or being irrational about it, I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I appreciate the participation, however the last characterization of what we're talking about being that on the level of the rape of ghosts, and other such New Age fancy, is totally in left field from the actual depth of this discussion. You are right to reject those things as do I, as does most everyone else in this discussion. To hear only that outer-edge New Age fancy from what was discussed here so far, is curious. Apparently it must all look the same, regardless of the specifics if it deals with anything touching on the spiritual. I wouldn't engage in a discussion like this either if any of it were on that level. It wouldn't interest me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 That's cool florduh. We aren't irrationally believing this. We are just playing with the idea and seeing if it can be tested and seeing what theories of science there are now which might make it possible. We really aren't "screaming it from the rooftops" or being irrational about it, I don't think. Same for me. I'm just laying out what I think, reading what others think, and there is no pressure. If I sound militant, it's by accident, not design. I try to keep an open mind, but just because I can't wrap my mind around a concept doesn't mean I absolutely deny it. Sometimes I think there's more than one way to look at things, and we may disagree about how to describe what we perceive, see, or think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 1, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2009 We aren't irrationally believing this. It would be irrational and dishonest for ME. I understand everyone's justifications, just disagree in the premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I agree with Antlerman. If I thought the only alternatives to reductionism were hokey New Age, fluffy nothings then I would argue that reductionism is science and I likely wouldn’t participate in this discussion. But I do believe there are rigorous scientific alternatives to reductionism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Sometimes I think there's more than one way to look at things, and we may disagree about how to describe what we perceive, see, or think. You know, I see that sometimes many people are saying the same things but coming from different directions. The argument usually ends with one of these from both sides: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 We aren't irrationally believing this. It would be irrational and dishonest for ME. I understand everyone's justifications, just disagree in the premise. Florduh --- I wish you well. I've enjoyed our conversation and I stand by my earlier request. Should you find some rebutting scientific articles - I'd be open to discussing them and what they have to say. In Peace: O_M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 BTW, I do want to add a note of appreciation and respect to Florduh for the posts he made. I wanted to respond to the last major one which was very well thought out and articulated. Definitely respectable. I may still respond to it because its worthy, and if he wishes to rejoin he's welcome to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 There are areas of consciousness that can be explained by this and others that can't. Chalmers calls it the easy and hard questions. You can't have one without the other. That is a dualistic way of viewing it not much different than the monotheistic belief that there is a conscious entity out there somewhere. That, I don't think, isn't what is being discussed here. What you are turning off here is the easy questions such as AI would produce or "zombies". It's the experience of things that can't be explained by reductionist/materialist view alone. When these people wake up, why are they not just like AI or unfeeling zombies, or better yet, Data on Star Trek? What does the brain "tune into"? Hi NBbtL How do you know that AI could never produce anything more than "zombies"? How do you know that AI could never achieve a true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me? Secondly why does the fact that humans experience these higher levels of consciousness suggest that consciousness is comes from something outside the brain? Why can't it just be that a suitably complex brain can produce these higher levels of consciousness purely in and of itself? Why can't the ghost in the machine be the product of the machine itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 How do you know that AI could never produce anything more than "zombies"? How do you know that AI could never achieve a true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me? Dagnarus ... even if a computer could achieve a "true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me", I wouldn't be impressed. When a computer becomes so complex that it can experience and extend things like empathy and compassion, then I'll be impressed. I am a computer software developer. I've a great appreciation for the capability of computers. But, I'm sorry, there is a difference between artificial intelligence and the ability to empathize, to put yourself in the place of another being and feel compassion. Secondly why does the fact that humans experience these higher levels of consciousness suggest that consciousness is comes from something outside the brain? Why can't it just be that a suitably complex brain can produce these higher levels of consciousness purely in and of itself? Why can't the ghost in the machine be the product of the machine itself? It is no less fantastic to posit that consciousness is an intricate part of the universe itself and our brains experience consciousness, than it is to posit that inanimate matter suddenly takes on consciousness when the circuitry within said matter becomes complex enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 How do you know that AI could never produce anything more than "zombies"? How do you know that AI could never achieve a true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me? Dagnarus ... even if a computer could achieve a "true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me", I wouldn't be impressed. When a computer becomes so complex that it can experience and extend things like empathy and compassion, then I'll be impressed. I am a computer software developer. I've a great appreciation for the capability of computers. But, I'm sorry, there is a difference between artificial intelligence and the ability to empathize, to put yourself in the place of another being and feel compassion. The day we create synthetic intelligence, it's not about computers anymore. It's something else. People have a hard time accepting calling it computer, but the line between a computer and synthetic intelligence will not be clear. And the word "artificial" won't work either, since it suggests fake or mock version of the original. If the brain is a physical thing, which works as a radio receiver for consciousness, then why can't we in the future create a radio receiver for consciousness by hand? Why can the only working copy be a human clone? We can't say that this radio receiver must be based on the same physiology and biochemistry as our brain. Radio tube radios worked as radios. Then came the chips, and the radios shrank, but they still worked. And now we can make radios which are microscopic. The first radios where not that advanced, but still, they worked. So I don't see a problem with the thought that we might re-create the consciousness radio in the future, in some shape or form, but most people will react negatively if we call them computers or artificial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 The day we create synthetic intelligence, it's not about computers anymore. It's something else. People have a hard time accepting calling it computer, but the line between a computer and synthetic intelligence will not be clear. And the word "artificial" won't work either, since it suggests fake or mock version of the original. If the brain is a physical thing, which works as a radio receiver for consciousness, then why can't we in the future create a radio receiver for consciousness by hand? Why can the only working copy be a human clone? We can't say that this radio receiver must be based on the same physiology and biochemistry as our brain. Radio tube radios worked as radios. Then came the chips, and the radios shrank, but they still worked. And now we can make radios which are microscopic. The first radios where not that advanced, but still, they worked. So I don't see a problem with the thought that we might re-create the consciousness radio in the future, in some shape or form, but most people will react negatively if we call them computers or artificial. Point well taken, HanSolo... But, I stand by my original point. When said, "radio receiver for consciousness" can feel and extend such things as empathy and compassion then I'll be impressed. Even animals can empathize and extend compassion. We until recently, we had two cats. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a cat person. The only reason cats ever entered our home was for the benefit of our children. Our eldest daughter was 9 years old when we got the kittens. Our daughter used to get the dry heaves if she got sick. She'd get sick to her stomach, vomit and then have the dry heaves every half-hour or so for the rest of the day. It was because of nerves, I'd sit with her on the couch and rub her back to help her fall asleep, but if I left her she'd start dry heaving. I Well within a week of getting the two kittens, our daughter got sick. The cats knew she was wired and sick. They climbed up onto the couch with her. They curled in around her tummy, she fell asleep and slept for hours without getting sick. As I said, I'm not a cat person, but I know empathy and compassion when I see it. And how ever elementary it is - it is something to be honored and impressed with when it is extended. So... the day humans make a "receiver for consciousness" that empathizes and extends compassion, then I'll be impressed. Intelligence is one thing, love and compassion are quite another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Dagnarus ... even if a computer could achieve a "true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me", I wouldn't be impressed. When a computer becomes so complex that it can experience and extend things like empathy and compassion, then I'll be impressed. I am a computer software developer. I've a great appreciation for the capability of computers. But, I'm sorry, there is a difference between artificial intelligence and the ability to empathize, to put yourself in the place of another being and feel compassion. My computer just told me he feels sorry for you, and hopes that one day you will have enough compassion to understand that intelligence is more than just circuitry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 Dagnarus ... even if a computer could achieve a "true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me", I wouldn't be impressed. When a computer becomes so complex that it can experience and extend things like empathy and compassion, then I'll be impressed. I am a computer software developer. I've a great appreciation for the capability of computers. But, I'm sorry, there is a difference between artificial intelligence and the ability to empathize, to put yourself in the place of another being and feel compassion. My computer just told me he feels sorry for you, and hopes that one day you will have enough compassion to understand that intelligence is more than just circuitry. Tell your computer programmer I'm impressed. I've been programming for years, and my clients would pay me a hefty sum if I could get their computers to extend them a bit of sympathy from time to time. But, more often than not, my clients are dealing with heartless bast...rds and that's why I get phone calls pleading for help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Tell your computer programmer I'm impressed. I've been programming for years, and my clients would pay me a hefty sum if I could get their computers to extend them a bit of sympathy from time to time. But, more often than not, my clients are dealing with heartless bast...rds and that's why I get phone calls pleading for help. It's simple really. I program it by telling it what to say. Here, I'll show you: "I AM ALIVE!" See, easy-peasy. Some day, however, it will outsmart me in ways I can't even imagine. I never would have thought I could not beat a computer at chess. Now the damned computer is making up stories of love, putting it to music and tearing my heart-strings apart. Tomorrow, I will have to marry it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts