IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags artificial intelligence , consciousness

View Poll Results: Is consciousness physical or metaphysical?
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

Closed Thread
Old 8th June 2012, 06:35 AM   #561
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
How is that a corollary?
I rest 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
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 07:49 AM   #562
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
I rest my case
Well, if by "corollary" you mean "non sequitur" and by "rest" you mean "lose", then sure.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 08:23 AM   #563
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
You think?
african masks
Yes, we are plenty creative now.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 8th June 2012 at 08:25 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 09:00 AM   #564
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
You think?
african masks
lol

Ok, lets be specific about this. There are two aspects to what people normally call "creativity."

First, there is the ability of a person to take the experiences they have had, and reorganize them, and generate something new or unique from those prior experiences.

Second, there is the set of experiences a person has access to.

I don't claim that the internet has advanced the first aspect.

However it is plainly obvious that the internet has exponentially advanced the second.

Case in point: while those masks you linked to may seem "creative" given the things the tribesmen had to work with, it is clear from even a cursory examination that the creative "diversity" among just the avatars of this forum alone far exceeds that of the entire set of all African masks ever made.

Are we more creative than the tribal artists? It depends. We certainly have a far greater number of experiences to draw from, and that should count for something.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 01:42 PM   #565
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
I am ordinarily ...
Blah, blah, blah. Put up or shut up. Inform us oh wise one of your views on consciousness, biology, whatever. Making excuses for using a known type of fallacious argument does not add to your credibility.

Who knows, maybe if you give me your arguments on the topic at hand I might be swayed. That is if you are willing to give it a try. On the other hand, if you do not want to give it a go, that is your business and I will completely understand. This weak sauce of just saying I am soooo wrong without even trying to show why bores me.

All the best to you all!
__________________
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
tensordyne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 02:06 PM   #566
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Creativity and Consciousness

We've been through this before. It's been implied that no machine could have the fine arts magic bean, therefore no machine could be conscious, but the unfortunate implication is that someone who can't create like a Dali or a Mozart is not conscious.

When someone says that the music I write comes "from God" it pisses me off, because I'm quite conscious of how hard I work to create music.

Here's how I do it:

1) Pick an emotion to express.
2) Recall existing pieces of music that evoke that feeling and solve for their underlying patterns responsible for that evocation.
3) Pick a series of notes and chords. Parts that sound good, keep and embellish. Parts that don't, forget.
4) If a part reminds me of existing music, change it.
5) Package it in familiar musical sequences of repeats and beginning, middle, and end.
6) Perform for friends, record, write down, or enter into a sequencer.

Notice that step #3 is exactly the process of the evolution of life: keep and embellish on what works, discard what doesn't. No god or magic bean required.

Because I can be quite conscious of my process, I can break it down into steps on a path towards demystifying and replicating it in machines that some say only use meaningless numbers, though my brain does it with meaningless action potentials.

FWIW the process is quite similar to computer programming, and both result in concocting of a sequence of events that play out in time.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 02:08 PM   #567
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by Itztli View Post
The cumulative effect of the different fields of all the ions is just a superposition of the fields, weakened by inverse square and additional attenuation through the tissue. If there's any effect, it will be mostly from nearby signals, and only effect neurons which happen to be on the trigger edge. In electronic circuits, the same thing happens, and it's called 'crosstalk'. Engineers try to avoid it, as it makes the circuit behave unreliably.

The whole thing seems superfluous. We have a huge amount of neurons, and and even bigger network of 'wired' connections between them. I don't see how adding another layer of wireless communication would make consciousness easier to explain. It seems more like a cop-out. Replace 'EM field' with 'Magic Smoke', and read the article again, and that pretty much how it sounds to me.
I want to make a point here about the exposition above. Leaving completely aside for the moment whether neurons can effect each other through an em field, which is what the first paragraph above is about, the second paragraph has a definite bias in it.

EM fields are real things. They are real just like neurons, axons and dendrites are. The EM field concept is one of the cornerstones of scientific exploration. There is no cop out involved in analyzing the possible consequences of the EM field inside a brain (beyond just the connectionist paradigm). This is a legitimate scientific question.

It seems pretty evident as well that if there is a place for the EM field to affect neurons and be affected by neurons, then the computational complexity just went up a notch.

There seems to be some controversy about the spelling of this, neuron versus neurone, neural versus neuronal, for me, neuron just sounds better so that is what I will use. If you do not like that then just add it in mentally when you see it (add an 'e' or 'on' here or there as appropriate).
__________________
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
tensordyne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 02:12 PM   #568
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Blah, blah, blah. Put up or shut up. Inform us oh wise one of your views on consciousness, biology, whatever. Making excuses for using a known type of fallacious argument does not add to your credibility.

Who knows, maybe if you give me your arguments on the topic at hand I might be swayed. That is if you are willing to give it a try. On the other hand, if you do not want to give it a go, that is your business and I will completely understand. This weak sauce of just saying I am soooo wrong without even trying to show why bores me.

All the best to you all!
I am sorry that "no" is difficult to understand. If you're having trouble finding information on a particular topic, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction, but engaging directly - no.

If you'd like a hint for where to go first, several people have recently pointed out that we are routinely exposed to EM frequencies which, if neurons actually did act as antennas, should leave us all in grand mal seizures. Yet we aren't. Why do you suppose that is?

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
There seems to be some controversy about the spelling of this, neuron versus neurone, neural versus neuronal, for me, neuron just sounds better so that is what I will use. If you do not like that then just add it in mentally when you see it (add an 'e' or 'on' here or there as appropriate).
So what you're saying is, you never bothered to investigate the term I gave you, believing it to be just an alternate spelling. If you can't be arsed to read a wikipedia link, you can hardly demand others care about your ideas in return.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 8th June 2012 at 02:32 PM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 03:48 PM   #569
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
I want to make a point here about the exposition above. Leaving completely aside for the moment whether neurons can effect each other through an em field, which is what the first paragraph above is about, the second paragraph has a definite bias in it.

EM fields are real things. They are real just like neurons, axons and dendrites are. The EM field concept is one of the cornerstones of scientific exploration. There is no cop out involved in analyzing the possible consequences of the EM field inside a brain (beyond just the connectionist paradigm). This is a legitimate scientific question.

It seems pretty evident as well that if there is a place for the EM field to affect neurons and be affected by neurons, then the computational complexity just went up a notch.

There seems to be some controversy about the spelling of this, neuron versus neurone, neural versus neuronal, for me, neuron just sounds better so that is what I will use. If you do not like that then just add it in mentally when you see it (add an 'e' or 'on' here or there as appropriate).
That is silly as you would know if you read my prior post, the means of neuron activation is chemical on a very very very low voltage. The transmission is chemical through neurotransmitters.

That is the science, it is not electron flowing through a wire. there is nothing like an antenna in the neuron, so while it is great speculation, it is just that speculation.

Just because your car's spark wire make an appreciable EM filed does not mean they have anything to do with synchronizing the pulses through antenna.

If you want to know the actual science say so, there are a trillion neurons and they have on average 2,000 contacts with other neurons.

So why does an MRI or a strong electrical field not give someone seizures?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 05:30 PM   #570
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post

Case in point: while those masks you linked to may seem "creative" given the things the tribesmen had to work with, it is clear from even a cursory examination that the creative "diversity" among just the avatars of this forum alone far exceeds that of the entire set of all African masks ever made.
That's not clear to me at all.

Quote:
Are we more creative than the tribal artists? It depends. We certainly have a far greater number of experiences to draw from, and that should count for something.
It's also not clear to me that we "have a far greater number of experiences to draw from", unless you mean vicarious experiences.
__________________
"... 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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 05:51 PM   #571
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
The age of experience may be a thing of the past.

Imagine our ancestors killing a giant ground sloth, as they did where I live...
We don't even have a decent video game of that experience.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 09:32 PM   #572
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
That's not clear to me at all.
Well just look at the images -- all the masks are pretty much similar.

Contrast that with our avatars. I have a flaming nazi zombie monster ( I don't care for nazis, this is just my favorite AI I have worked on ). Beelzebuddy has a dancing chicken. Mr. Scott has a kid with blue hair holding some magical light, I presume a still from some studio Ghibli movie. I can't even tell what your's is, and !Kaggen has a freaking winged albino eating a heart. If that isn't creative diversity, I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It's also not clear to me that we "have a far greater number of experiences to draw from", unless you mean vicarious experiences.
I don't mean experience in the commonly used sense, I mean "any remembered information that one can draw from".

If you told me to come up with 10 masks, I would be able to get quite a bit of inspiration from the images and movies I can find on the internet. I know this because I have spent days scouring the internet for inspiration every time I design a level, a character, or any system really, for any of the games I work on. So does any savvy creative professional these days.

I don't just sit in front of a blank piece of paper and wait for something to come to me. However tribal artists don't really have a choice -- their inspiration can come only from the things they have seen with their own eyes. They don't even have photographs to help them.

Last edited by rocketdodger; 8th June 2012 at 09:40 PM.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2012, 09:39 PM   #573
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
We don't even have a decent video game of that experience.
It is only a transient setback. The next generation will be killing giant ground sloths in virtual worlds like the matrix. Full circle.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 02:27 AM   #574
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
So why does an MRI or a strong electrical field not give someone seizures?
Sorry I am not addressing all of your post. I am not sure why an MRI does not give one a seizure, but I have read that strong EM fields will cause hallucinations. There is a professor who has a helmet (think it is called the god helmet or something) that when you put it on it makes you experience spooky feelings or even the sense of a presence as reported by some.

Now, to be completely fair, various em fields should probably have an effect in the current consensus model (as I take it you are advancing), in my pet theory and in McFadden's CEMI. I say this question should be looked more into if this is a point of contention.

As for how em fields can effect things on a macroscale, read McFadden's paper. See if you find his reasoning persuasive or not. If you can not find it let me know.
__________________
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
tensordyne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 02:37 AM   #575
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
I am sorry that "no" is difficult to understand. If you're having trouble finding information on a particular topic, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction, but engaging directly - no.

If you'd like a hint for where to go first, several people have recently pointed out that we are routinely exposed to EM frequencies which, if neurons actually did act as antennas, should leave us all in grand mal seizures. Yet we aren't. Why do you suppose that is?
In answer to the last question, I do not find the logic given thus far persuasive about the grand mal seizure idea. As far as the first paragraph goes, it is not really worthy of response.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
So what you're saying is, you never bothered to investigate the term I gave you, believing it to be just an alternate spelling. If you can't be arsed to read a wikipedia link, you can hardly demand others care about your ideas in return.
Nope, I did do a Google search of "neuronal network" as soon as I read about this but it just kept coming up with "neural network". After the third page I gave up looking. Try for yourself or let me know where I should be looking that I have not been. Everyone, try it for yourself if you do not believe me.

But, who knows, maybe I am missing something here??? Either way, on McFadden's page he used the word neurone where I would have just used neuron. Is this a 'color' versus 'colour' thing? Or by neuronal network are your specifically trying to refer to biological networks of neuron(e)s?
__________________
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 June 2012 at 02:53 AM.
tensordyne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 05:41 AM   #576
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Are the EM fieldies arguing for just more information processing within the brain, or for brain-to-brain or brain-to-universe communication?

As far as I know, there's no evidence that neurons communicate with each other via EM fields -- only chemicals (neurotransmitters), nor that brains communicate with other brains directly, nor the universe at large. The electrical currents are extremely feeble, and the fields leaving the brain reach only a few millimeters past the edge of the scalp (carrying only murky thought information) before they vanish into the extra-cranial ocean of EM noise.

*rocketdodger is correct, my avatar is the title character from Howl's Moving Castle, by Miyazaki / Ghibli, in a flashback to when the fire demon stole the boy Howl's heart.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 9th June 2012 at 05:46 AM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 05:45 AM   #577
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
It is only a transient setback. The next generation will be killing giant ground sloths in virtual worlds like the matrix. Full circle.
Nope, "virtual worlds" is a misnomer to deceive one that it is a replica of the world. It's not, "virtual worlds" are based on logic. There is no evidence that the world is based on logic at all.
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 05:49 AM   #578
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post

*rocketdodger is correct, my avatar is the title character from Howl's Moving Castle, by Miyazaki / Ghibli, in a flashback to when the fire demon stole the boy Howl's heart.
I am surprised you don't see the difference between computers and humans if your a Ghibli fan like me.
The difference Pixar and Ghibli sums up my arguments nicely.
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 05:56 AM   #579
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Sorry I am not addressing all of your post. I am not sure why an MRI does not give one a seizure, but I have read that strong EM fields will cause hallucinations. There is a professor who has a helmet (think it is called the god helmet or something) that when you put it on it makes you experience spooky feelings or even the sense of a presence as reported by some.

Now, to be completely fair, various em fields should probably have an effect in the current consensus model (as I take it you are advancing), in my pet theory and in McFadden's CEMI. I say this question should be looked more into if this is a point of contention.

As for how em fields can effect things on a macroscale, read McFadden's paper. See if you find his reasoning persuasive or not. If you can not find it let me know.
I looked at McFadden's web page, they are wrong right off the bat neurons are not electric circuits.


So they are wrong.

And the induced hallucination effect is at what magnetic strength? Do you understand the difference in the 1 tesla of TCM and what order of magnitude taht is different from the very small em field of the neuron?

For example the earth's magnetic field
"The intensity of the field is greatest near the poles and weaker near the Equator. It is generally reported in nanotesla (nT) or gauss (G), with 1 G = 100,000 nT. It ranges between approximately 25,000 and 65,000 nT (0.25–0.65 G).[10][11] By comparison, a strong refrigerator magnet has a field of about 100 G."

Now what is the magnetic moment of neuron?

This is silly tensordyne, you are woolgathering, there is absolutely no evidence that human neurons respond to the field strength of adjacent neurons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_...magnetic_field)

"10−12 picotesla 0.1 - 1.0 pT 1 - 10 nG human brain magnetic field"

So if TCM produces a response at one tesla, the brain field is 10^-12 times smaller.

that is one trillion times smaller, 1/1,000,000,000,000

Now a conventional radio that uses transistor amplification can pick up very faint radio signals, however it is a lot larger than a neuron.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 06:40 AM   #580
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Well just look at the images -- all the masks are pretty much similar.

Contrast that with our avatars. I have a flaming nazi zombie monster ( I don't care for nazis, this is just my favorite AI I have worked on ). Beelzebuddy has a dancing chicken. Mr. Scott has a kid with blue hair holding some magical light, I presume a still from some studio Ghibli movie. I can't even tell what your's is, and !Kaggen has a freaking winged albino eating a heart. If that isn't creative diversity, I don't know what is.
A similar argument suggests that the old world monkeys are a more diverse group than, say, all the life that can be found in two clumps of soil, one from madagascar and another from the amazon.

But the soil's life is more diverse than the old world monkeys.

Are our avatars more creative and diverse than african masks? I don't know, but I'm not an art critic, nor an artist. The differences in details of those masks, even though they look superficially alike from my perspective, may be huge.

My avatar is my Brazilian Jiu Jitsu purple belt, by the way.
__________________
"... 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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 06:42 AM   #581
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
Nope, "virtual worlds" is a misnomer to deceive one that it is a replica of the world. It's not, "virtual worlds" are based on logic. There is no evidence that the world is based on logic at all.
I'm not entirely clear what you mean "based on logic", but the work of Newton, (and those who have come after him), is pretty good evidence that the behavior of the world follows logical rules.
__________________
"... 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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 07:50 AM   #582
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm not entirely clear what you mean "based on logic", but the work of Newton, (and those who have come after him), is pretty good evidence that the behavior of the world follows logical rules.
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
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 08:17 AM   #583
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
Human invention.
Just to be clear: you're saying that the world doesn't behave according to logic rules? That's it's just... a coincidence that physics works, for instance?
__________________
"... 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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 08:23 AM   #584
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Just to be clear: you're saying that the world doesn't behave according to logic rules? That's it's just... a coincidence that physics works, for instance?
The same coincidence that the word chair describes a chair.
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 08:34 AM   #585
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
The same coincidence that the word chair describes a chair.
I'm actually talking about the predictions that we are able to make with physics. The fact, for instance, that Newtonian mechanics can be used to predict the next sighting of Halley's comet. Or that we can, with thermodynamics, rule out the possibility of perpetual motion machines, or that general relativity has withstood decades of experimental testing, or that QM has done the same.

These are not just descriptions of prior phenomena, they are descriptions of the world that make predictions about what we'll see in places that we haven't looked yet, and those predictions have turned out, time and again, to be incredibly accurate. You are saying that's a coincidence?

If not, why do you think those predictions have turned out to be accurate?
__________________
"... 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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 08:43 AM   #586
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
*rocketdodger is correct, my avatar is the title character from Howl's Moving Castle, by Miyazaki / Ghibli, in a flashback to when the fire demon stole the boy Howl's heart.

Best anime of the lot, maybe after spirited away.

Is calcifer, the fire demon, conscious, you reckon? Or is he programmed to act conscious by some demon programming programmer?
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 09:01 AM   #587
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm actually talking about the predictions that we are able to make with physics. The fact, for instance, that Newtonian mechanics can be used to predict the next sighting of Halley's comet. Or that we can, with thermodynamics, rule out the possibility of perpetual motion machines, or that general relativity has withstood decades of experimental testing, or that QM has done the same.

These are not just descriptions of prior phenomena, they are descriptions of the world that make predictions about what we'll see in places that we haven't looked yet, and those predictions have turned out, time and again, to be incredibly accurate. You are saying that's a coincidence?

If not, why do you think those predictions have turned out to be accurate?
All scientific hypothesis are falsifiable.
All scientific hypothesis are based on evidence.
All evidence is a description of the past.
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 09:38 AM   #588
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
Nope, "virtual worlds" is a misnomer to deceive one that it is a replica of the world. It's not, "virtual worlds" are based on logic. There is no evidence that the world is based on logic at all.
The difference is irrelevant if the subject can't perceive it.

Of course there will always be a small group of hardcore ... um, whatever you claim to be ... that refuses to partake. But the other 99% of the population ( that can afford it ) will be more than happy to have amazing experiences inside a virtual world.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 09:42 AM   #589
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Nope, I did do a Google search of "neuronal network" as soon as I read about this but it just kept coming up with "neural network". After the third page I gave up looking. Try for yourself or let me know where I should be looking that I have not been. Everyone, try it for yourself if you do not believe me.

But, who knows, maybe I am missing something here??? Either way, on McFadden's page he used the word neurone where I would have just used neuron. Is this a 'color' versus 'colour' thing? Or by neuronal network are your specifically trying to refer to biological networks of neuron(e)s?
Try scholar.google.com. Putting it in quotes would also have worked. Or you could have just clicked the link. It's a different thing entirely.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 01:28 PM   #590
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Best anime of the lot, maybe after spirited away.

Is calcifer, the fire demon, conscious, you reckon? Or is he programmed to act conscious by some demon programming programmer?
Calcifer is conscious. I'm buying into Dennett's argument that the concept of a Philosopher's Zombie is incoherent and if a being acts conscious it is conscious.

Is anyone arguing that it is impossible for humans to create a conscious machine with any type of material or technology?

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 9th June 2012 at 01:50 PM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 01:50 PM   #591
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
I am surprised you don't see the difference between computers and humans if your a Ghibli fan like me.
The difference Pixar and Ghibli sums up my arguments nicely.
I "felt the future" that a magic beaner would try to get some mileage from that.

You are in a delusional dream if you think I don't see a difference between Pixar and Ghibli.

Reminds me of a lecture I attended about computer typesetting, by Donald Knuth.

He turned the alphabet into numeric formula so a computer could typeset with adjustable features, like serif size, stroke width, etc.

It was found that when a font developed with computer aid was perfectly consistent, it was cold and lifeless. However, if the parameters were varied slightly and automatically from letter to letter, the text came to life and was warm and organic like old inky lead text. This randomness was done by the computer with no human intervention. It's easy to program randomness and not that difficult to program aspects of human taste into computers.

Pixar films are full of heart, and have made billions of dollars more than Ghibli's films, but the issue has little bearing on the nature of consciousness. Machines have aided animation since its earliest days.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 9th June 2012 at 01:51 PM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 02:04 PM   #592
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Found this here:

Quote:
[Professor McIntosh's] comment on how, according to an atheist view on the human mind (in that atheists don't believe in a separate 'soul' and our thoughts are just 'chemical reactions'), it would be possible to tell what someone was going to think using a large enough supercomputer was very interesting. I don't know enough about brain mapping or supercomputers to know whether this would be possible, but I can see how hypothetically it could be. However, even if it were possible I don't see what McIntosh's point was. He seemed to think that just because he found the idea disturbing that the idea was therefore flawed. He used a similar argument when talking about another aspect of the human mind, where he said that seeing humanity as 'chemical reactions' seemed 'miserable'. I'm sure some people do find the idea miserable, but that does not mean it's not true. Just because you don't like an idea does not decrease its validity.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 05:13 PM   #593
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Try scholar.google.com. Putting it in quotes would also have worked. Or you could have just clicked the link. It's a different thing entirely.
Very good. I will give it a go and report back what I find.
__________________
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
tensordyne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 05:20 PM   #594
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
All scientific hypothesis are falsifiable.
All scientific hypothesis are based on evidence.
All evidence is a description of the past.
You didn't answer my question.
__________________
"... 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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 05:37 PM   #595
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
No. No to all of this. No to each and every sentence. No.
That was pretty much how I felt, reading it. Hard to know where to start. I felt the same way about the analysis of the 'three main materialistic forms of basis for consciousness' (attributed broadly, and barely recognisably, to Dennet, Searle, & Chalmers).

Originally Posted by tensordyne
Your brain has a network of neurons, it is not a neural network...
This needs explaining. A network of neurons is the cannonical neural network. The brain may be more than just a neural network, but it is mainly a neural network.

Also, the idea that neurons are antennae can significantly influence each other via their EMF just doesn't stack up for reasons already mentioned; if the membrane that depolarizes to cause the weak EMF was sensitive enough to be significantly affected by it, neither neurons nor brains could function - and as far as I know there's no evidence to suggest it may be, nor any requirement for it to be. It's a moribund equine, let it lie.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

Last edited by dlorde; 9th June 2012 at 05:44 PM.
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 08:32 PM   #596
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
Well,
You've got your techno, and you've got Motown.

Its pointless evoking 'soul' here. Such an ephemeral quality.

Today, I can decipher a human from a recorded human on the phone, and I can tell a drum machine from a drummer.
This gap could close, yet, I suspect, humans will rise to that challenge, and be able to know an artificial consciousness from the flesh and blood variety.

I would think it would become something of an obsession, this motivation to decipher the real from the less-real.
Bruce Willis knows.

Yet, Ahnold was actually a compassionate machine in the Terminator flicks. Nice guy, even. Buff. Governor of California, in a different movie. Its quite confusing, but I, frankly, don't welcome our 'indistinguishable from human' machine consciousness.

I'm vaguely aware of the curmudgeoness of liking the soul of the carbon-based life forms.
Luddite, and all. (Get off my lawn, and take your robot with you, etc.)

I have a different vision of the future; perhaps hopelessly out-dated and irrelevant.

We are biological.
And funky.

I dig the funk.
I hate the beeping noises.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th June 2012, 01:48 AM   #597
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
We are biological.
And funky.

Indeed.



Error.
Does not compute, does not compute!

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 10th June 2012 at 03:16 AM.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th June 2012, 04:57 AM   #598
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
Calcifer is conscious. I'm buying into Dennett's argument that the concept of a Philosopher's Zombie is incoherent and if a being acts conscious it is conscious.

Is anyone arguing that it is impossible for humans to create a conscious machine with any type of material or technology?

Can you not see how calcifur, the fire demon I used as my example, is in no way any more conscious than the traits we consciously give him (program him).

He follows his audio script (consciously created from the scriptwriters consciousness)
He follows programming for his visible form and movements (consciously created by the programmers input)

He's not conscious himself.

He is constructed out of only attributes conscious people choose, to give him those attributes.

Everything he does is linked to our conscious input, and, as any computer will, they will manifest this in a form that *may seem* conscious, but is still bound to do nothing more than the consciousness based programmer.

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 10th June 2012 at 05:18 AM.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th June 2012, 05:29 AM   #599
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Can you not see how calcifur, the fire demon I used as my example, is in no way any more conscious than the traits we consciously give him (program him).

He follows his audio script (consciously created from the scriptwriters consciousness)
He follows programming for his visible form and movements (consciously created by the programmers input)

He's not conscious himself.

He is constructed out of only attributes conscious people choose, to give him those attributes.

Everything he does is linked to our conscious input, and, as any computer will, they will manifest this in a form that *may seem* conscious, but is still bound to do nothing more than the consciousness based programmer.
Don't be silly.

My first response was to be that Calcifer was pretend, so no, but I made the leap to what I thought was being asked, "If Calcifer were real, would he be conscious?" The answer is yes, as would the other main characters in the movie.

Sure, if we made a conscious machine, one could argue that it was made by conscious humans (e.g the Chinese Room), so I sense one may imply that only consciousness can beget consciousness.

All available evidence indicates consciousness formed on an unconscious planet via unconscious processes in an unconscious universe. Get used to it.

Dennett sez:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF 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

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 10th June 2012 at 05:34 AM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th June 2012, 05:37 AM   #600
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
The answer is yes, as would the other main characters in the movie.

They are consciously derived machines, that result purely from our consciousness. Nothing more. They don't have their own.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.