Intelligence is an Evolutionary Dead End

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Those are interesting intelligent responses applicable to the folk in those social positions.

The list would be different for those in positions where money power and influence allows for significant alternatives.

The goals of both are to survive as best one is able under the circumstances.

The people in those social positions are the only ones who have an actual problem with climate change. Those with money power and influence can use their money power and influence to avoid any hardships. Don't expect them to be contributing solutions.

(With ample natural resources, it used to be possible for people with money power and influence to make a buck and improve others' lives at the same time. Now it's much more difficult to do that, and they're mostly not trying.)

ETA: This is how evolution works on the social level. Different groups do different things (variation), and we'll see which ones come out better in the long run (selection). Intelligence is not exclusive to any group (despite what some groups might think), so is in no danger of being selected against.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Myriad

The people in those social positions are the only ones who have an actual problem with climate change. Those with money power and influence can use their money power and influence to avoid any hardships.

I mentioned this in post #73.

"There is sense to this understanding.

Why would those who can, invest in setting up on Mars, when they have this incredible planet already under their feet?

In part - the investment into such projects are survival-based and align with the concept of seeding life into the Galaxy.

This requires foresight and forethought which translates into using ones financial resources and brain resources to at least build into the process, safeguards which can at least potentially ensure the survival of said seed, to be planted out at a much later date in the future

So investment is made, in rocket research, luxurious and functional underground 'bunkers' and other strongholds intended to keep the dysfunctional opposition to that agenda, at a safe arms length..."

Quote:

Don't expect them to be contributing solutions.

It is not my intention to expect them to do so, nor would I argue that they would not contribute solutions. They may indeed do so, if they felt the investing $ and ideas for solutions would be followed through to the envisioned conclusion.

Quote:

(With ample natural resources, it used to be possible for people with money power and influence to make a buck and improve others' lives at the same time. Now it's much more difficult to do that, and they're mostly not trying.)

Perhaps the reason "they are mostly not trying", is because that idea has already shown to have failed and only really contributed to the problem of climate change now being experienced?

Quote:

ETA: This is how evolution works on the social level. Different groups do different things (variation), and we'll see which ones come out better in the long run (selection). Intelligence is not exclusive to any group (despite what some groups might think), so is in no danger of being selected against.

I think this statement requires some critiquing, in order to align it properly with reality.

I agree that this is how evolution works on the social level.
I agree that different groups do different things (variation) and re the focus of this discussion between you and I - One variety [the destitute, poor, getting by, rich-but-not-rich-enough many] did things differently than the other [the rich few with their billions to spend].

I agree by changing the wording to "and are seeing which ones come out better in the long run (selection)."

I agree that intelligence is not exclusive to any group (despite what some groups might think), but do not agree that there is no danger of being selected against, as quite clearly this is what has happened.

How?

The few rich with their billions to spend, have wisely invested in the best brains, even at a bargain price, which they have selected from among the many and those best brains have lined up to be chosen.

Those brains are going with them when the pooh hits the vortex, unless the development of AI also makes meat-brains unnecessary.

But hey. That sounds a bit "conspiracies"/"Science-fictiony" so I will reign it in a bit by adding the observation that circumstance did force the rich few to take the action that they did in order to potentially preserve the aforementioned seed, so *shrugs*.

It is what it is.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I mentioned this in post #73.

"There is sense to this understanding.

Why would those who can, invest in setting up on Mars, when they have this incredible planet already under their feet?

In part - the investment into such projects are survival-based and align with the concept of seeding life into the Galaxy.

This requires foresight and forethought which translates into using ones financial resources and brain resources to at least build into the process, safeguards which can at least potentially ensure the survival of said seed, to be planted out at a much later date in the future

So investment is made, in rocket research, luxurious and functional underground 'bunkers' and other strongholds intended to keep the dysfunctional opposition to that agenda, at a safe arms length..."


It is not my intention to expect them to do so, nor would I argue that they would not contribute solutions. They may indeed do so, if they felt the investing $ and ideas for solutions would be followed through to the envisioned conclusion.


Perhaps the reason "they are mostly not trying", is because that idea has already shown to have failed and only really contributed to the problem of climate change now being experienced?


I think this statement requires some critiquing, in order to align it properly with reality.

I agree that this is how evolution works on the social level.
I agree that different groups do different things (variation) and re the focus of this discussion between you and I - One variety [the destitute, poor, getting by, rich-but-not-rich-enough many] did things differently than the other [the rich few with their billions to spend].

I agree by changing the wording to "and are seeing which ones come out better in the long run (selection)."

I agree that intelligence is not exclusive to any group (despite what some groups might think), but do not agree that there is no danger of being selected against, as quite clearly this is what has happened.

How?

The few rich with their billions to spend, have wisely invested in the best brains, even at a bargain price, which they have selected from among the many and those best brains have lined up to be chosen.

Those brains are going with them when the pooh hits the vortex, unless the development of AI also makes meat-brains unnecessary.

But hey. That sounds a bit "conspiracies"/"Science-fictiony" so I will reign it in a bit by adding the observation that circumstance did force the rich few to take the action that they did in order to potentially preserve the aforementioned seed, so *shrugs*.

It is what it is.

We are not living the plot of When Worlds Collide. We might be living the plot of the fall of empires which has happened repeatedly throughout history. Yeah, in that case a few of the elite are going to waste yet more precious resources on bunkers and strongholds and remote refuges, but these will amount to nothing on the scale of history let alone human evolution. They won't preserve any special "seed" (unless you're talking about seed vaults), they'll try to preserve their own skins and their buddies' and their privileges. They won't want enclaves of geniuses accompanying them, they'll want loyal servants and thugs who will guard them from the "dysfunctional" (aka starving) rabble but not (they hope, though history suggests otherwise) take over.

And space doesn't enter into the picture at all. We're centuries away from any self-sustaining Mars colony, let alone an interstellar mission, with sufficient numbers of people to constitute a viable "seed." (Consider the amount of outside support needed to sustain a tiny handful of people at the South Pole research station. The South Pole is far more accessible and has conditions far more amenable to life than Mars does. Multiply the difficulties a hundredfold for a Mars colony.) When the going gets tough on Earth, you can still breathe the air. Even if that air is smoggy and a bit radioactive, it's still far more life-sustaining than the atmosphere of Mars!

[The Great Zaganza]

the idea of a colony ship is bonkers to start with.
Any potential world would need millennia of terraforming to make it liveable for us.

[Navigator]

Quote:

hey won't want enclaves of geniuses accompanying them, they'll want loyal servants and thugs who will guard them from the "dysfunctional" (aka starving) rabble but not (they hope, though history suggests otherwise) take over.

I am confused as to why you quoted me yet your answer doesn't address some of the points I brought up.

You appear to have a distinct loathing of humanity in general.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I am confused as to why you quoted me yet your answer doesn't address some of the points I brought up.

You appear to have a distinct loathing of humanity in general.

Disagreeing with the points you brought up, which spin a tale where the rich are going to ingeniously buy their way off the planet, with their pet scientists and technicians and artists in tow, while the common rabble perish outside the barricades, and that this will amount to evolutionary progress for human intelligence, doesn't in any way suggest I loathe humanity. If anything, I think it means I have a rather broader view of who constitutes humanity and what the likely possibilities are for the long-range human future.

The two future scenarios most often contemplated nowadays are an apocalypse that ends humanity, or spreading across the stars. Those constitute together a tiny fraction of the possibilities, but some people are so committed to them that they jump to the conclusion that if either one of them doesn't happen, the other one must be inevitable.

[novaphile]

I'm convinced that our ability to think and reason is a by-product of language.

Try to think through a complex problem without using any words in your mind and let me know how you go.

It has been reasoned that our sense of 'self' is also a by-product of language, and that it can be observed happening in historical texts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Or...Bicameral_Mind

I strongly recommend the above if you can get your hands on a copy.

It's a seriously thought provoking read.

(And for the Science Fiction readers, it may be the original concept that prompted Neal Stephenson's 'Snow Crash')

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Disagreeing with the points you brought up, which spin a tale where the rich are going to ingeniously buy their way off the planet, with their pet scientists and technicians and artists in tow, while the common rabble perish outside the barricades, and that this will amount to evolutionary progress for human intelligence, doesn't in any way suggest I loathe humanity. If anything, I think it means I have a rather broader view of who constitutes humanity and what the likely possibilities are for the long-range human future.

The two future scenarios most often contemplated nowadays are an apocalypse that ends humanity, or spreading across the stars. Those constitute together a tiny fraction of the possibilities, but some people are so committed to them that they jump to the conclusion that if either one of them doesn't happen, the other one must be inevitable.

So then, Intelligence is not necessarily an Evolutionary Dead End?

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Disagreeing with the points you brought up, which spin a tale where the rich are going to ingeniously buy their way off the planet, with their pet scientists and technicians and artists in tow, while the common rabble perish outside the barricades, and that this will amount to evolutionary progress for human intelligence, doesn't in any way suggest I loathe humanity. If anything, I think it means I have a rather broader view of who constitutes humanity and what the likely possibilities are for the long-range human future.

The two future scenarios most often contemplated nowadays are an apocalypse that ends humanity, or spreading across the stars. Those constitute together a tiny fraction of the possibilities, but some people are so committed to them that they jump to the conclusion that if either one of them doesn't happen, the other one must be inevitable.

This is like opposite day for Hitchhiker's guide (4th book of the trilogy?) meets Huxley's Brave New World.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Navigator

So then, Intelligence is not necessarily an Evolutionary Dead End?

Originally Posted by Navigator

So then, Intelligence is not necessarily an Evolutionary Dead End?

Not necessarily, depending on what you actually mean by dead end.

The OP set us up for some potential confusion here, by juxtaposing three rather different things: the climate change of the present era, the possibility of intelligence being an evolutionary dead end, and the Great Filter (the explanation for absence of star-spanning colonizers in our neighborhood).

Intelligence could be an evolutionary dead end for reasons having nothing to do with climate change. On the other hand, if climate change did cause humans to go extinct or breed out intelligence, it's not proof that intelligence itself is an evolutionary dead end, only that our species has some (possibly hidden) vulnerability. For intelligence being an evolutionary dead to be a sufficient Great Filter, it would have to apply to all forms of intelligence sufficient to accomplish interstellar travel including, as you point out, machine intelligence. There are many alternative possibilities for the Great Filter. Finally, what is the actual definition of evolutionary dead end? If countless intelligent species across the galaxy happily inhabit their home solar systems for millions of years until their stars expire, does that count as an evolutionary dead end? Is anything short of spreading endlessly across the cosmos until the heat/expansion death of the universe a dead end? Maybe life can't or won't accomplish that anywhere. Would that then make all life a dead end?

[Navigator]

Quote:

So then, Intelligence is not necessarily an Evolutionary Dead End?

Originally Posted by Myriad

Not necessarily, depending on what you actually mean by dead end.

The OP set us up for some potential confusion here, by juxtaposing three rather different things: the climate change of the present era, the possibility of intelligence being an evolutionary dead end, and the Great Filter (the explanation for absence of star-spanning colonizers in our neighborhood).

I agree. It is a similar affect to how the current definition of atheism sets us up for some potential confusion, by juxtaposing three rather different things - Atheism, Antitheism and Agnosticism...

Quote:

Intelligence could be an evolutionary dead end for reasons having nothing to do with climate change. On the other hand, if climate change did cause humans to go extinct or breed out intelligence, it's not proof that intelligence itself is an evolutionary dead end, only that our species has some (possibly hidden) vulnerability. For intelligence being an evolutionary dead to be a sufficient Great Filter, it would have to apply to all forms of intelligence sufficient to accomplish interstellar travel including, as you point out, machine intelligence. There are many alternative possibilities for the Great Filter.

Some examples of these many alternative possibilities could help the reader...

Quote:

Finally, what is the actual definition of evolutionary dead end?

Definitions which accurately help lessen confusion, are the best.

Quote:

If countless intelligent species across the galaxy happily inhabit their home solar systems for millions of years until their stars expire, does that count as an evolutionary dead end? Is anything short of spreading endlessly across the cosmos until the heat/expansion death of the universe a dead end? Maybe life can't or won't accomplish that anywhere. Would that then make all life a dead end?

Isaac Asimov explores this idea in his short story "The Last Question" and comes up with a unique possibility as to how Sentience might survive...

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I agree. It is a similar affect to how the current definition of atheism sets us up for some potential confusion, by juxtaposing three rather different things - Atheism, Antitheism and Agnosticism...

I'm not going to comment on that here, because there's a thread already discussing it

Quote:

Some examples of these many alternative possibilities could help the reader...

Dozens of different alternatives were discussed in this thread. Most of them in the first few pages. Allow me to also call your attention to post #147 in that thread.

Quote:

Definitions which accurately help lessen confusion, are the best.

Fine with me. What confusion-lessening definition of "evolutionary dead end" would you like me to apply to your question, "So then, Intelligence is not necessarily an Evolutionary Dead End?"

Quote:

Isaac Asimov explores this idea in his short story "The Last Question" and comes up with a unique possibility as to how Sentience might survive...

There are all kinds of imaginative possibilities how sentience might survive, but the question I'm asking is, what if it can't? What if it can only possibly survive for a few million years, a few hundred million, or a few tens of billions? Do any of those scenarios mean that you regard sentience as a dead end?

This of course relates to no less a question than the Meaning of Life. Do you require an eternal future developed from human intelligence, for life to have meaning to you? The way some appear to require an eternal afterlife? If so, that helps put some of your other responses in this thread into context, including the notion that raising such a question implies a hatred of humanity.

[Navigator]

Quote:

I agree. It is a similar affect to how the current definition of atheism sets us up for some potential confusion, by juxtaposing three rather different things - Atheism, Antitheism and Agnosticism...

Originally Posted by Myriad

I'm not going to comment on that here, because there's a thread already discussing it

This thread.

Quote:

Dozens of different alternatives were discussed in this thread. Most of them in the first few pages. Allow me to also call your attention to post #147 in that thread.

The post appears to give one example as being, we exist for all time on this planet.
Given it is already a 'space ship' the planet seems the obvious choice for humans to consider as the best option but this in itself doesn't mean that AI seeding life into the galaxy cannot still occur as well.

Either way, intelligence is required, as it is an attribute of consciousness and evolution is simply a mindless process.
Is the OPQ simply asking "is evolution a dead end?"

Quote:

Fine with me. What confusion-lessening definition of "evolutionary dead end" would you like me to apply to your question, "So then, Intelligence is not necessarily an Evolutionary Dead End?"

I can't seem to shake that the question is really asking "Is the process of evolution a dead end?"

Quote:

There are all kinds of imaginative possibilities how sentience might survive, but the question I'm asking is, what if it can't? What if it can only possibly survive for a few million years, a few hundred million, or a few tens of billions? Do any of those scenarios mean that you regard sentience as a dead end?

This of course relates to no less a question than the Meaning of Life. Do you require an eternal future developed from human intelligence, for life to have meaning to you? The way some appear to require an eternal afterlife? If so, that helps put some of your other responses in this thread into context, including the notion that raising such a question implies a hatred of humanity.

What is hatred of humanity in this context? A hatred for the very fact that consciousness [in any form] exists as that which experiences this universe?
I think the ideas you mention [afterlife and an eternal future] like spring from the minds of those who do not or have not developed any dislike for the fact that consciousness co-exists with the universe...and so stories are developed along the line of thought which comes through this acceptance.

I can certainly empathize with loathing being alive and experiencing this reality as a human being...in the past I went through that motion.
I found ways in which to argue the case for acceptance, and perhaps this process from loathing to liking begets stories being invented to reflect the liking position?

My thoughts on both positive thinking [afterlife -where consciousness continues on] and an eternal future of consciousness - [in a universe which has all but snuffed out everything] and Isaac Asimov implies in The Last Question story, that the sentient machine creates a new universe so all is not lost - or worse - the consciousness stays on forever in a universe without anything else in it...



...said thoughts I have are, that it might be that - while evolution as a process is snuffed out - Consciousness might find a way in which to keep itself going...especially if there is still time for it to do so...

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Navigator

The post appears to give one example as being, we exist for all time on this planet. Given it is already a 'space ship' the planet seems the obvious choice for humans to consider as the best option but this in itself doesn't mean that AI seeding life into the galaxy cannot still occur as well.

Either way, intelligence is required, as it is an attribute of consciousness and evolution is simply a mindless process. Is the OPQ simply asking "is evolution a dead end?"

Evolution is a massively parallel computation of unimaginable power ongoing for hundreds of millions of years, in which septillions of constant simultaneous interactions between living things and one another, and between living things and nonliving aspects of the environment, transfer and process information between decillions of bits of information carried in the genomes of septillions of living organisms. It seems misleading to call such a process "mindless" whether or not it possesses "consciousness" or "sentience" or "intelligence" as we choose to define such terms. All available evidence indicates that it was evolution of vertebrate nervous systems that created our variety of consciousness, not the other way around.

Quote:

I can't seem to shake that the question is really asking "Is the process of evolution a dead end?"

It was your question I quoted. If you prefer the above question or some other question instead, let me know.

Quote:

What is hatred of humanity in this context? A hatred for the very fact that consciousness [in any form] exists as that which experiences this universe?
I think the ideas you mention [afterlife and an eternal future] like spring from the minds of those who do not or have not developed any dislike for the fact that consciousness co-exists with the universe...and so stories are developed along the line of thought which comes through this acceptance.

I can certainly empathize with loathing being alive and experiencing this reality as a human being...in the past I went through that motion.
I found ways in which to argue the case for acceptance, and perhaps this process from loathing to liking begets stories being invented to reflect the liking position?

You are using words like "hatred," "dislike," and "loathing" in ways that have nothing to do with the accepted meanings of those words. I know that today will soon be over, part of the past forever and never to happen again; that doesn't mean I hate today. I know that the sun will eventually go nova, destroying whatever remains of Earth; that doesn't mean I hate the sun or Earth. I know that Mila Jovovich will die someday (probably long after I do); that doesn't mean I hate Mila Jovovich (or being alive). I'm reasonably certain that there is no ice cream fairy that flies around the world delivering ice cream to all the good children; that doesn't mean I hate ice cream (or children, or even fairies).

In short, your presumption that doubting your hypothesis about universal consciousness implies hatred of the subjects of that hypothesis is a weak attempt at ad hominem.

In this venue I prefer to invent stories that reflect the truth and the most likely, realistic, well-thought-out possibilities based on what I know of the truth, not my emotions. Projecting based on emotions is easy. "I like sushi, therefore the ultimate future of humanity will be a vast cosmic sushi bar where the salmon rolls are infinitely long and there's always just the right amount of wasabi. I hate domestic cats being allowed to run loose decimating the local songbird population, therefore in the cosmic sushi bar all the people who did that will be reincarnated with their reincarnated cats leashed to them and eating all their sushi except the tekka maki." Easy! Scenarios reflecting actual knowledge and thought instead of emotions take more effort.

Quote:

My thoughts on both positive thinking [afterlife -where consciousness continues on] and an eternal future of consciousness - [in a universe which has all but snuffed out everything] and Isaac Asimov implies in The Last Question story, that the sentient machine creates a new universe so all is not lost - or worse - the consciousness stays on forever in a universe without anything else in it...

...said thoughts I have are, that it might be that - while evolution as a process is snuffed out - Consciousness might find a way in which to keep itself going...especially if there is still time for it to do so...

And it might not. It might not even want to; have you considered that? Maybe it disagrees with you on that point. Isn't that possible?

[Navigator]

Quote:

The post appears to give one example as being, we exist for all time on this planet. Given it is already a 'space ship' the planet seems the obvious choice for humans to consider as the best option but this in itself doesn't mean that AI seeding life into the galaxy cannot still occur as well.

Either way, intelligence is required, as it is an attribute of consciousness and evolution is simply a mindless process. Is the OPQ simply asking "is evolution a dead end?"

Originally Posted by Myriad

Evolution is a massively parallel computation of unimaginable power ongoing for hundreds of millions of years, in which septillions of constant simultaneous interactions between living things and one another, and between living things and nonliving aspects of the environment, transfer and process information between decillions of bits of information carried in the genomes of septillions of living organisms. It seems misleading to call such a process "mindless" whether or not it possesses "consciousness" or "sentience" or "intelligence" as we choose to define such terms. All available evidence indicates that it was evolution of vertebrate nervous systems that created our variety of consciousness, not the other way around.

We make valid points, but the question of whether evolution is "mindless" is still an open one, and depends on the definitions of the relevant concepts and the interpretation of the evidence.

Quote:

I can't seem to shake that the question is really asking "Is the process of evolution a dead end?"

Quote:

It was your question I quoted. If you prefer the above question or some other question instead, let me know.

Given we are both correct, your being correct means that the intelligent process of evolution is being questioned. "Is evolution a dead end?" is the same thing as the question "Is Intelligence an evolutionary dead end"
Perhaps the problem has more to do with ""Intelligence is an evolutionary dead end" being a statement rather than a question...

Quote:

You are using words like "hatred," "dislike," and "loathing" in ways that have nothing to do with the accepted meanings of those words.

Yes.

This is because I am taking the statement "Intelligence is an evolutionary dead end" as if it were a question which requires answering, rather than a statement which requires supporting evidence in order to be treated as something more than just an opinion.

Quote:

My thoughts on both positive thinking [afterlife -where consciousness continues on] and an eternal future of consciousness - [in a universe which has all but snuffed out everything] and Isaac Asimov implies in The Last Question story, that the sentient machine creates a new universe so all is not lost - or worse - the consciousness stays on forever in a universe without anything else in it...

...said thoughts I have are, that it might be that - while evolution as a process is snuffed out - Consciousness might find a way in which to keep itself going...especially if there is still time for it to do so...

Quote:

And it might not. It might not even want to; have you considered that? Maybe it disagrees with you on that point. Isn't that possible?

Going along with the idea re The Last Question, Isaac Asimov assumes that any sentient intelligence would want to if indeed it worked out how to.
If you have reasons for why you think it wouldn't want to, even that it could do, I am interested in hearing those.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Evolution is a massively parallel computation of unimaginable power ongoing for hundreds of millions of years, in which septillions of constant simultaneous interactions between living things and one another, and between living things and nonliving aspects of the environment, transfer and process information between decillions of bits of information carried in the genomes of septillions of living organisms. It seems misleading to call such a process "mindless"...

YMMV, but it seems to me that random mutations resulting in either an advantage, or a disadvantage, or having no impact on an organism's chances of successfully procreating is the very definition of mindless. Where are you seeing a mind at work here?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by junkshop

YMMV, but it seems to me that random mutations resulting in either an advantage, or a disadvantage, or having no impact on an organism's chances of successfully procreating is the very definition of mindless. Where are you seeing a mind at work here?

Mind can either arise from combinations of mindless things, or it cannot. If it cannot, then the mystics are right (that is, everything is mind, and/or mind is supernatural) and physics, biochemistry, and neuroscience are out of the picture. But if it can, then we can ask what kind of combinations of what kind of mindless things are needed.

A logic gate turning on and off according to the combination of voltages at its inputs it's getting is pretty mindless. A neuron is more complex, but just as mindless; it fires based on the summed activity and excitatory/inhibitory weightings of its synapses. Yet, a large number of either of those things interacting with one another is the basis for the forms of computation we know of. Per Wolfram and others, the behavior of interacting units doesn't have to be complex, nor do they have to be arranged in any complex way, to support arbitrarily complex computation. But they do appear to require nonlinear behavior, discontinuous all-or-nothing thresholds between input and output behavior, like 1 or 0, fire or don't fire, or reproduce or don't reproduce a genome.

Can I perceive a mind at work in evolution, directly? No, not any more than I could figure out a person's thoughts (or even that thoughts existed) by cruising around in their brain in the Fantastic Voyage submarine poking at neurons with a voltmeter probe. And there can be a lot of useful computation going on without meeting some or another particular definition of mind. What I do see is the natural history record of some of the results of evolution, in the form of novel structures, systems, and behaviors that sustained and expanded the process in response to novel external perturbations. On a different time scale, that's what I'd look for as a measure of intelligence in an organism, if for instance I were observing the behavior of alien creatures, but couldn't attempt communication.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Mind can either arise from combinations of mindless things, or it cannot.

The existence of the mind is not a proven scientific theory in the same sense that, for example, the theory of gravity is.

Rather, it is a philosophical issue that has been debated for centuries and continues to be the subject of much discussion and investigation.

The nature of the mind and its relationship to the brain, consciousness, and subjective experience are still not fully understood, and there is ongoing debate among philosophers, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists about what constitutes a mind and how it should be defined.

While there is a growing body of empirical evidence from fields such as neuroscience and psychology that provides insights into the workings of the brain and the nature of conscious experience, the existence and nature of the mind remains a matter of philosophical inquiry and interpretation.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Navigator

The existence of the mind is not a proven scientific theory in the same sense that, for example, the theory of gravity is.

Rather, it is a philosophical issue that has been debated for centuries and continues to be the subject of much discussion and investigation.

The nature of the mind and its relationship to the brain, consciousness, and subjective experience are still not fully understood, and there is ongoing debate among philosophers, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists about what constitutes a mind and how it should be defined.

While there is a growing body of empirical evidence from fields such as neuroscience and psychology that provides insights into the workings of the brain and the nature of conscious experience, the existence and nature of the mind remains a matter of philosophical inquiry and interpretation.

That does not in any way contradict anything I wrote.

More to the point, I judge it very likely that the text quoted here was written by a chatbot rather than by the member who posted it. If that's the case, and I have any further response to it, I'll take it up with the chatbot.

Of course, I'll participate if junkshop or any human wishes to continue the discussion.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Myriad

That does not in any way contradict anything I wrote.

Nor was it meant to. Rather it was to expand on what you wrote.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

The existence of the mind is not a proven scientific theory in the same sense that, for example, the theory of gravity is.

Rather, it is a philosophical issue that has been debated for centuries and continues to be the subject of much discussion and investigation.

The nature of the mind and its relationship to the brain, consciousness, and subjective experience are still not fully understood, and there is ongoing debate among philosophers, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists about what constitutes a mind and how it should be defined.

While there is a growing body of empirical evidence from fields such as neuroscience and psychology that provides insights into the workings of the brain and the nature of conscious experience, the existence and nature of the mind remains a matter of philosophical inquiry and interpretation.

Originally Posted by Myriad

More to the point, I judge it very likely that the text quoted here was written by a chatbot rather than by the member who posted it. If that's the case, and I have any further response to it, I'll take it up with the chatbot.
...

I too strongly suspect the same... here is my session with it... notice the many CHUNKS of similarity....

Originally Posted by chatbot session

Me: what is the mind

ChatBot: The mind refers to the aspect of a person's consciousness that allows for thought, perception, and emotion. It is often used interchangeably with the terms brain, psyche, and the self, although the exact definition of the mind is still a subject of ongoing philosophical and scientific debate.


Me: does the mind exist

ChatBot: Whether the mind exists is a philosophical question that has been debated by scholars for centuries. Some philosophical schools of thought, such as materialism, argue that the mind is a product of the brain and that mental experiences can be reduced to physical processes in the brain. Other philosophical views, such as dualism, hold that the mind is a non-physical entity that cannot be reduced to purely physical explanations.

From a scientific standpoint, while there is much that is still not understood about the nature of the mind, many researchers believe that the mind is a result of the workings of the brain, and that mental experiences and processes can be studied and explained in terms of brain activity.

Ultimately, the question of whether the mind exists is still open to interpretation and may depend on one's personal beliefs and philosophical perspectives.


Me: is the mind scientifically proven

ChatBot: The nature of the mind and its relationship to the brain is an ongoing area of research and investigation in various scientific fields, including neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. While there has been much progress made in our understanding of the brain and how it relates to mental processes, the mind itself is still not fully understood and remains a subject of scientific debate.

There is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that mental experiences and processes can be correlated with activity in the brain, and that certain regions of the brain are consistently involved in specific types of mental processes. For example, studies have shown that different regions of the brain are associated with different emotions, such as the amygdala being associated with fear and the ventral striatum with pleasure.

However, the exact relationship between the brain and the mind is still not fully understood, and many questions remain about the nature of the mind and how it arises from physical processes in the brain. While some scientists and philosophers argue that the mind can be fully explained in terms of physical processes in the brain, others maintain that there may be aspects of the mind that cannot be reduced to purely physical explanations.

In conclusion, while there is evidence to support the idea that the mind is related to brain activity, the nature of the mind and its relationship to the brain remains a topic of ongoing investigation and scientific debate.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

The existence of the mind is not a proven scientific theory in the same sense that, for example, the theory of gravity is.

Rather, it is a philosophical issue that has been debated for centuries and continues to be the subject of much discussion and investigation.

The nature of the mind and its relationship to the brain, consciousness, and subjective experience are still not fully understood, and there is ongoing debate among philosophers, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists about what constitutes a mind and how it should be defined.

While there is a growing body of empirical evidence from fields such as neuroscience and psychology that provides insights into the workings of the brain and the nature of conscious experience, the existence and nature of the mind remains a matter of philosophical inquiry and interpretation.

No it does not.... as stated by your own misquoted source.

Originally Posted by ChatBot session

Me: is there a scientific theory about the mind


ChatBot: There are several scientific theories about the mind, but no single theory that has been universally accepted. In the field of neuroscience, the neural theory of mind proposes that the mind is a product of the brain's activity and that mental processes can be explained by the workings of neurons and neural networks. In psychology, various theories have been proposed to explain different aspects of the mind, such as cognitive theory, which focuses on how people process information, and social learning theory, which focuses on how people learn from their environment and others.

In philosophy, there are also different theories about the mind, such as materialism, which holds that the mind is a product of the material brain, and dualism, which holds that the mind and brain are separate entities that interact.

Overall, the study of the mind is an interdisciplinary field that draws from neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and other related fields, and there is still much that is not understood about the mind and how it works.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Myriad

That does not in any way contradict anything I wrote.

More to the point, I judge it very likely that the text quoted here was written by a chatbot rather than by the member who posted it. If that's the case, and I have any further response to it, I'll take it up with the chatbot.

Of course, I'll participate if junkshop or any human wishes to continue the discussion.

Agreed.

And he's actually admitted, more or less, that he's doing this.

There's a thread in Community discussing this thing. It's in community, and in any case the jokes kind of write themselves I suppose, but it's something we'd probably do well to consider and discuss seriously --- as well as joke about it, of course.

Link to the thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=364359

[Navigator]

Quote:

More to the point, I judge it very likely that the text quoted here was written by a chatbot rather than by the member who posted it.

Quote:

Agreed.

And he's actually admitted, more or less, that he's doing this.

Just to tidy up so that potential misinformation is addressed:

What I have admitted to is that the posts under question are all a summery of a combination of my own input and the input of the AI-Chat machinery. I asked the AI to summarized the interaction and copied and posted the result.

My sin was pure laziness. I admit to that.