The Darwinian Mob

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Wootah » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:56 pm

It sounds like this thread needs a creationist!

reasonvemotion
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by reasonvemotion » Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:07 pm

Basically, I don't think anybody knows how evolution works, because nobody has ever observed evolution.

As a result, we have the ongoing evolution versus creation debate.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11976
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:34 am

reasonvemotion wrote:Basically, I don't think anybody knows how evolution works, because nobody has ever observed evolution.
We do, it was confirmed with the discovery of the method of inheritance, i.e. DNA and the Genes.

Its works even without knowing those things as its natural selection due to improved reproducibility.
As a result, we have the ongoing evolution versus creation debate.
nah! Thats because some godbotherers still cling to their creation myths.

reasonvemotion
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by reasonvemotion » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:14 pm

Its works even without knowing those things
:|

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11976
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:51 pm

reasonvemotion wrote:
Its works even without knowing those things
:|
There are countless examples of evolution at work.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=evolu ... e&ie=UTF-8

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11976
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:16 am

Impenitent wrote:it appears we agree... that which directs the manipulation, both arranged and rearranged by whatever
Not sure that the whatever does the rearranging as I thought that was us in our heads, agree that it does the arranging.
neural nets don't regulate heartbeats... we cannot fathom all that in which the mind may consciously or unconsciously be involved... appearing to represent that which is undefined?
Don't they? I thought there was some research showing that the heart does have 'neurons' at play in its function. Still, I agree that many functions of the CNS are autonomic and need no 'mind' to make them function.
not unless the ghost is more than binary selections... then again the myriad of selections which the biological machine allows is not matched by artificial means...

-Imp
Not quite getting you.

You and I agree that the Body's CNS works with threshold activations that could be understood as binary activations?(Although I think it probably a variable or adjustable sliding 'switch').

Looks like we are getting to the stage of being able to digitally model a large chunk of the CNS so maybe getting to the stage of matching this myriad. - If I understand you that is.

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:52 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Impenitent wrote:it appears we agree... that which directs the manipulation, both arranged and rearranged by whatever
Not sure that the whatever does the rearranging as I thought that was us in our heads, agree that it does the arranging.

in our heads?

neural nets don't regulate heartbeats... we cannot fathom all that in which the mind may consciously or unconsciously be involved... appearing to represent that which is undefined?
Don't they? I thought there was some research showing that the heart does have 'neurons' at play in its function. Still, I agree that many functions of the CNS are autonomic and need no 'mind' to make them function.


we don't know if they need a mind or if they're mechanical... the point was that it isn't known

not unless the ghost is more than binary selections... then again the myriad of selections which the biological machine allows is not matched by artificial means...

-Imp
Not quite getting you.

You and I agree that the Body's CNS works with threshold activations that could be understood as binary activations?(Although I think it probably a variable or adjustable sliding 'switch').


I am not ready to limit the ghost/mind/that which does the rearranging to merely binary decisions; however, the body's CNS may be understood as binary activations... then again...


Looks like we are getting to the stage of being able to digitally model a large chunk of the CNS so maybe getting to the stage of matching this myriad. - If I understand you that is.
no, I don't think that the binary scheme suffices for understanding or replication of the heretofore undefined rearranger

-Imp

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11976
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:55 pm

Impenitent wrote:in our heads?
Okay, loose talk. Whatever it is, arranges stuff that the Body senses and produces representations of, the 'mind' appears to be memory that allows those representations to be reused and recombined without the inputs, hence rearranged without the whatever having a major say in.

we don't know if they need a mind or if they're mechanical... the point was that it isn't known
Okay, but we do know that we can get organs to function outside of the body so that points to some of them at least not needing 'mind' to function. We also have pacemakers.

I am not ready to limit the ghost/mind/that which does the rearranging to merely binary decisions; however, the body's CNS may be understood as binary activations... then again...
I think we agree as I think the 'mind' we talk about is the idea of 'self-consciousness' and I think this is a triadic relationship, i.e. it needs two binaries to make a brand new triadic, meaning.
no, I don't think that the binary scheme suffices for understanding or replication of the heretofore undefined rearranger

-Imp
Okay, I agree that we won't be getting a 'mind' from a sim of the CNS. But if we attached it sensors and gave it manipulative locomotion would it be 'conscious' at least?

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:48 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Impenitent wrote:in our heads?
Okay, loose talk. Whatever it is, arranges stuff that the Body senses and produces representations of, the 'mind' appears to be memory that allows those representations to be reused and recombined without the inputs, hence rearranged without the whatever having a major say in.

rearranged of their own accord? the thoughts are not yours, you experience the thoughts as they arrange themselves? think you think? no, the thoughts are leading you on? were you controlled into making that connection? or was yours an original thought? whichever you prefer I suppose... I will choose freewill...



we don't know if they need a mind or if they're mechanical... the point was that it isn't known
Okay, but we do know that we can get organs to function outside of the body so that points to some of them at least not needing 'mind' to function. We also have pacemakers.

we cannot combine organs into a functioning entity... (well not without huge bolts coming out of his neck...)
Jerry has pacemakers too...





I am not ready to limit the ghost/mind/that which does the rearranging to merely binary decisions; however, the body's CNS may be understood as binary activations... then again...
I think we agree as I think the 'mind' we talk about is the idea of 'self-consciousness' and I think this is a triadic relationship, i.e. it needs two binaries to make a brand new triadic, meaning.
no, I don't think that the binary scheme suffices for understanding or replication of the heretofore undefined rearranger

-Imp
Okay, I agree that we won't be getting a 'mind' from a sim of the CNS. But if we attached it sensors and gave it manipulative locomotion would it be 'conscious' at least?
if consciousness is defined as little more than passing a Turing test perhaps... I think consciousness requires more than being communicative...

-Imp

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11976
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:53 pm

I find it difficult to know whether we are exactly talking about the same thing or agreeing or not but from the feel of it I'll assume we're both on roughly the same page.
Impenitent wrote:rearranged of their own accord? the thoughts are not yours, you experience the thoughts as they arrange themselves? think you think? no, the thoughts are leading you on? were you controlled into making that connection? or was yours an original thought? whichever you prefer I suppose... I will choose freewill...
In a sense I think the rearranging is the own accord. The rearranging is me, the constituents for the thoughts are from elsewhere or something like this. I think it more I make an experience from perception or perception makes an experience which is I(?) which is a thought I guess, I can then also use them to think with. So more I thought I think or I can think I thought. Since I think thoughts and thinks can differ then yes l can understand the idea of being lead by ones thoughts but then I think you have to think about them or some such.
we cannot combine organs into a functioning entity... (well not without huge bolts coming out of his neck...) Jerry has pacemakers too...
:) Not my point, although no need for this approach as soon we'll be growing them not constructing them, that we can keep an organ functioning outside of the Body shows, to me, that 'mind' is not needed in the sense of its functioning.
I am not ready to limit the ghost/mind/that which does the rearranging to merely binary decisions; however, the body's CNS may be understood as binary activations... then again...
I think we agree as I think the 'mind' we talk about is the idea of 'self-consciousness' and I think this is a triadic relationship, i.e. it needs two binaries to make a brand new triadic, meaning.
no, I don't think that the binary scheme suffices for understanding or replication of the heretofore undefined rearranger
If we agree that by 'binary' in this sense we mean just calculable or as the idea that theres a mechanical explanation for something(as this massively parallel neuronal network is not quite what I think many understand by 'binary', as it can do it and could be run as one in digital I guess), what about two independent 'binary' neural networks recognising an alike other as being sufficient in creating the rearranger?
if consciousness is defined as little more than passing a Turing test perhaps... I think consciousness requires more than being communicative...
Not sure which 'consciousness' we're talking about here, ours or the other animals? Still, I'm tempted to say 'How else do we judge it?' And theres no 'little more' out there as nothing has got near to passing this test. But I agree that one can display consciousness without the need for language but not sure anything other than a Body is needed. Do you have the other animals as 'consciousness'?

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:18 am

Arising_uk wrote:I find it difficult to know whether we are exactly talking about the same thing or agreeing or not but from the feel of it I'll assume we're both on roughly the same page.
Impenitent wrote:rearranged of their own accord? the thoughts are not yours, you experience the thoughts as they arrange themselves? think you think? no, the thoughts are leading you on? were you controlled into making that connection? or was yours an original thought? whichever you prefer I suppose... I will choose freewill...
In a sense I think the rearranging is the own accord. The rearranging is me, the constituents for the thoughts are from elsewhere or something like this. I think it more I make an experience from perception or perception makes an experience which is I(?) which is a thought I guess, I can then also use them to think with. So more I thought I think or I can think I thought. Since I think thoughts and thinks can differ then yes l can understand the idea of being lead by ones thoughts but then I think you have to think about them or some such.


cogito ergo cogito.... roughly similar agreed


we cannot combine organs into a functioning entity... (well not without huge bolts coming out of his neck...) Jerry has pacemakers too...
:) Not my point, although no need for this approach as soon we'll be growing them not constructing them, that we can keep an organ functioning outside of the Body shows, to me, that 'mind' is not needed in the sense of its functioning.



you skipped past mine... we can keep a single organ functioning artificially perhaps for a fixed time and the 'mind' is our directioning it to function...

we still cannot combine organs to function together independently -




I am not ready to limit the ghost/mind/that which does the rearranging to merely binary decisions; however, the body's CNS may be understood as binary activations... then again...
I think we agree as I think the 'mind' we talk about is the idea of 'self-consciousness' and I think this is a triadic relationship, i.e. it needs two binaries to make a brand new triadic, meaning.



possibly more than that, but nonetheless...


no, I don't think that the binary scheme suffices for understanding or replication of the heretofore undefined rearranger
If we agree that by 'binary' in this sense we mean just calculable or as the idea that theres a mechanical explanation for something(as this massively parallel neuronal network is not quite what I think many understand by 'binary', as it can do it and could be run as one in digital I guess), what about two independent 'binary' neural networks recognising an alike other as being sufficient in creating the rearranger?


binary as in a series of on and off switches... that is all a computer is afterall... two "independent" series of on and off switches with similar programming and processing? not even close to being sufficient to creating the rearranger... which language? which dialect? which nuances? if then else if then else if then else if...

/END




if consciousness is defined as little more than passing a Turing test perhaps... I think consciousness requires more than being communicative...
Not sure which 'consciousness' we're talking about here, ours or the other animals? Still, I'm tempted to say 'How else do we judge it?' And theres no 'little more' out there as nothing has got near to passing this test. But I agree that one can display consciousness without the need for language but not sure anything other than a Body is needed. Do you have the other animals as 'consciousness'?
I thought we were talking the consciousness of the machine...

animals have no consciousness... (anthropomorphic fallacy)

some people have consciousness without language... (autism)

-Imp

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11976
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:16 am

Impenitent wrote:
cogito ergo cogito.... roughly similar agreed
:)

I forgot to say I prefer free choice to free will but not sure if you think them the same.
you skipped past mine... we can keep a single organ functioning artificially perhaps for a fixed time and the 'mind' is our directioning it to function...
Hmm...take your point, think it a bit slippery but can't get around it as everything in this sense would have a 'mind' directing it to function.
... we still cannot combine organs to function together independently -
Sorry, bit dim, still not quite sure of your point with respect to the possibility of artificial 'consciousness'?
binary as in a series of on and off switches... that is all a computer is afterall... two "independent" series of on and off switches with similar programming and processing? not even close to being sufficient to creating the rearranger... which language? which dialect? which nuances? if then else if then else if then else if... ...
Are neurons not just massively connected parallel on/off switches, albeit apparently variable threshold switches.
I thought we were talking the consciousness of the machine...
I may be guilty of thinking of both us and the possibility of machines. Also guilty of thinking of us as 'machines' in a computing sense.

This has made me think tho', your original objection to my thought about Nagels quote appeared to be that since we cannot define or understand consciousness my objection to his thought was problematic as how can we compare indefinables(which I accept also applied to the fact that there is no definition nor instantiation of 'machine consciousness'). But would this not also apply to his thought as how can he say that AI will have no relevance to thoughts about our consciousness if he's in the same boat?
animals have no consciousness... (anthropomorphic fallacy)
Agreed in the sense we mean of being self-conscious. So sentient a better term?
some people have consciousness without language... (autism)
How do we know its the same as one without language? But I essentially agree as I think it the ability of memory to rerun parts of perception, i.e. the sensory representations without the original inputs.

Sorry for the delay but some thoughts I have to dwell upon.

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:42 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
cogito ergo cogito.... roughly similar agreed
:)

I forgot to say I prefer free choice to free will but not sure if you think them the same.

will is that which chooses...
you skipped past mine... we can keep a single organ functioning artificially perhaps for a fixed time and the 'mind' is our directioning it to function...
Hmm...take your point, think it a bit slippery but can't get around it as everything in this sense would have a 'mind' directing it to function.

and thus Rene "proved" God... (not to mention a few idealists...)


... we still cannot combine organs to function together independently -
Sorry, bit dim, still not quite sure of your point with respect to the possibility of artificial 'consciousness'?


we have yet to create Frankenstein's monster, not that we aren't trying...

binary as in a series of on and off switches... that is all a computer is afterall... two "independent" series of on and off switches with similar programming and processing? not even close to being sufficient to creating the rearranger... which language? which dialect? which nuances? if then else if then else if then else if... ...
Are neurons not just massively connected parallel on/off switches, albeit apparently variable threshold switches.


and which neuron is the spirit or soul?

I thought we were talking the consciousness of the machine...
I may be guilty of thinking of both us and the possibility of machines. Also guilty of thinking of us as 'machines' in a computing sense.

This has made me think tho', your original objection to my thought about Nagels quote appeared to be that since we cannot define or understand consciousness my objection to his thought was problematic as how can we compare indefinables(which I accept also applied to the fact that there is no definition nor instantiation of 'machine consciousness'). But would this not also apply to his thought as how can he say that AI will have no relevance to thoughts about our consciousness if he's in the same boat?


many feel the body is the machine, and as far as mechanical biology, the body is indeed a fine machine... human machines are accused of being driven by ghosts...

I, Robot have no ghost...

animals have no consciousness... (anthropomorphic fallacy)
Agreed in the sense we mean of being self-conscious. So sentient a better term?


no... sentience implies human language and cognition...

some people have consciousness without language... (autism)
How do we know its the same as one without language? But I essentially agree as I think it the ability of memory to rerun parts of perception, i.e. the sensory representations without the original inputs.

Sorry for the delay but some thoughts I have to dwell upon.
we don't know if it's the same...

but we treat it as if it were... (but we do the same thing with our pets... )

some consciousness is held in higher regard...


-Imp

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:47 am

A dog does not know he is a dog so I agree that he is not self-conscious. However, a dog has experiences so we can argue for a particular definition of consciousness that involves consciousness being both attentional and experiential.

A computer can fool a person into believing that said person is actually talking to a human being. The machine may be able to do so by acting out convincing responses that indicate it is experiencing the conservation. It may even be able to act hurt and offended. But in the end it is only act, it can't be hurt and offended. Only people are able to have such experiences.

Impenitent
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Impenitent » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:50 am

Ginkgo wrote:A dog does not know he is a dog so I agree that he is not self-conscious. However, a dog has experiences so we can argue for a particular definition of consciousness that involves consciousness being both attentional and experiential.

A computer can fool a person into believing that said person is actually talking to a human being. The machine may be able to do so by acting out convincing responses that indicate it is experiencing the conservation. It may even be able to act hurt and offended. But in the end it is only act, it can't be hurt and offended. Only people are able to have such experiences.
only people... not dogs...

-Imp

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests