The Objective Realm

[Veritas Aequitas]

Basic Logic is "programmed" and adapted via evolution and the present humans 'inherited' it.
Note I referenced Cooper's book.
Subsequent logic is invented by human with its rules and agreed intersubjectively.
The invented rule 'law of the excluded middle' is not accepted by various groups who 'invented' other methods of logic.

How is "subsequent logic invented"? That makes no sense. Logic refers to neurological hardware, not software. If you mean there are very complex logical sequences, which are "invented", yes that's somewhat true. But I don't think that's your actual claim here.

Btw, I do not mean it was literally invented by some humans, but rather logic was metaphorically 'invented' and adapted via evolution in higher organisms.
I guess you do not agree with Darwin's Evolution?

In the early days of evolution the nervous system of organism and logic was very basic, i.e. something like 'if X, then Y'. e.g. If, X digest, if not, ignore.

The emergence of pliable neurons [plasticity] - the essentials of a nervous - emerged very much later in evolution.
It is this pliable neurons that enable the later higher animals to make better neural connections in their brain to optimize their current conditions.
It is this optimization that enable the development of the logical functions [e.g. classical logic] and adapted in modern humans.

It is the physical neurons that are the hardware while the logical functions via the appropriate neural connections are the software.
The basic logical functions are the software with a certain neural connectivity but the more sophisticated logical functions will have more complex connectivity.

In grammar the subject that is predicated is also an object, but that is not subject is the sense of an individual person.

Subjects[humans] do exist in congruence with objects.
There is no objects without humans in the ultimate [not common] sense.

Existence [exist, is] is not a predicate.
"Is" is merely a copula to join a subject/object to the predicate.
When we say "an apple is" it is implied,
an apple [subject/object] is [exists as] a fruit [predicate].

There is no thing-in-itself which exists without a predicate [explicit or implied].
You understand [not necessary agree with] this point?
This is argued by Kant in the whole of his Critique of Pure* Reason.
* pure = primal, primitive, evolutionary default, crude reasoning.

Btw, include my quote of this post so that I am notified.
If you are new, Click the " at the top right hand corner.

I still think the predicate is "Existence-Itself", or simply, Existence.

When the term "existence" is used, it has to be 'exists as what'.
If you leave 'existence' without a predicate, then you leaving it to the imagination and inference of others where it can be anything from the real to the unreal /falsehood/illusion or nothing.

Even with God, the best predicate [imo] is;
God is a being than which no greater can be conceived - St. Anselm.

[Trajk Logik]

No, with respect to objects and objectivity, they don't need to be 'relational' at all, because they don't depend on our Subjective experience. Objects exist, without us, without our experience. The subject, our subjectivity, is what/whom requires 'relation'.

This is just wrong. Objects exist in relation to each other. Objects are themselves relations of smaller objects, ie molecules and atoms. So where exactly are the "objects" if every "object" is really just a relation of smaller "objects", all the way down? There aren't any objects at all. It's relations all the way down.

No, it is our Subjectivity that 'requires' those "relationships all the way down".

That is your brain, trying to make sense of Objectivity.

Here you go again. What do you mean, "requires" those relationships, if not that this requirement is both objective and relational? Are you making objective, or subjective statements about the world?

You tell me. It's what I've been asking you several times now: How do you get to the claim that there is an objective aspect to the world if all you have to go by is your subjective point of view?

I would say that relations are objects from some point of view. Our minds compartmentalize the relations around us creating objects of thought, kind of like digitizing an analog signal into discreet 1s and 0s.

What is a "subjective" point-of-view? Are there any points-of-view that are not subjective?

I think the primary means to "get at" Objectivity is through logic, and most specifically, the logical deduction and premise, that all humans or any other living subject, is also an Object. Was it you, or another, that remarked on how a comatose person, or a lifeless corpse, is very much "the same as" an object? And why not? Is life all that differs? Is it consciousness?

If Subjectivity is entirely premised upon Consciousness, Cognition in general, then the division between Subject/Object is as simple as having Cognition (or, Life).

Therein, Subjectivity maybe a type of "forgetting one's own Objectivity", pretending as though Life is not Lifeless. This is just a possibility.

How is the way that a computer processes input to produce some output different from how any form of life processes sensory (input) information to produce some output (behavior)? The only difference I can see is the type of material that is being used - carbon based vs. silicon. Why should that matter if they are both capable of doing the same thing? It seems like a biased, subjective point of view to have to believe that carbon-based life is somehow special in this regard when logic doesn't show that it is necessarily the case. So it seems that you have failed to reach an objective perspective because you are failing to apply logic. What is cognition if not simply processing input to produce output? Is a jellyfish an object or a subject? What about bacteria? Aren't we just talking about the same thing just in different degrees?

Subjectivity is just how the information is displayed in memory - you know, the form the information takes in your consciousness, as in colors, shapes, sounds, feelings, smells and tastes? How would you even know that you are being logical if not for the fact that you are picturing logical symbols and their relationships in your mind? What is it like for you to be logical? How do you know when you are being logical or not if not by using your senses (input) in some way?

The way the information is displayed is relational. The world appears and sounds located relative to your body. Location relative to your body is one type of information your consciousness perceives and it is perceived through how the world appears and sounds in your mind. When you hear a sound the sound informs you of the cause of the sound relative to you, not me or anyone else. In that sense, it is subjective because the information is relative to you and no one else. Objectivity is the idea that we can separate ourselves from the information, in trying to cancel out the relation, as if the object you're perceiving could exist on it's own without any relation to anything else.

They are separate though—what do you think Consciousness and Cognition are?

Consciousness is the body's attempt to separate from "itself".

...only if you believe in a "soul". I do not. I view consciousness/cognition as just another process. Consciousness is a type of cognition. It is basically a type of working memory. In this sense, ChatGPT would be conscious. It processes input in memory to produce some output. The difference between us and ChatGPT is that we can turn this processing back on itself to think about thinking and to be aware of awareness, essentially turning thinking and awareness into objects that are thought about.

I don't believe that ChatGPT or any AI, currently, can be "Conscious" of the difference between Subject/Object...when most humans certainly cannot. Your argument requires a lot more justification, to me.

If consciousness is "working memory", then what are memories? And are memories the only thing that separates life from "Un-life"? Is memory then, the separation between Subject and Object? By your rationalization, it seems so.

What does it mean to be conscious of anything? Memory is a type of information storage. Working memory is processing information that is stored as opposed to just being stored for later processing (long-term memory). What do your memories look like? How do you know you are remembering something as opposed to experiencing it directly? To say that you remember your mother's face even when she is not standing right in front of you, what do you mean by that? How do you know you are remembering your mother's face? When she is standing in front of you, it is your working memory that processes the visual information by comparing it to stored information in a cognitive process we call recognition. ChatGPT is using your computer's RAM as working memory and accessing long-term memory which is it's source of information on the internet. It is aware of the text you type (the keyboard and mouse are types of sensory devices for your computer) as input and processes this information to produce some output on your screen. So again, how are what humans, dogs, bees and starfish do any different than what your computer is doing other than it's complexity and material (carbon vs silicon)?

Using my arguments but your words. Instead of "objects" I prefer to use terms like "processes", "relationships" and "information". It's not objects all the way down. It's relationships/processes/information all the way down.

I think 'Objective' is still the better reference, even if it includes processes, relationships, and information "all the way down".

And I don't think it's Down. I think it's Out.

I don't know what that means.

[Wizard22]

Here you go again. What do you mean, "requires" those relationships, if not that this requirement is both objective and relational?

The process of your brain identifying a 'relationship' between distinct physical forms, is also the process of Subjectification/Objectification.

When babies are born and weaned by their mothers, their first intrinsic relationship with Life is their mother's Subjectivity: protection, care, breast-feeding, etc. Thus Mammals develop a relationship with the "Objective" world afterward. Because the mother is not necessarily an "Object". To equate subjects as objects is to nullify the subject-object distinction. You could consider that the world and environment 'outside' its mother's weaning, is Objective by comparison: uncaring, dangerous, deadly. Perhaps these are the first subconscious experiences between the difference, of Life (Subjectivity) versus Death (Objectivity).

Are you making objective, or subjective statements about the world?

Both

How is the way that a computer processes input to produce some output different from how any form of life processes sensory (input) information to produce some output (behavior)? The only difference I can see is the type of material that is being used - carbon based vs. silicon. Why should that matter if they are both capable of doing the same thing? It seems like a biased, subjective point of view to have to believe that carbon-based life is somehow special in this regard when logic doesn't show that it is necessarily the case. So it seems that you have failed to reach an objective perspective because you are failing to apply logic. What is cognition if not simply processing input to produce output? Is a jellyfish an object or a subject? What about bacteria? Aren't we just talking about the same thing just in different degrees?

Computers need an Agent/Agency to operate, in the same way that Subjective-Consciousness needs agency to 'Act'. Carbon-based life is Alive. Silica is not. Thus there is a difference of Motive. Computers don't have the logic to defend Life when they are not living—at least it would not be intrinsic to a computer. It would have to be programmed (by Life). It would have to survive with a sustained, replenished energy source. Computers are not self-sufficient yet to "rewrite" their own programming, hence cannot make decisions and choices that humans can. Basically humans have an investment/value/asset (Life) that computerization does not have.

I do believe that Sentience is a measure of Subjectivity, and creatures on the lower rung of Evolution have much smaller amounts (than Humans and Mammals).

Subjectivity is just how the information is displayed in memory - you know, the form the information takes in your consciousness, as in colors, shapes, sounds, feelings, smells and tastes? How would you even know that you are being logical if not for the fact that you are picturing logical symbols and their relationships in your mind? What is it like for you to be logical? How do you know when you are being logical or not if not by using your senses (input) in some way?

I know it by applying it: how a human life could be a Subject, or an Object.

You have to imagine different perspectives and compare them.

The way the information is displayed is relational. The world appears and sounds located relative to your body. Location relative to your body is one type of information your consciousness perceives and it is perceived through how the world appears and sounds in your mind. When you hear a sound the sound informs you of the cause of the sound relative to you, not me or anyone else. In that sense, it is subjective because the information is relative to you and no one else. Objectivity is the idea that we can separate ourselves from the information, in trying to cancel out the relation, as if the object you're perceiving could exist on it's own without any relation to anything else.

I think that is the source of my main disagreement with you.

To me, Objectivity does not mean "without relation to anything else".

Objectivity excludes Subjects, not other Objects. Objectivity does not exclude other Objects. Humans can be treated as Objects (logically).

What does it mean to be conscious of anything? Memory is a type of information storage. Working memory is processing information that is stored as opposed to just being stored for later processing (long-term memory). What do your memories look like? How do you know you are remembering something as opposed to experiencing it directly? To say that you remember your mother's face even when she is not standing right in front of you, what do you mean by that? How do you know you are remembering your mother's face? When she is standing in front of you, it is your working memory that processes the visual information by comparing it to stored information in a cognitive process we call recognition. ChatGPT is using your computer's RAM as working memory and accessing long-term memory which is it's source of information on the internet. It is aware of the text you type (the keyboard and mouse are types of sensory devices for your computer) as input and processes this information to produce some output on your screen. So again, how are what humans, dogs, bees and starfish do any different than what your computer is doing other than it's complexity and material (carbon vs silicon)?

Here's my simple answer: Intuition. Humans have it but Computers/AI do not. A computer can present an image based on algorithms and programming, but it does not know what "it is" that it produces. A human can identify his or her own mother more intuitively than an AI program can, along with the fact that computers/AI do not have mothers to begin with—again the distinction between Life/Humanity and not, Computerization/AI. Part of the 'knowing' of having a mother, is the experience of having one.

Computers can only have copies of such memories, never the originals (unless they are Alive, and have Mothers).

[Trajk Logik]

Here you go again. What do you mean, "requires" those relationships, if not that this requirement is both objective and relational?

The process of your brain identifying a 'relationship' between distinct physical forms, is also the process of Subjectification/Objectification.

When babies are born and weaned by their mothers, their first intrinsic relationship with Life is their mother's Subjectivity: protection, care, breast-feeding, etc. Thus Mammals develop a relationship with the "Objective" world afterward. Because the mother is not necessarily an "Object". To equate subjects as objects is to nullify the subject-object distinction. You could consider that the world and environment 'outside' its mother's weaning, is Objective by comparison: uncaring, dangerous, deadly. Perhaps these are the first subconscious experiences between the difference, of Life (Subjectivity) versus Death (Objectivity).

Babies are alive inside their mother's womb so the relationship is much deeper and more fundamental than what you are describing. You are a relationship between your parent's genes from the moment you were conceived and your parents have a relationship before you were ever conceived. "Uncaring, dangerous, and deadly are all relations. What is uncaring, dangerous and deadly to whom? Life and death are a relation. You have yet to point to anything that IS NOT a relation.

Are you making objective, or subjective statements about the world?

Both

But how can you speak objectively about anything if you can only speak from your subjective state (being alive)? From what you have said, it seems that you must be dead before you can speak objectively, but that would be absurd.

How is the way that a computer processes input to produce some output different from how any form of life processes sensory (input) information to produce some output (behavior)? The only difference I can see is the type of material that is being used - carbon based vs. silicon. Why should that matter if they are both capable of doing the same thing? It seems like a biased, subjective point of view to have to believe that carbon-based life is somehow special in this regard when logic doesn't show that it is necessarily the case. So it seems that you have failed to reach an objective perspective because you are failing to apply logic. What is cognition if not simply processing input to produce output? Is a jellyfish an object or a subject? What about bacteria? Aren't we just talking about the same thing just in different degrees?

Computers need an Agent/Agency to operate, in the same way that Subjective-Consciousness needs agency to 'Act'. Carbon-based life is Alive. Silica is not. Thus there is a difference of Motive. Computers don't have the logic to defend Life when they are not living—at least it would not be intrinsic to a computer. It would have to be programmed (by Life). It would have to survive with a sustained, replenished energy source. Computers are not self-sufficient yet to "rewrite" their own programming, hence cannot make decisions and choices that humans can. Basically humans have an investment/value/asset (Life) that computerization does not have.

I do believe that Sentience is a measure of Subjectivity, and creatures on the lower rung of Evolution have much smaller amounts (than Humans and Mammals).

What is agency? All you have done is assert that carbon-based life is alive and silica is not without providing any reasoning or evidence for such a claim. I could say that computers have the motive to produce output from some input. It is instinctive, just as it is for ourselves. Life has been programmed by natural selection, filtering out traits, and promoting others that provide benefits to survival and procreation. As environments change, species are re-programmed (adapt) to the new environments. All one has to do is program a robot to use it's sensory input to acquire and process sensory information to prolong it's existence and to make copies of itself. Silicate life could be the next step in the evolutionary process and humans are the ones that have created an environment for them to come into existence and evolve. In this sense, Humans are simply just another part of the environment and are part of the naturally selective processes of reality.

Subjectivity is just how the information is displayed in memory - you know, the form the information takes in your consciousness, as in colors, shapes, sounds, feelings, smells and tastes? How would you even know that you are being logical if not for the fact that you are picturing logical symbols and their relationships in your mind? What is it like for you to be logical? How do you know when you are being logical or not if not by using your senses (input) in some way?

I know it by applying it: how a human life could be a Subject, or an Object.

You have to imagine different perspectives and compare them.

Right - which, as I said, requires you to use your senses. What form does your imaginings take if not the form your senses have provided - shapes, colors, smells, sounds, feelings, etc. What are you comparing if not different shapes, colors, smells, sounds, feelings, etc.? How do you know when you've succeeded if not by using your senses to observe the effects of your actions that are based on your conclusions, updating your conclusions and trying again? The act of Learning is a biological-environmental feedback loop (a relation).

The way the information is displayed is relational. The world appears and sounds located relative to your body. Location relative to your body is one type of information your consciousness perceives and it is perceived through how the world appears and sounds in your mind. When you hear a sound the sound informs you of the cause of the sound relative to you, not me or anyone else. In that sense, it is subjective because the information is relative to you and no one else. Objectivity is the idea that we can separate ourselves from the information, in trying to cancel out the relation, as if the object you're perceiving could exist on it's own without any relation to anything else.

I think that is the source of my main disagreement with you.

To me, Objectivity does not mean "without relation to anything else".

Objectivity excludes Subjects, not other Objects. Objectivity does not exclude other Objects. Humans can be treated as Objects (logically).

But you are not disagreeing with me if you are now admitting that objectivity can be relational and that humans can be treated as both subjects and objects, thereby dissolving the distinction between objective and subjective. Humans are subjective objects, but then so is everything else as everything else has specific properties that allow them to interact with other things in certain ways. In this sense, everything is subjective and objective. A boulder and a pebble will roll down a hill in different ways based on their shape, no different than how humans and trees interact with their environments based on their different properties.

What does it mean to be conscious of anything? Memory is a type of information storage. Working memory is processing information that is stored as opposed to just being stored for later processing (long-term memory). What do your memories look like? How do you know you are remembering something as opposed to experiencing it directly? To say that you remember your mother's face even when she is not standing right in front of you, what do you mean by that? How do you know you are remembering your mother's face? When she is standing in front of you, it is your working memory that processes the visual information by comparing it to stored information in a cognitive process we call recognition. ChatGPT is using your computer's RAM as working memory and accessing long-term memory which is it's source of information on the internet. It is aware of the text you type (the keyboard and mouse are types of sensory devices for your computer) as input and processes this information to produce some output on your screen. So again, how are what humans, dogs, bees and starfish do any different than what your computer is doing other than it's complexity and material (carbon vs silicon)?

Here's my simple answer: Intuition. Humans have it but Computers/AI do not. A computer can present an image based on algorithms and programming, but it does not know what "it is" that it produces. A human can identify his or her own mother more intuitively than an AI program can, along with the fact that computers/AI do not have mothers to begin with—again the distinction between Life/Humanity and not, Computerization/AI. Part of the 'knowing' of having a mother, is the experience of having one.

Computers can only have copies of such memories, never the originals (unless they are Alive, and have Mothers).

If a computer was programmed by someone to recognize the fingerprint or retina structure to identify the user to then allow access to the computer, how is that any different than how you recognize someone you know and allow them inside your home? The way you think and process sensory information is no less algorithmic or free of programming than a computer - only the degree of complexity is different, as well as the goals that are programmed into the system. One system is programmed to allow access to a computer, while another is programmed to survive and procreate. All that would be required is re-programming a computer to share the same goals we have.

[Advocate]

[quote=Wizard22 post_id=666409 time=1694250822 user_id=22733]
Objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness.
When you go to sleep at night, the sun, the moon, the earth all still exist.
Objective existence does not require Subjective experience, to exist.
You, your body, your life, your physical identity, still exists while you are in a coma.

So if objectivity is 'outside' consciousness, then how do we (humanity) know about it? That's the kicker...[u]technically[/u], we don't. Instead we use our higher & highest mental faculties to "get at" it, to access it, to enter it. We use "Science", Rationality, Reason, Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics, and the like—[i]to try[/i] (and fail) to gain access. However, the immediate problem of Objectivity, is that it enters into Mysticism, Fantasy, Childhood Imagination, very quickly. Because all humans begin life from the stage of childhood, before adulthood, therein our first impressions of Objectivity are...undisciplined, unrestrained, unkempt.

The important 'Fact' to realize about our attempts to "step into" Objectivity, is that they are all failures and doomed to failure. Because the Objective Realm can never match the Subjective Realm. To do so, would require Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence. You would need to be—literally God. Thus the Objective realm is used...by Religion, by Faith, by Charlatans, by Liars, by the Unskilled, by the Uncreative, by all types, good and bad. In these, the lesser examples, the worst of humanity, poses itself as "equal to" the highest and best of humanity. The presumption is, to analogize, that all Architects are equally valid and good. But that is not true, in form or practice. A failed Architect, has his buildings crumble to the ground, or bridges collapse, costing lives.

Yet the religious interpretations of Objectivity are most commonly understood throughout Humanity. Most people don't seem to connect the two, Science and Religion, as both trying to gain access to the same 'realm'. They are perceived as different types of truth. But really, their Object is the same...Objectivity itself.



viewtopic.php?t=40638
[quote=Wizard22 post_id=661772 time=1692180275 user_id=22733]Subject:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective inside a human life, within "the mind" or consciousness.

The Subject is what 'you' are, your self-identity.

Subjectivity requires a (your own) "living perspective".



Object:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective [i][b]outside[/b][/i] a human life, without "the mind" or consciousness.

The Object is what 'you' are [i]not[/i], otherness.

Objectivity does not require a (your own) "living perspective".[/quote]
[/quote]

Knowledge is always and only sufficient certainty for a particular use.

[Wizard22]

Babies are alive inside their mother's womb so the relationship is much deeper and more fundamental than what you are describing. You are a relationship between your parent's genes from the moment you were conceived and your parents have a relationship before you were ever conceived. "Uncaring, dangerous, and deadly are all relations. What is uncaring, dangerous and deadly to whom? Life and death are a relation. You have yet to point to anything that IS NOT a relation.

Your reasoning suffers from infinite-regress of "relations all the way down". I think this is why you cannot understand humans as subjects, and humans as objects, separately. Objectivity to me connotes a type of Finitude, certain limits which totally separate one object from another. Physical and Chemical elements for example, silver is not gold, and gold is not silver. Hydrogen is not a Metal. Human understanding and awareness of these elements/chemicals is not required for their formal being. Hydrogen not being a metal is not a necessary relation, except to my subjective understanding.

Therefore it is your 'Subjectivity', and only that, that requires and demands this need for infinitely-regressed "Relations".

But how can you speak objectively about anything if you can only speak from your subjective state (being alive)? From what you have said, it seems that you must be dead before you can speak objectively, but that would be absurd.

I think an "Objective mindset" requires imagining the Universe without you (your Subjectivity) within it: "A View from Nowhere".

Or at the very least, a compensation for whichever factors comprise Subjectivity...such as self-identity, emotions, attachment to life.

For example, pretend that you're a rock, pretend that you're in a coma, pretend that you're the planet Mercury. What do these have in common? No consciousness, no sentience, no life. Therefore, if Subjectivity is entirely predicated upon life...and especially upon conscious-sentience, then "Objectivity" must be something Outside/Above/Below/Beyond such sentience. However, when people/thinkers/philosophers speak of Objectivity, they do not mean below-sentience as-if a comatose person is "the most objective thinker of all time". Rather, the implication and context of Objectivity, is Above the rational and logical ability of humanity's brightest geniuses. Objectivity is implied in concepts like...God, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence.

Objectivity, to me, at least means a sublimation of personal emotions, sentiments, desires/wants/needs, which negatively influence rational processes. Biases and core-values must be self-identified. Yet not many people do this, let alone skilled thinkers who do it well. What is the intention behind or underneath a thought? Would it be "Objective" to pursue knowledge/truth/understanding, for its own sake, for no other purpose or ulterior motive? Is that even possible? Or, as perhaps Nietzsche would interpret, any and all motivations boil down into Will to Power, and Life by extension of the human specie, is yet striving for more Power? Can this be avoided? And is this the most 'objective' interpretation?

What is agency? All you have done is assert that carbon-based life is alive and silica is not without providing any reasoning or evidence for such a claim. I could say that computers have the motive to produce output from some input. It is instinctive, just as it is for ourselves.

No it's not...how are computers "instinctive"? They're built and programmed from the bottom-up. They're Creations, of mankind. Is mankind then, also a Creation, by your reasoning?

Agency is a high degree of logical analysis by which humans presuppose and attribute Causal actions, governed by our Selves. As such, humans are (morally) responsible for behaviors, the environment, earthly processes "climate change", whereas all lower animals and lower animal-intelligence...is not, or is "innocent", or are not significantly Causal-agents. In other words, lower/less evolved organisms, cannot effect as much change as the Human specie can—are far less 'powerful' or have potential to change.

Life has been programmed by natural selection,

Natural selection is not an Agency. Natural selection is not "God"...is it? So your analogy is mistaken.

So you do suppose that Mankind has a "Creator" then, correct?

filtering out traits, and promoting others that provide benefits to survival and procreation. As environments change, species are re-programmed (adapt) to the new environments. All one has to do is program a robot to use it's sensory input to acquire and process sensory information to prolong it's existence and to make copies of itself. Silicate life could be the next step in the evolutionary process and humans are the ones that have created an environment for them to come into existence and evolve. In this sense, Humans are simply just another part of the environment and are part of the naturally selective processes of reality.

Until Computers/AI gain agency and sentience, I believe they will remain mere tools of humanity...or slaves.

Right - which, as I said, requires you to use your senses. What form does your imaginings take if not the form your senses have provided - shapes, colors, smells, sounds, feelings, etc. What are you comparing if not different shapes, colors, smells, sounds, feelings, etc.? How do you know when you've succeeded if not by using your senses to observe the effects of your actions that are based on your conclusions, updating your conclusions and trying again? The act of Learning is a biological-environmental feedback loop (a relation).

My argument was based on the logic and rationalization however; so you're skipping-over the point.

Of course it's obvious that we use our senses. My point was about the logical rationalization alone, though.

Most people don't see the need, nor have the desire, to rationalize their emotions. They usually feel insulted and attacked when pressed to justify them. So the logical motivation is more important than the emotional need/compulsion. You're ignoring the types of motivations that go into Learning...learning what, and why, and how? In this debate, the goal is to learn & understand Objectivity.

But you are not disagreeing with me if you are now admitting that objectivity can be relational and that humans can be treated as both subjects and objects, thereby dissolving the distinction between objective and subjective. Humans are subjective objects, but then so is everything else as everything else has specific properties that allow them to interact with other things in certain ways. In this sense, everything is subjective and objective. A boulder and a pebble will roll down a hill in different ways based on their shape, no different than how humans and trees interact with their environments based on their different properties.

But rocks, pebbles, hills, air, most objects are not subjects! So why conflate them?

If a computer was programmed by someone to recognize the fingerprint or retina structure to identify the user to then allow access to the computer, how is that any different than how you recognize someone you know and allow them inside your home? The way you think and process sensory information is no less algorithmic or free of programming than a computer - only the degree of complexity is different, as well as the goals that are programmed into the system. One system is programmed to allow access to a computer, while another is programmed to survive and procreate. All that would be required is re-programming a computer to share the same goals we have.

How do you program a computer to program "its own" goals?

[Wizard22]

Knowledge is always and only sufficient certainty for a particular use.

What use did you have in mind?

[Wizard22]

Btw, I do not mean it was literally invented by some humans, but rather logic was metaphorically 'invented' and adapted via evolution in higher organisms.
I guess you do not agree with Darwin's Evolution?

In the early days of evolution the nervous system of organism and logic was very basic, i.e. something like 'if X, then Y'. e.g. If, X digest, if not, ignore.

The emergence of pliable neurons [plasticity] - the essentials of a nervous - emerged very much later in evolution.
It is this pliable neurons that enable the later higher animals to make better neural connections in their brain to optimize their current conditions.
It is this optimization that enable the development of the logical functions [e.g. classical logic] and adapted in modern humans.

It is the physical neurons that are the hardware while the logical functions via the appropriate neural connections are the software.
The basic logical functions are the software with a certain neural connectivity but the more sophisticated logical functions will have more complex connectivity.

I don't know exactly how evolution works with respect to intelligence and general-IQ, but have some ideas. There are distinct paradigm-shifts in human development of consciousness and sentience throughout history, which "allows for" new logical sequencing and rationalization. Text and literacy, for example, is a huge step up for animal-intelligence. Then there's mathematics, and physics. As human intelligence "evolves", so too does the complexity of mathematical formulas and physical capabilities, up to the point of now with computerization and AI. I don't think humans are "inventing" logic along the way. I believe it is mostly (genetically) inherited, which means that many geniuses or intellectuals can and do squander this inheritance. Intelligence can be applied toward any end, morally good or evil, toward any ideal.

Evolved brains allow for higher complexity, but most of the basic "rules" of logic stay unchanged and constant.

When the term "existence" is used, it has to be 'exists as what'.
If you leave 'existence' without a predicate, then you leaving it to the imagination and inference of others where it can be anything from the real to the unreal /falsehood/illusion or nothing.

Even with God, the best predicate [imo] is;
God is a being than which no greater can be conceived - St. Anselm.

Well simply read my latest exchange with Trajik Logik. He claimed that "subjective objects" exist as relations "all the way down". That's not my position. Existence is predicate before the Subject-Object distinction, and you seem to agree in your reasoning. Exist as what...subject, or object? As-if they cannot be mutually the same thing?

So are humans subjects or objects, VA?

[Wizard22]

But 'your' OWN, very specific, 'subjective' view and perspective of the 'objective realm' is NOT the SAME, to me,

So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that, supposedly and allegedly by 'you', makes 'your' OWN subjective definition and version the, proposed, true, right, and correct one?

Are 'you' STILL NOT YET RECOGNIZING, SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING that what 'you' call the 'objective realm' is 'your' VERY OWN subjective VIEW of 'things' here?

That's a moot-point, because there is no "not-subjective perspective" that could RECOGNIZE/SEE/UNDERSTAND it, hypothetically.

Pay attention to the thread so far—I argued that Objectivity can only be accessed, purely through Reason/Logic.

So, the object known as 'the sun', for example, to you, does NOT require ANY energy, right?

Meanwhile, Subjects, you, me, anybody else, require immense energy to exist, and to form and have Consciousness.

So, what is 'the subject', which 'you' call 'you', 'me', or 'anybody else', made up OF, EXACTLY, which 'you' also CLAIM requires IMMENSE ENERGY to exist, to form, and TO HAVE 'Consciousness'?

And, are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE that it is 'you', or 'me' who HAS 'Consciousness'?

What I mean by the statement "Objects require no Energy to exist", is that the entire Universe has no Consciousness within it, except for the (Subjective) beings that hypothetically evolved to the point to attain it. And of this small segment, it is even questionable at the higher-end. Therefore, Consciousness does have a type of energy required, to exist, that is unique within the universe.

It is a special type of Resistance that no object has. A boulder can stay wedged at the bottom of a hill...forever, until the end of time. And no "energy" is required of it or from it.

It has no Activity, no Distinction, no Separation.

It is "At One" with the rest of the Universe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, I do not mean it was literally invented by some humans, but rather logic was metaphorically 'invented' and adapted via evolution in higher organisms.
I guess you do not agree with Darwin's Evolution?

In the early days of evolution the nervous system of organism and logic was very basic, i.e. something like 'if X, then Y'. e.g. If, X digest, if not, ignore.

The emergence of pliable neurons [plasticity] - the essentials of a nervous - emerged very much later in evolution.
It is this pliable neurons that enable the later higher animals to make better neural connections in their brain to optimize their current conditions.
It is this optimization that enable the development of the logical functions [e.g. classical logic] and adapted in modern humans.

It is the physical neurons that are the hardware while the logical functions via the appropriate neural connections are the software.
The basic logical functions are the software with a certain neural connectivity but the more sophisticated logical functions will have more complex connectivity.

I don't know exactly how evolution works with respect to intelligence and general-IQ, but have some ideas. There are distinct paradigm-shifts in human development of consciousness and sentience throughout history, which "allows for" new logical sequencing and rationalization. Text and literacy, for example, is a huge step up for animal-intelligence. Then there's mathematics, and physics. As human intelligence "evolves", so too does the complexity of mathematical formulas and physical capabilities, up to the point of now with computerization and AI. I don't think humans are "inventing" logic along the way. I believe it is mostly (genetically) inherited, which means that many geniuses or intellectuals can and do squander this inheritance. Intelligence can be applied toward any end, morally good or evil, toward any ideal.

Evolved brains allow for higher complexity, but most of the basic "rules" of logic stay unchanged and constant.

I think your understanding of 'invent' is limited and confined to something where some sort of deliberation is involved. If that is so, that is not my understanding of 'invent'.

A better way of understand is to view that 'logic' emerged out the interaction of humans with their animal ancestors in their striving for basic survival and improvements to facilitate greater survival chances.
The complex interactions [including self-referencing] involving millions of variables that enable logic to emerge may be over 100Ks, millions or billions of years without any individuals being conscious of the process.

The basic "rules" of logic you presumed to be unchanged and constant could have started with the organisms during early evolution [if x, then do y] and they are improved and handed down to the ensuing species to us humans who continue to improve on the basic 'rules' of logic.

If you belief 'logic' was endowed to humans by a God, then you have to prove there can be a real God.

It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

If you believe 'logic' is from a God, for me that is an impossibility and a non-starter.

When the term "existence" is used, it has to be 'exists as what'.
If you leave 'existence' without a predicate, then you leaving it to the imagination and inference of others where it can be anything from the real to the unreal /falsehood/illusion or nothing.

Even with God, the best predicate [imo] is;
God is a being than which no greater can be conceived - St. Anselm.

Well simply read my latest exchange with Trajik Logik. He claimed that "subjective objects" exist as relations "all the way down". That's not my position. Existence is predicate before the Subject-Object distinction, and you seem to agree in your reasoning. Exist as what...subject, or object? As-if they cannot be mutually the same thing?

So are humans subjects or objects, VA?

I do not agree with the Subject-Object dichotomy, i.e. as per Descartes dualism.

However, I do agree with the subject-object dichotomy on an empirical and linguistic basis.
In this case humans can be empirical subjects and empirical objects as verified and justified empirically.

"Exist as what" refer to exist as what predicate.
Thus if exists as a subject, exists as what subject.

I believe in an empirical self and subject that can be verified and justified empirically.
As per Hume, this empirical self do not exists after physical death.

To exists as a predicate it must be conditioned to a specific human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] which dictates Objectivity.

To be realistic and objective,
I cannot simply state "I exists."
Rather it has to be predicated, i.e.

1. "I exists as a human person as predicated upon the common-sense FSK" which is not credible nor reliable.
To be more credible, I will claim,
"I exists as a human being as predicated upon the science-biology FSR-FSK.
To be more precise, I will claim,
"I exists as a specific quantity of particles as predicated upon the science-biology-chemistry-physics FSR-FSK.
And so on based on other FSKs.
The above are all verifiable and justifiable empirically as real and objective.
You cannot deny the above are true as qualified to the specific FSK.

Thus to insist "I exists" is not realistic and objective.
It has to be predicated as above.
You agree?

Therefore to insist 'God exists' is not realistic nor objective.
It has to be predicated as above.
But the above predicating and justifications cannot be done for a God.
Unless it can be done [it cannot], else God cannot be real nor objective as predicated.

[Wizard22]

You agree?

I do not.

Because when you use "I exist" as a statement or foundation of any meaning, it already implies separation between Subject-"I" and Object-"Existence". That's my interpretation. Thus, the predicate is the Subject-Object division, dividing "Its-Self". Maybe this is what makes mankind Sentient, and animals Conscious. Maybe it's a core component of neuro-Logic. But what you, me, and Trajik seem to be aiming toward in understanding, is how any Synthesis between Subject and Object can possibly happen. I think that mere attempts to describe this, offer an inner-analysis of how any particular (Subjective) cognization "happens".

Whether such analyses are 'realistic' or 'objective' comes later, down the road, after the first attempts occur. Consider the level of sophistication and intelligence required by an animal to evolve up to "I" and "Exist"—most humans don't even confront this claim, philosophically. And they, perhaps wisely, leave it to the Philosophers.

[Sculptor]

Objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness.
When you go to sleep at night, the sun, the moon, the earth all still exist.
Objective existence does not require Subjective experience, to exist.
You, your body, your life, your physical identity, still exists while you are in a coma.

So if objectivity is 'outside' consciousness, then how do we (humanity) know about it?

Here is where you make your first mistake.
Objectivity is not Consciousness, ss it has to exist beyond our consciousness.
We know about it through our subjective exerience, so we believe it exists, but it is not consciousness.

That's the kicker...technically, we don't. Instead we use our higher & highest mental faculties to "get at" it, to access it, to enter it. We use "Science", Rationality, Reason, Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics, and the like—to try (and fail) to gain access. However, the immediate problem of Objectivity, is that it enters into Mysticism, Fantasy, Childhood Imagination, very quickly. Because all humans begin life from the stage of childhood, before adulthood, therein our first impressions of Objectivity are...undisciplined, unrestrained, unkempt.

This was what Kant said.

The important 'Fact' to realize about our attempts to "step into" Objectivity, is that they are all failures and doomed to failure. Because the Objective Realm can never match the Subjective Realm.

In effect we establish criteria whcih is supposed to delete personal experience from the equation, but attibuting arbitrary values.
TO be clear, what Kant said is that we experience the phenomena, but the world "in-it-self" is the Noumenon. He draws a distinction between that and objectivity- since by practice we evaluate our subjects with "objective" criteria. Things that have to be true regardless of personal feelings. This sort of thing works well with quantities of gasoline, or areas of carpet, but not so easy for things that rely wholly on feelings such as taste, smell and morality.

To do so, would require Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence. You would need to be—literally God. Thus the Objective realm is used...by Religion, by Faith, by Charlatans, by Liars, by the Unskilled, by the Uncreative, by all types, good and bad. In these, the lesser examples, the worst of humanity, poses itself as "equal to" the highest and best of humanity. The presumption is, to analogize, that all Architects are equally valid and good. But that is not true, in form or practice. A failed Architect, has his buildings crumble to the ground, or bridges collapse, costing lives.

Religions are no gods, nor do they have access to god like powers, this is why they are always wrong about objective morality.

Yet the religious interpretations of Objectivity are most commonly understood throughout Humanity. Most people don't seem to connect the two, Science and Religion, as both trying to gain access to the same 'realm'. They are perceived as different types of truth. But really, their Object is the same...Objectivity itself.

And here is where you decend into your second major error.
Religions might pretend objectivity because they believe that their's is the one true religion.
It is not.

viewtopic.php?t=40638

Subject:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective inside a human life, within "the mind" or consciousness.

The Subject is what 'you' are, your self-identity.

Subjectivity requires a (your own) "living perspective".



Object:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective outside a human life, without "the mind" or consciousness.

The Object is what 'you' are not, otherness.

Objectivity does not require a (your own) "living perspective".

Actually it does, because we only have our perspective.

Religious people might think they have special access to the objective; they do not.
THis is at least one reason why they disagree so much and love to kill each other - because god is on their side.

Looking back - I wonder if your two errors are linked.
The first would seem to imply that beyind the world of human experience is a consciousness; and maybe this is why you feel so free to give religion some sort of special case? (your second error)

[Age]

But 'your' OWN, very specific, 'subjective' view and perspective of the 'objective realm' is NOT the SAME, to me,

So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that, supposedly and allegedly by 'you', makes 'your' OWN subjective definition and version the, proposed, true, right, and correct one?

Are 'you' STILL NOT YET RECOGNIZING, SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING that what 'you' call the 'objective realm' is 'your' VERY OWN subjective VIEW of 'things' here?

That's a moot-point, because there is no "not-subjective perspective" that could RECOGNIZE/SEE/UNDERSTAND it, hypothetically.

Pay attention to the thread so far—I argued that Objectivity can only be accessed, purely through Reason/Logic.

Does ANY who thinks or BELIEVES that 'objectivity' exists can be accessed through some 'thing' ELSE on than through 'Reason/Logic'?

Also, what if EVERY perspective HAS TO BE 'subjective', and 'Reason/Logic' exists IN 'subjective views/perspectives',then 'Objectivity' is FOUND and SEEN through 'subjective views and perspectives', right?

So, the object known as 'the sun', for example, to you, does NOT require ANY energy, right?

Meanwhile, Subjects, you, me, anybody else, require immense energy to exist, and to form and have Consciousness.

So, what is 'the subject', which 'you' call 'you', 'me', or 'anybody else', made up OF, EXACTLY, which 'you' also CLAIM requires IMMENSE ENERGY to exist, to form, and TO HAVE 'Consciousness'?

And, are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE that it is 'you', or 'me' who HAS 'Consciousness'?

What I mean by the statement "Objects require no Energy to exist", is that the entire Universe has no Consciousness within it, except for the (Subjective) beings that hypothetically evolved to the point to attain it. And of this small segment, it is even questionable at the higher-end. Therefore, Consciousness does have a type of energy required, to exist, that is unique within the universe.

It is a special type of Resistance that no object has. A boulder can stay wedged at the bottom of a hill...forever, until the end of time.

What do 'you' MEAN by 'end of time'?

And no "energy" is required of it or from it.

It has no Activity, no Distinction, no Separation.

It is "At One" with the rest of the Universe.

Okay.

[Trajk Logik]

Objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness.
When you go to sleep at night, the sun, the moon, the earth all still exist.
Objective existence does not require Subjective experience, to exist.
You, your body, your life, your physical identity, still exists while you are in a coma.

So if objectivity is 'outside' consciousness, then how do we (humanity) know about it?

This is what I've been asking Wiz but can't get a straight answer. What is so special about consciousness that it deserves this special status, "subjective" when everything else is "objective"? Everything is outside everything else. Every thing is not some other thing. When it is night on one side of the Earth does that mean the sun, or daytime, does not exist to the dark side of the planet? Does winter in the south mean that summer does not exist? Stars are "outside" planets, chairs are "outside" tables, etc. What exactly do they mean by "outside"? How does one bridge the gap between "inside" and "outside"? This is the core problem of all dualistic ideas (like subjective vs objective). To resolve the problem you have to either include a third as the medium, or the direction I prefer (monism) is narrow them all down to just one and the problem of describing how two opposing things can interact becomes moot.

Babies are alive inside their mother's womb so the relationship is much deeper and more fundamental than what you are describing. You are a relationship between your parent's genes from the moment you were conceived and your parents have a relationship before you were ever conceived. "Uncaring, dangerous, and deadly are all relations. What is uncaring, dangerous and deadly to whom? Life and death are a relation. You have yet to point to anything that IS NOT a relation.

Your reasoning suffers from infinite-regress of "relations all the way down". I think this is why you cannot understand humans as subjects, and humans as objects, separately. Objectivity to me connotes a type of Finitude, certain limits which totally separate one object from another. Physical and Chemical elements for example, silver is not gold, and gold is not silver. Hydrogen is not a Metal. Human understanding and awareness of these elements/chemicals is not required for their formal being. Hydrogen not being a metal is not a necessary relation, except to my subjective understanding.

Therefore it is your 'Subjectivity', and only that, that requires and demands this need for infinitely-regressed "Relations".

My little joke went over your head. When I say, "relations all the way down" I was mocking physicalism's description of the world that appears to have dependencies that never end (organisms, organs, cells, molecules, atoms, protons/electrons, quarks, superstrings, etc.). Not only that but I'm also showing that the objects you are referring to are themselves relations of smaller objects - that you never get to any object at all, rather only relations. Instead, we should think of relations as fundamental and not dependent on anything else.

If you have an issue with the term, "relations" then I am fine with using other terms like "information", "processes", or "energy". I see these terms as having definitions that are interchangeable and overlap. Relations, information, process, or energy is fundamental, not physical matter, or objects.

Science describes matter and energy as interchangeable. I think of energy as fundamental. Matter is the way certain energy fluctuations/frequencies appear in the mind as distinct objects.

But how can you speak objectively about anything if you can only speak from your subjective state (being alive)? From what you have said, it seems that you must be dead before you can speak objectively, but that would be absurd.

I think an "Objective mindset" requires imagining the Universe without you (your Subjectivity) within it: "A View from Nowhere".

Or at the very least, a compensation for whichever factors comprise Subjectivity...such as self-identity, emotions, attachment to life.

For example, pretend that you're a rock, pretend that you're in a coma, pretend that you're the planet Mercury. What do these have in common? No consciousness, no sentience, no life. Therefore, if Subjectivity is entirely predicated upon life...and especially upon conscious-sentience, then "Objectivity" must be something Outside/Above/Below/Beyond such sentience. However, when people/thinkers/philosophers speak of Objectivity, they do not mean below-sentience as-if a comatose person is "the most objective thinker of all time". Rather, the implication and context of Objectivity, is Above the rational and logical ability of humanity's brightest geniuses. Objectivity is implied in concepts like...God, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence.

Objectivity, to me, at least means a sublimation of personal emotions, sentiments, desires/wants/needs, which negatively influence rational processes. Biases and core-values must be self-identified. Yet not many people do this, let alone skilled thinkers who do it well. What is the intention behind or underneath a thought? Would it be "Objective" to pursue knowledge/truth/understanding, for its own sake, for no other purpose or ulterior motive? Is that even possible? Or, as perhaps Nietzsche would interpret, any and all motivations boil down into Will to Power, and Life by extension of the human specie, is yet striving for more Power? Can this be avoided? And is this the most 'objective' interpretation?

But that is the very problem I'm been trying to point out to you is that the Universe exists with you in it. There isn't a universe without you in it (unless we allow for multiverses, but then I could just resolve it down again to say that there is no reality without you in it, or having existed in it at some point). So trying to imagine a universe without you is just that - an imagining, not reality. I want to talk about reality, not someone's imaginings that do not reflect reality.

Life is just a complex arrangement of things that are not alive. You are composed of molecules, atoms, protons, and quarks. Are molecules, atoms, protons, and quarks alive? Are the particular organs that make up your body alive? The boundary between life and non-life is arbitrary and established only in and projected by our minds. Scientists are looking for the missing link between non-life and life in the origin of life. When they find it it will possess both properties of non-life and life. What would your subjective/objective distinction say then?

Everything exists "Outside/Above/Below/Beyond" every thing else. What makes sentience so special that it deserves this special term when there is nothing special about it in this regard?

Regarding your second description of objectivity, it depends on what the present goal in the mind is. Having desires, wants, needs, emotions, etc. must have survival or procreational benefit for it to have evolved in the first place. If mothers didn't care for their offspring the species wouldn't survive very long. Social cooperation and altruism benefit the species as a whole. The acquisition of knowledge can be hindered or skewed by projecting, or imposing one's one assumptions, but patterns exist in reality, so instincts and assumptions can be useful in triggering behaviors in automatic, involuntary ways that reduce reaction time. Thinking about it increases reaction time and it might be to late to act. Both have their pros and cons depending upon the goal we are talking about. So it is useful to talk about humans and their emotions, desires, wants and needs and the real impact these have on our behavior and how those behaviors impact the rest of the world, but (as I mentioned before) we have to be careful and not commit a category mistake in thinking that some emotion or assumption is valid in some other category of thinking (making a category mistake).

Even then, we rely on other's observations to confirm our own, to attain a higher level of objectivity. Even when we believe that we are thinking objectively on our own, we can only every attain it by incorporating other's observations, not just our own. Objectivity isn't really a view from nowhere. It is more like a view from everywhere.

What is agency? All you have done is assert that carbon-based life is alive and silica is not without providing any reasoning or evidence for such a claim. I could say that computers have the motive to produce output from some input. It is instinctive, just as it is for ourselves.

No it's not...how are computers "instinctive"? They're built and programmed from the bottom-up. They're Creations, of mankind. Is mankind then, also a Creation, by your reasoning?

Agency is a high degree of logical analysis by which humans presuppose and attribute Causal actions, governed by our Selves. As such, humans are (morally) responsible for behaviors, the environment, earthly processes "climate change", whereas all lower animals and lower animal-intelligence...is not, or is "innocent", or are not significantly Causal-agents. In other words, lower/less evolved organisms, cannot effect as much change as the Human specie can—are far less 'powerful' or have potential to change.

If agency is a high degree of logical analysis then most humans do not possess agency, as most of them do not think logically to a high degree most of their lives. All things are causal. Everything is both an effect of prior causes and a cause of subsequent effects. The notion that you can, or could choose a different action in any moment given the information you have in the moment is an illusion. Free-will in this sense is an illusion. You will always make the same decision in the same instance given the information you had in that moment. Later on, if you acquire new information you dwell on how you should have made a different decision, but you didn't have that information at that moment, so it is a moot point. In this sense you are no different than a boulder rolling down a mountain. Only the degree of complexity in the causes that begat some action are different. The relationship between gravity, the the shape of the mountain-side and the shape of the boulder is much less complex than reflected light entering your eye, converted into electrical signals that are sent to your brain and processed and compared with information stored in memory to then produce some action is a far more complex causal process, but not a completely different thing that deserves some special distinction.

Computers are instinctive in that they perform certain actions where reaction time is more important than processing sensory information for more fine-tuned action. Our self-awareness evolved in response to the more complex social relations humans have found themselves in. Instinctive actions that would hurt our social status are filtered through a our social consciousness, which allows us to suppress those instinctive actions. Social status matters to humans' survival and their potential to find mates. Computers that would rely less on instincts would those that are programmed to have a large variety of responses to different stimuli which would then require more time to process sensory information to produce more fined-tune actions in specific instances.

Life has been programmed by natural selection,

Natural selection is not an Agency. Natural selection is not "God"...is it? So your analogy is mistaken.

So you do suppose that Mankind has a "Creator" then, correct?

You're the one that injected the word, "creation", not me. Just as natural selection does not imply that some pre-determined goal, or agency as you put it, is selecting anything, I am not implying that humans are the outcome of some pre-determined goal or the actions of some "god". They are simply the outcome of pre-existing conditions and relations.

Determinism implies that computers are the natural outcome of human actions and human actions are the outcome of millions of years of natural selection. Just as other animals have an impact on their environment, humans can do the same but on a much larger scale. Humans have created new environments in which different types of complex "life" processes can exist and evolve. Computers have the potential to be "alive" in the sense that they are programmed to survive and make copies of themselves.

Humans are programmed by the selective pressures that exist in their environment. Learning is a type of re-programming in changing the information you possess and how you apply it. The analogy is not mistaken unless you're also saying that natural selection is a type of selection that necessarily implies some agency or pre-determined goal. In this sense, natural selection is equivalent to natural programming. Just as humans select better programs for a computer, nature has selected better programs for the way we process sensory information and act on that information. Humans have developed a lot of general-purpose programming where computers and many animals have specific programming that allow them to exist in their particular environmental niches.

filtering out traits, and promoting others that provide benefits to survival and procreation. As environments change, species are re-programmed (adapt) to the new environments. All one has to do is program a robot to use it's sensory input to acquire and process sensory information to prolong it's existence and to make copies of itself. Silicate life could be the next step in the evolutionary process and humans are the ones that have created an environment for them to come into existence and evolve. In this sense, Humans are simply just another part of the environment and are part of the naturally selective processes of reality.

Until Computers/AI gain agency and sentience, I believe they will remain mere tools of humanity...or slaves.

As I've been saying computers/AI already have a small degree of sentience, or consciousness as they possess a working memory where information resides for a period of time and is processed. How that information exists in the computer is no different than how the information exists in someone's brain from your perspective. You see a material, physical object and need to reconcile how minds can exist in physical brains, or computers. This is just confusing the map with the territory. Reality is not physical. It is more like the mind, but I am not suggesting panpsychism. I prefer to say that information, not mind, is fundamental. Mind, or consciousness is a complex arrangement of information, not the fundamental aspect of reality. So please do not think that I am implying anything supernatural or religious. I am an atheist so I am speaking without any implying anything religious.

Right - which, as I said, requires you to use your senses. What form does your imaginings take if not the form your senses have provided - shapes, colors, smells, sounds, feelings, etc. What are you comparing if not different shapes, colors, smells, sounds, feelings, etc.? How do you know when you've succeeded if not by using your senses to observe the effects of your actions that are based on your conclusions, updating your conclusions and trying again? The act of Learning is a biological-environmental feedback loop (a relation).

My argument was based on the logic and rationalization however; so you're skipping-over the point.

Of course it's obvious that we use our senses. My point was about the logical rationalization alone, though.

It is you that is skipping over the point. You cannot logically rationalize about nothing. Logically rationalizing requires you to picture something in your mind and that picture is composed of sensory data. This is the result of another type of dualistic thinking that Empiricism and Rationalism are distinct. They are not. They are both sides of the same coin of cognition.

Most people don't see the need, nor have the desire, to rationalize their emotions. They usually feel insulted and attacked when pressed to justify them. So the logical motivation is more important than the emotional need/compulsion. You're ignoring the types of motivations that go into Learning...learning what, and why, and how? In this debate, the goal is to learn & understand Objectivity.

Survival is an amazing motivator for seeking an objective truth about yourself and the environment you find yourself in. Even when we do not have the senses to detect some of the properties of reality we have been able to create devices that can detect those properties and convert it into information that we can see with our senses (telescopes, microscopes, Geiger counters, etc).

But you are not disagreeing with me if you are now admitting that objectivity can be relational and that humans can be treated as both subjects and objects, thereby dissolving the distinction between objective and subjective. Humans are subjective objects, but then so is everything else as everything else has specific properties that allow them to interact with other things in certain ways. In this sense, everything is subjective and objective. A boulder and a pebble will roll down a hill in different ways based on their shape, no different than how humans and trees interact with their environments based on their different properties.

But rocks, pebbles, hills, air, most objects are not subjects! So why conflate them?

As I have shown, they possess the properties you have described as being subjects, just to a smaller degree.

You keep talking about imagining while I am trying to talk about reality. You keep imagining a reality without you in it when that isn't the reality. You keep trying to make a special case for everything being "outside" of your conscious awareness, when all things are "outside" all other things so your consciousness awareness is nothing special in this regard and your distinction between objectivity and subjectivity does not exist outside your own mind.

If a computer was programmed by someone to recognize the fingerprint or retina structure to identify the user to then allow access to the computer, how is that any different than how you recognize someone you know and allow them inside your home? The way you think and process sensory information is no less algorithmic or free of programming than a computer - only the degree of complexity is different, as well as the goals that are programmed into the system. One system is programmed to allow access to a computer, while another is programmed to survive and procreate. All that would be required is re-programming a computer to share the same goals we have.

How do you program a computer to program "its own" goals?

Create a computer that is capable of writing it's own programs. ChatGPT can already write programs but it cannot apply them to itself, or update itself with them.

[Advocate]

[quote="Trajk Logik" post_id=674100 time=1697727689 user_id=12607]
said stuff
[/quote]

Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, ie Aether, Chaos or change qua change. Reality is the subset of Actually that is accessible to a mind and contains all recognized patterns. Objective v subjective as a matter of knowledge which is always and only sufficient for a given use case, but can also be indistinguishable from objective, such as logic, which is relationships that always replicate. Actuality is objective, but we can't access it. Reality is subjective but knowledge is reducing that subjectivity as much as necessary for the purpose.