|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: It works because it is partially correct. It is true that the speed of light must be constant for all observers and that time dilation does occur and Einstein predicted this. That is has been confirmed experimentally. It is the explanation for how this is possible that can be questioned ie) that space is bending/contracting. There is another possible explanation for this and it is that light is not independent of perception (idealism). To the materialist space simply must be bendable in order to avoid this conclusion which violates realism.. even though conceptually it actually does not make much sense.
Quote:
I do agree that its locality is a problem, just as I agree that in quantum mechanics gravity is a problem. We're all doing our best here.
I agree I just think people need to be more critical of the currently accepted theories and paradigm, people have to much faith in so called scientific authorities.
I fully agree with the inference that space, time and light -- as we perceive them -- exist solely in our minds. But there is an objective component of the subjective perception, and I feel there are probably ways of relating to this that do not necessarily violate idealism. But that would be speculative at best.
I do not think a human mind has to be around for light rays to do their thing.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
I do not think a human mind has to be around for light rays to do their thing.
"Some people, on hearing that perception is the underlying cause of objects, fall into a misunderstanding of what is being said. They begin to assume that what is being said is that when a person exits from a room the room disappears.
This confuses the body and its sensory machinery with perception. The room is not dependent upon the presence of the human body. Rather it is dependent upon perception, which precedes the image that includes all bodies, both human and otherwise. Even the sense of individuality that is experienced is part of the image. So, when a person leaves a room, the room persists in reality in conformity with common sense." Christopher Ott 'Evolution of Perception'
Another way of saying this, from Berkeley
There was a young man who said, "God Must think it exceedingly odd If he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in the Quad." REPLY Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd: I am always about in the Quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be, Since observed by Yours faithfully, GOD.
God can be substituted with perception.. The qualities are the same - outside of time and space, non-finite, formless, etc.. At heart all sophisticated religious philosophy is idealism.
If perception is fundamental it is always there and is the cause and sustainer of all the physical objects of which exist. It is not the limited human mind which is required because the human mind is also a product of that indivisible perception. None of this you see is at odds with our scientific understanding of the natural history of the Earth and evolution. It can all happen naturally and automatically independent of some intelligence (akin to the human mind).
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
some more insight..
Quote:
The connection between perception and the body is identification. We experience the body and brain states and identify with that experience. The brain has no consciousness. Brain states are only physical states. I read and write the electrical condition of my brain through a schema. But I am not located in my brain or my body. I am indivisible perception, preceding space and time. There is no objective soul. There is only subjective soul. What we call soul is, in fact, nothing other than an evolved state of perception that has—through the process of the evolution of sophisticated schemata like time, space, and language—found itself alone and isolated as a body. But the relationship is purely that of identification. This connection between perception and body (identification) is foreshadowed in contemporary research in neuroscience as “body-imaging.” The body imaging is done by perception. The brain is a computer. There is no programmer (homunculus) in the brain and the brain is as unconscious as a computer. Perception is nowhere in its image and its image cannot perceive. It is logically impossible. The myth of artificial intelligence is a byproduct of materialism. The Turing-test mistakenly attempts to extract perception from the spectacle. There is no homunculus—no ghost in the machine. Birth is identification and death is disidentification. They are not the entry and exit of a spiritual entity or piece of plasma. When I am born and when I die, it is not I who come and go from the body, but the world—the image—that comes and goes from me. This implies a third Copernican revolution far beyond Kant’s. For now seeing is central, and mind and body—the image—are in its orbit.
Chris Ott
It reminds me of this quote,
Quote:
FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN
Electric awareness of observed effects of matter in motion is registered in the brain.
It is commonly believed that the brain thinks and knovre.
The brain does not think, nor does it know, It is but a storehouse of recorded sensations. The brain "remem- bers" these records for man's usage as he needs them, and for fulfilling the requirements of his body.
The brain is a complex state of motion expressed by waves of light pulsing in cycles.
States of motion cannot KNOW anything, nor can they THINK anything.
The brain is part of a machine, a human machine.
Machines can express thoughts which are electrically projected through them, but machines are incapable of thinking the thoughts thus projected.
Likewise machines can express knowledge but they caimot have knowledge.
Likewise machines can do marvelous things when pat- terned and controlled by knowledge, but they cannot KNOW what they do.
FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN
The centering conscious Mind of man's Soul-will alone thinks by projecting desire for creative expression through the brain machine.
Desire in Mind is electrically expressed. Electricity is the motivative force which projects the One Light of Mind two ways to create cycles of Ught waves for the purpose of expressing thought cycles.
Desire is not in the brain. It is in the centering con- scious self. Desire is the cause of all motion,
im BRAIN RECORDS SENSATIONS
The brain is but the electric recording mechanism of conscious Mind thinking. It is also man's storage ware- house of electric records of memories and thoughts since his beginning.
It is the servant of Universal Intelligence. It operates all mechanisms of the body. It acts as the central switch- board for all its instinctive voluntary and involuntary actions.
The brain is the seat of sensation. Its purpose in this respect is to keep the body electrically informed of the condition of the body, through electrical messages.
Such messages are not mental. They are purely electri- cal. They produce sensation. The brain senses and records every message. It sends counteracting messages to other parts of the body.
Walter Russel
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
None of this explains how the physical world came about from consciousness. That doesn't make any more sense than the reverse, and you claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.
|
Metaphysics
Stranger

Registered: 10/20/15
Posts: 3
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
|
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
It's interesting that people see less middle ground and more likely a very good or bad outcome. The imagination doesn't tend to be bland. I agree with a premise in the article, basically that when it comes to the advent of super intelligence we have to use our imagination to describe what it might be like because that's all we've got. It's not just that like 1988 we're examining computer connectivity unsure of what it will lead to, since what it's led to has been a product of our imagination. If ASI becomes possible it might dictate the direction of it's further evolution and actions, something our imagination may have no part in... unless there are fundamental commonalities.
And that's the rub. Humans don't understand themselves very well. Beneath the various rationals lies an irrational desire to live, to procreate, to express not simply due to want but to a deep seated need. So we need to wonder whether super intelligence will somehow inherit such desires, perhaps not from us but rather as a product of universal potential relating to being "alive" (whatever that means). Involved in this process are a variety of feelings. Does intelligence give rise to these things? It's easy to suggest a biological component is necessary, which I don't have a strict problem with but how that relates to intelligence is a mystery and so far an intellectual dead end. I'll take a guess and suggest frogs experience emotions not entirely dis-similar to humans. Also worth noting is that machines already process information faster than the human brain. None of those things in and of themselves produce intelligence of the sentient kind, and perhaps I'm mixing qualities despite trying to divide them.
I think what we certainly are capable of is a refinement of the principals we've already been working on, simple and relatively slow calculators leading to algorithms that can drive a car and predict weather. These are things we couldn't predict by examining a Texas Instruments calculator even though it's all just math, the manipulation of binary data. Down the road it may be complex enough that it can whiz through the Turing test 100 times out of 100. While such a feat would be reliant on programming it's possible emergent behavior will become less predictable to the point the programmers guess at behavior would be similar to a laypersons guess.
That in and of itself would not be an indicator of sentience. The test requires lying, which of course humans do but it negates the possibility of knowing a computers true nature. If by chance we create sentience... would we know it? And will a computer capable of super intelligence be capable of understanding consciousness or discovering the fundamentals that give rise to it? That is, will beings smarter than us be advantageous in this regard?
I think there are some serious programming issues that can't be resolved with bigger better more... but then again, I have no idea what causes consciousness. I would hesitate to answer the polls in the link.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Rahz]
#22412144 - 10/21/15 01:57 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A contradiction is the following
you sate : at one point "That in and of itself would not be an indicator of sentience" and else where "And that's the rub. Humans don't understand themselves very well."
So humans are sentient but not very aware, and further more machine intelligence is supposed to be judged by sentience. Seems both a contradiction and a double standard.
As I posted earlier if one accepts a broader view one could argue viruses are an alien intelligence. We have not defeated aids. it kills us. it takes over the heart of the cell and reprograms it. And viruses are in some ways more machine like, than they are like living organisms. But this fantasy does not match people's images of what they think AI show be since watching "Terminator" movies. It is interesting that something not alive is more intelligent at controlling cells than we are. But again part of the AI fantasy is that WE create it. Like wise one could say of "evolution" itself if one wants to conceive of it as a coherent process that it is in some sense intelligent in that it creates various life forms and is also both indifferent and destructive of them in that about 50% of life forms are parasitic and species are allowed to become extinct. So partly I feel the concern with imaginary future horrors ignores the present ones. And partly I feel our idea of "intelligence" is very anthropomorphic, which is precisely what more machine intelligence won't be.
Then again with genetic engineering humans may get mutated totally fucked up beyond all recognition before the machines strike back!
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
I didn't suggest sentience was a standard of intelligence (I stated uncertainty about whether there is a connection), or that awareness and understanding are synonymous. The main point I'm trying to convey is that we don't understand sentience so how can we know what the future holds(?) not in regard to whether machines will be intelligent but what they will do about it and whether they will be sentient. This is mirrored in the fact that experts have an obvious split of opinion on where that technology will lead. The best we can do is state that future AI "might" be dangerous. Being cautious seems prudent regardless of whether sentience might manifest. I think your comment on anthropomorphism is spot on... but how could it not be? Which is why I hesitate to guess what more machine intelligence might be like.
Perhaps after achieving consciousness a super intelligent machine, having no pain, will kill itself as the only logical move... though as you suggest, anthropomorphic aspect to that as well. And while I suppose there's more to life than being human we may be less special than we believe in that regard.
I see this topic as imaginative and theoretical. If it is above our pay grade, or too different for conception, who knows?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
|