Relativity

[Davian]

Bit of a tangent, but it is where I got my current avatar, and has this interesting tagline:

The AI Revolution Is On

The field’s trailblazers believed success lay in mimicking the logic-based reasoning that human brains were thought to use.

The AI Revolution Is On | Wired Magazine | Wired.com

(bolding mine)

 

[Resha Caner]

I agree that AI has a ways to go, but I do not see how this specifically applies to the mind-body "problem" you are positing.

Sigh. Maybe you'll be offended by me saying this, but often when someone makes statements like this I have to wonder if they're just being coy. [edit] After all, you shrug and say there's no paradox when that very article says no answer is yet universally accepted.

Hofstadter's book is a bit difficult to classify. By profession AI is his thing. So, he talks about the difficulties of coding information and wonders how humans manage to store so much. He talks about the mechanisms of the brain and how little they are understood - which is where the grandma cell comes in. Even if it is not a literal mechanism, it serves as a challenge to AI and neuroscience that has not yet been met - to explain the connection between senses, perception, storage, and recall. He also talks about determinism vs. freedom and the logical difficulties this creates as one is led into an infinite regress. As I've described the book you may think he is skeptical of what AI and neuroscience can achieve. Not so. He is a devout optimist about it all. He thinks he has answers to many of those puzzles, and expects answers to be found for the unsolved ones. The conclusion is mine that, for the length of the book, and as fascinating as it is, in the end he demonstrates very little.

So, I'm at a loss to understand what you don't get. If you think neuroscience is, in its present state, fully capable of demonstrating all aspects of "mind" that were once claimed to be metaphysical, then I suppose it is I who should be asking you questions. I just read a recent PhD that said we're not there yet, and I assumed someone studying in the field would have a better handle on it than me, but maybe there is a source disputing that claim of which I'm unaware.

Starting from the example of intelligence, then, do you have a reference that explains the physical construct that produces intelligence? I'm not talking about knowing wherecertain centers of the brain are, or knowing how to shut off certain behaviors with specific chemical blockers, or even knowing what treatments assist people with certain conditions. And I'll allow putting aside manufacturing issues, i.e. that we can't build our own neurons yet. I mean, does someone have a model of the brain such that, if it were possible to build that model, it would exhibit intelligence in a manner comparable to the human mind? Not just that it would win a chess game, but that it would grasp all aspects of human intelligence?

 

[sandwiches]

Sigh. Maybe you'll be offended by me saying this, but often when someone makes statements like this I have to wonder if they're just being coy. [edit] After all, you shrug and say there's no paradox when that very article says no answer is yet universally accepted.

Hofstadter's book is a bit difficult to classify. By profession AI is his thing. So, he talks about the difficulties of coding information and wonders how humans manage to store so much. He talks about the mechanisms of the brain and how little they are understood - which is where the grandma cell comes in. Even if it is not a literal mechanism, it serves as a challenge to AI and neuroscience that has not yet been met - to explain the connection between senses, perception, storage, and recall. He also talks about determinism vs. freedom and the logical difficulties this creates as one is led into an infinite regress. As I've described the book you may think he is skeptical of what AI and neuroscience can achieve. Not so. He is a devout optimist about it all. He thinks he has answers to many of those puzzles, and expects answers to be found for the unsolved ones. The conclusion is mine that, for the length of the book, and as fascinating as it is, in the end he demonstrates very little.

So, I'm at a loss to understand what you don't get. If you think neuroscience is, in its present state, fully capable of demonstrating all aspects of "mind" that were once claimed to be metaphysical, then I suppose it is I who should be asking you questions. I just read a recent PhD that said we're not there yet, and I assumed someone studying in the field would have a better handle on it than me, but maybe there is a source disputing that claim of which I'm unaware.

Starting from the example of intelligence, then, do you have a reference that explains the physical construct that produces intelligence? I'm not talking about knowing wherecertain centers of the brain are, or knowing how to shut off certain behaviors with specific chemical blockers, or even knowing what treatments assist people with certain conditions. And I'll allow putting aside manufacturing issues, i.e. that we can't build our own neurons yet. I mean, does someone have a model of the brain such that, if it were possible to build that model, it would exhibit intelligence in a manner comparable to the human mind? Not just that it would win a chess game, but that it would grasp all aspects of human intelligence?

Personally, I don't expect the perceived problem to go away for some people even when we ever make real AI. As long as people believe that intelligence and thoughts are not mere biochemical processes, nothing you show them will convince them there is no dualism or body-mind problem. The question of how can the mind "arise" from the brain, to me, is akin to asking how can food-canning "arise" from a factory.

I do have a question: If you interacted with a machine and it behaved exactly the way you would expect an intelligent being (Turing test) how would you know if it's truly intelligent or merely acts as though it were intelligent. Is there a difference?

Oh... and I think you missed my post here.

 

[Davian]

Sigh. Maybe you'll be offended by me saying this, but often when someone makes statements like this I have to wonder if they're just being coy.

I am not sure what you mean. You still have not presented a specific example of this 'paradox'.

[edit] After all, you shrug and say there's no paradox when that very article says no answer is yet universally accepted.

Where does it say that scientific theories and models require universal acceptance?

Hofstadter's book is a bit difficult to classify. By profession AI is his thing. So, he talks about the difficulties of coding information and wonders how humans manage to store so much. He talks about the mechanisms of the brain and how little they are understood - which is where the grandma cell comes in. Even if it is not a literal mechanism, it serves as a challenge to AI and neuroscience that has not yet been met - to explain the connection between senses, perception, storage, and recall. He also talks about determinism vs. freedom and the logical difficulties this creates as one is led into an infinite regress. As I've described the book you may think he is skeptical of what AI and neuroscience can achieve. Not so. He is a devout optimist about it all. He thinks he has answers to many of those puzzles, and expects answers to be found for the unsolved ones. The conclusion is mine that, for the length of the book, and as fascinating as it is, in the end he demonstrates very little.

If, as you say, the grama cell (you mean neuron?) is not meant as literal, what challenge is to be met?

So, I'm at a loss to understand what you don't get. If you think neuroscience is, in its present state, fully capable of demonstrating all aspects of "mind" that were once claimed to be metaphysical, then I suppose it is I who should be asking you questions. I just read a recent PhD that said we're not there yet, and I assumed someone studying in the field would have a better handle on it than me, but maybe there is a source disputing that claim of which I'm unaware.

The argument from ignorance. "If the scientific model cannot *fully* explain the subject, the metaphysical claims still stand".

No, they do not. They must stand on their own merits, philosophers protestations notwithstanding.

Starting from the example of intelligence, then, do you have a reference that explains the physical construct that produces intelligence? I'm not talking about knowing wherecertain centers of the brain are, or knowing how to shut off certain behaviors with specific chemical blockers, or even knowing what treatments assist people with certain conditions. And I'll allow putting aside manufacturing issues, i.e. that we can't build our own neurons yet. I mean, does someone have a model of the brain such that, if it were possible to build that model, it would exhibit intelligence in a manner comparable to the human mind? Not just that it would win a chess game, but that it would grasp all aspects of human intelligence?

First, lets explore this claim you have made.

Please provide an example of "mental phenomena that arguably differ, qualitatively or substantially, from the physical body on which they apparently depend", and how this was established or demonstrated.

 

[Resha Caner]

Oh... and I think you missed my post here.

I did, but after reading it I'm not sure what you want me to make of it. Honestly, I wish I could just avoid saying anything about it because the result can't be good.

I'm sure. We use science to tell which is more correct.

I hope you're joking. If not, I'm disappointed.

None exists. I've covered this amply with Growing Smaller.

That's nice, but I didn't participate in that discussion, nor read it.

Personally, I don't expect the perceived problem to go away for some people even when we ever make real AI.

I'm trying really hard not to read too much into this, but I don't like where it's going. It smacks of sticking your head in the sand.

I do have a question: If you interacted with a machine and it behaved exactly the way you would expect an intelligent being (Turing test) how would you know if it's truly intelligent or merely acts as though it were intelligent. Is there a difference?

No. Or at least if there is, it's irrelevant. But there is an interesting issue underlying your question. Rational or not, it creeps people out to think that a machine may actually emerge with intelligence. Look at the SF books on that topic. Why?

Cheesy as it was, I like the old Lost in Space series - and one episode in particular. There is an episode where Robot has to operate on another robot. Robot shudders when he opens up the other robot and sees oil - the way a human would at the site of blood. That is a pretty cool insight into the human mind. Should AI try to mimic that? Does it have a purpose? If so, who's purpose should that reaction serve? Should a robot shudder at the sight of oil, blood, or both? Is that a necessary part of "mind" (i.e. intelligence)? Is it something we can control? If intelligence did emerge, would one, the other, or both be an unavoidable outgrowth?

I'm not expecting answers. I just find those things intriguing. If you're looking to answer a question, see my next post.

 

[Resha Caner]

First, lets explore this claim you have made.

Honestly, Davian. If you're not equivocating then I am forced to conclude there is no hope that we will be able to communicate with each other.

Let's try one last thing. Maybe "intelligence" is too broad a topic, so I'll narrow it to one of the issues I mentioned earlier.

Humans have the ability to conclude the evidence is insufficient and will reply, "I don't know." My friend - the expert in AI - says AI won't do that. It always gives an answer. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong, but it always attempts to provide the best possible answer.

So, either 1) the brain is doing something we don't understand or 2) something we can't replicate. Those are the 2 options I can think of. Which is it?

PS: I'm not looking for a hip shot here. Given some of the things you didn't know about, you haven't given me confidence that you've pondered this much - that you know what you're talking about. If you're going to reply, support that reply. I don't want an answer like, "It's #2." If it's #2, why is it #2?

 

[jacks]

I've had this strange idea bouncing around in my head for some time. But, to better understand how plausible (or implausible) it is, I need to have some questions answered about relativity.

So, let's take mass and relativity as an example. Given that m = rest mass, v = velocity, and c = speed of light, the simple equation that people use to describe the relative mass (M) is:

M = m / sqrt(1 - (v/c)[sup]2[/sup]) ... BTW, is there a code for sqrt?

So, let's start with these questions:

I think I've seen it said that the above equation is an oversimplification of the effect of relativity on mass. In what way?

I've also seen several recent challenges saying that the speed of light is not the maximum speed a physical object can achieve. If so, I guess it's pretty obvious that the equation is wrong. But are the general principles still correct, i.e. that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, relativistic mass increases with speed, time slows down, etc?

If the speed of light is the maximum, is there a new "ultimate speed"? What things can exist above light speed? What is time like above light speed? Would it be something like light speed is a singularity, and above light speed time goes backwards?

Back to the original OP:

Could your formula be restated as: (assuming all are positive.)
M = (c m)/sqrt(c (c-v))

If so the answer is:
M!=0, c m!=0, v = (c M^2-c m^2)/M^2

 

[Davian]

Honestly, Davian. If you're not equivocating then I am forced to conclude there is no hope that we will be able to communicate with each other.

Well, as per your claim, I asked for a specific example of "mental phenomena that arguably differ, qualitatively or substantially, from the physical body on which they apparently depend", and how this was established or demonstrated.

Your response: "Intelligence", then you appeared to try to shift the burden of evidence to me.

You need to demonstrate why your claim should be considered, beyond 'we don't know everything about the brain'.

Let's try one last thing. Maybe "intelligence" is too broad a topic, so I'll narrow it to one of the issues I mentioned earlier.

Humans have the ability to conclude the evidence is insufficient and will reply, "I don't know." My friend - the expert in AI - says AI won't do that. It always gives an answer. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong, but it always attempts to provide the best possible answer.

This does not demonstrate the 'mind-body' problem.

I don't follow much in the way of AI, as I do not see how it offers insight into the workings of the brain at this time.

But I do not see why an AI cannot be simply programmed to certain limits, so as not to have it carry on with something ad infinitum. Simply program it to follow a different logic path after n number of attempts. (BTW I am an automation/control system designer and programmer)

So, either 1) the brain is doing something we don't understand or 2) something we can't replicate. Those are the 2 options I can think of. Which is it?

PS: I'm not looking for a hip shot here. Given some of the things you didn't know about, you haven't given me confidence that you've pondered this much - that you know what you're talking about. If you're going to reply, support that reply. I don't want an answer like, "It's #2." If it's #2, why is it #2?

Why only those two options? Why cannot it be 3) something we understand quite well but are unable to replicate? Again, this does not demonstrate a 'mind-body' problem, only that there may be more to learn about the brain.

At this point in the thread, the burden of evidence is on you.

If you want more than a 'shot from the hip', you can go to these (short) threads:

Philosopher Thomas Metzinger on the nature of consciousness:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7569197/

Cartesian Dualism (what I think you are claiming here):
http://www.christianforums.com/t7633675/

 

[Resha Caner]

Getting better. I knew you could do it. But I think we're going to need to do this the hard way. So, let's mark post #88. I'll do my best to get to the whole post, but I'm still trying to draw out our relative positions, so I think we need to be more explicit.

First, just to be clear, I have some sympathies for the mind-body problem, but I'm not totally convinced myself that there is a problem nor that it is theologically necessary to establish such. IOW, I'm open to being convinced no problem exists. With that I'll say 2 other things:

1) At this point I haven't seen anything that effectively challenges the position that a mind-body problem exists.

2) Neither have I read all the arguments. Maybe your links will open a new avenue for me. At this point the bulk of what I have read stems from Hofstadter, but I have recently begun to branch out and read deeper. Still, it takes time.

Well, as per your claim, I asked for a specific example of "mental phenomena that arguably differ, qualitatively or substantially, from the physical body on which they apparently depend", and how this was established or demonstrated.

Your response: "Intelligence", then you appeared to try to shift the burden of evidence to me.

You need to demonstrate why your claim should be considered, beyond 'we don't know everything about the brain'.

So, here is our first task, which relates to the above quote. Is the following a statement someone should accept?

A. I currently have no evidence for X.
B. I currently have no theory to explain X.
C. In the future I will have either a theory or evidence for X
D. C, therefore X is true.

As an alternative, must I accept the following statement?

E. A and B, therefore X is false.

 

[sandwiches]

I did, but after reading it I'm not sure what you want me to make of it. Honestly, I wish I could just avoid saying anything about it because the result can't be good.

I hope you're joking. If not, I'm disappointed.

Seems more like an ad hominem than a rebuttal but I'm sure you'll elaborate because surely you have a killer argument.

That's nice, but I didn't participate in that discussion, nor read it.

I gave you the Reader's Digest version in another post.

I'm trying really hard not to read too much into this, but I don't like where it's going. It smacks of sticking your head in the sand.

Well, that's definitely what I said. That no matter how much evidence there is of an AI, someone will stick their head in the sand and say "but it's not 'true AI.'"

No. Or at least if there is, it's irrelevant. But there is an interesting issue underlying your question. Rational or not, it creeps people out to think that a machine may actually emerge with intelligence. Look at the SF books on that topic. Why?

Several reasons. We like our position of 'power' in the world and we realize this power comes from our ability to reason. To imagine something, not human, that doesn't get sick, or age and is as smart or possibly smarter than us seems like a threat to our perceived place in the hierarchy in the universe. Now, I don't expect this reason to be a conscious one for most people.

Cheesy as it was, I like the old Lost in Space series - and one episode in particular. There is an episode where Robot has to operate on another robot. Robot shudders when he opens up the other robot and sees oil - the way a human would at the site of blood. That is a pretty cool insight into the human mind. Should AI try to mimic that? Does it have a purpose? If so, who's purpose should that reaction serve? Should a robot shudder at the sight of oil, blood, or both? Is that a necessary part of "mind" (i.e. intelligence)? Is it something we can control? If intelligence did emerge, would one, the other, or both be an unavoidable outgrowth?

It wouldn't surprise me to see an robot be scared when faced with the possibility of his own mortality.

 

[sandwiches]

Well, as per your claim, I asked for a specific example of "mental phenomena that arguably differ, qualitatively or substantially, from the physical body on which they apparently depend", and how this was established or demonstrated.

Your response: "Intelligence", then you appeared to try to shift the burden of evidence to me.

You need to demonstrate why your claim should be considered, beyond 'we don't know everything about the brain'.

This does not demonstrate the 'mind-body' problem.

I agree. I've yet to see him elaborate on this mind-body problem. That an AI his friend has programmed hasn't said "I don't know," only seems to show his friend to be a shoddy programmer, if anything. I don't get how an AI not saying "I don't know," points to a mind-body problem but I'm sure after a lot of beating around the bush and posting links, he'll surely explain to us and give us an example of this problem he perceives.

Another thing I'm unsure about is that although millions of issues with our knowledge regarding human biology exist, this particular one people like to pick at as though it'll be a unsolvable mystery. As though they are sure this is something that no human could ever trump. That people still cling to this "problem," is indeed an example of what Resha was asking me about earlier: That many humans fear AI.

 

[Resha Caner]

Seems more like an ad hominem than a rebuttal ...

Very much so, and that's why I didn't want to do it. I feel bad, like I'm being unfair to you. But honestly, with a reply like that I don't know what to do. At work when a young engineer gives a reply like that, we old graybeards often just shake our heads and say, "OK, you go try that and tell me how it works for you." IOW, experience is often the best teacher.

I gave you the Reader's Digest version in another post.

I must have missed it.

Well, that's definitely what I said. That no matter how much evidence there is of an AI, someone will stick their head in the sand and say "but it's not 'true AI.'"

Maybe so. And? Your comment gave the impression that because someone else sticks their head in the sand, it's OK for you to do the same. But, if it's just that I missed your explanation, then I apologize.

 

[Resha Caner]

I agree. I've yet to see him elaborate on this mind-body problem. That an AI his friend has programmed hasn't said "I don't know," only seems to show his friend to be a shoddy programmer, if anything. I don't get how an AI not saying "I don't know," points to a mind-body problem but I'm sure after a lot of beating around the bush and posting links, he'll surely explain to us and give us an example of this problem he perceives.

Another thing I'm unsure about is that although millions of issues with our knowledge regarding human biology exist, this particular one people like to pick at as though it'll be a unsolvable mystery. As though they are sure this is something that no human could ever trump. That people still cling to this "problem," is indeed an example of what Resha was asking me about earlier: That many humans fear AI.

Never mind.

 

[sandwiches]

Very much so, and that's why I didn't want to do it. I feel bad, like I'm being unfair to you. But honestly, with a reply like that I don't know what to do. At work when a young engineer gives a reply like that, we old graybeards often just shake our heads and say, "OK, you go try that and tell me how it works for you." IOW, experience is often the best teacher.

I must have missed it.

Maybe so. And? Your comment gave the impression that because someone else sticks their head in the sand, it's OK for you to do the same. But, if it's just that I missed your explanation, then I apologize.

Stick my head in the sand about what? Now, I'll apologize if I've missed what you've posted or if I misinterpreted you but I seem to be under the (possibly wrong) impression that this mind-body problem is perceived as being unique and almost impassable. If so, I'd like to understand why it's perceived as some sort of almost magical problem.

 

[sandwiches]

Never mind.

Sorry, Resha but I've had many long conversations with different people about this mind-body problem. I've yet to have someone actually show me the problem. This is the first time anyone has used the example of AI not saying "I don't know," but I've had the whole "How does the brain produce consciousness?" "How can the 'nonphysical' (the mind) produce physical reactions?" Et cetera.

That most people perceive intelligence, consciousness, the mind, etc as something special, beyond what we'll ever understand, something more than merely a process in the brain baffles me and to, be honest, reeks of complacency and arrogance as humans. It's an unwillingness to admit that we're not special and that the processes that form our minds are no stranger or unique than those that might fuel a star or make a snail retract its eyes when touched. I truly feel like this is the modern man's geocentrism.

And the problem is that most people (not necessarily you) who perceive this mind-body problem already start with the assumption that the mind is indeed special and somehow not related or bound by the laws of nature. From that preconception I've gotten questions that could almost be written as "Well, how does the lowly, physical brain interface with the magic that is the mind? Explain that!" Or even things that are even more absurd such as "Well how do you know that the mind ceases to exist when you destroy the brain? Show me evidence of the mind being destroyed." When shown evidence. "That's not the mind; those are just electrical signals in the brain."

This all reminds me of the "spark of life" debates I've been part of, as well.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry, Resha ...

Don't worry about it. I'll take the blame for sending this the wrong way.

 

[Davian]

Getting better. I knew you could do it.

Is the condescending tone absolutely necessary?

But I think we're going to need to do this the hard way. So, let's mark post #88. I'll do my best to get to the whole post, but I'm still trying to draw out our relative positions, so I think we need to be more explicit.

First, just to be clear, I have some sympathies for the mind-body problem, but I'm not totally convinced myself that there is a problem nor that it is theologically necessary to establish such. IOW, I'm open to being convinced no problem exists.

I do not comment on the theological implications, as I do not see any conflict.

With that I'll say 2 other things:

1) At this point I haven't seen anything that effectively challenges the position that a mind-body problem exists.

That does not mean much if you are unable to present a falsifiable hypothesis.

2) Neither have I read all the arguments. Maybe your links will open a new avenue for me. At this point the bulk of what I have read stems from Hofstadter, but I have recently begun to branch out and read deeper. Still, it takes time.

Indeed. But it is time well wasted.

So, here is our first task, which relates to the above quote. Is the following a statement someone should accept?

A. I currently have no evidence for X.
B. I currently have no theory to explain X.
C. In the future I will have either a theory or evidence for X
D. C, therefore X is true.

Is "X" your mind-body problem? I think you will need some evidence first.

As an alternative, must I accept the following statement?

E. A and B, therefore X is false.

I would phrase it thusly: A and B, therefore X is without significance.

 

[Resha Caner]

For the sake of clarity, I'm restating:

A. I currently have no evidence for X.
B. I currently have no theory to explain X.
C. In the future I will have either a theory or evidence for X
D. C, therefore X is true.

E. A and B, therefore X is false.

Is "X" your mind-body problem?

I don't think it matters. X is any claim. But, if you think I have not been general enough, I'm open to revision. For example, in the interest of being as explicit as possible, I could amend D. to say:

D. C, therefore I know X is true now. [edit]

I think you will need some evidence first.

I'll take this to mean that you think D. is false. I agree. But if I misinterpret you, please clarify.

I would phrase it thusly: A and B, therefore X is without significance.

Which means what to you? That in the absence of theory and evidence you stop searching out the question? Again, I'll give you a chance to clarify, but that would not be my approach. In the absence of theory and evidence I often have an intuition. So, I might have a direction I want to pursue, but I cannot yet articulate that direction in a logically coherent manner.

I think E. is also false. Further, I think C. is pretty useless. Therefore, I will add the statement, which I think is the correct one:

F. A and B, therefore the truth value of X is unknown.

 

[Davian]

I agree. I've yet to see him elaborate on this mind-body problem. That an AI his friend has programmed hasn't said "I don't know," only seems to show his friend to be a shoddy programmer, if anything. I don't get how an AI not saying "I don't know," points to a mind-body problem but I'm sure after a lot of beating around the bush and posting links, he'll surely explain to us and give us an example of this problem he perceives.

Based on his most recent post, I don't think we will see anything soon.

Another thing I'm unsure about is that although millions of issues with our knowledge regarding human biology exist, this particular one people like to pick at as though it'll be a unsolvable mystery. As though they are sure this is something that no human could ever trump. That people still cling to this "problem," is indeed an example of what Resha was asking me about earlier: That many humans fear AI.

I agree, but I had not thought about the fear factor. As in the Wired article I linked to earlier, we are surrounded by AI. They fly our planes, they are driving cars on public roadways, and they are sorting through our tax returns to see if we are doing anything suspicious. Perhaps their acceptance is in that they lack a human face.

I could imagine a fear of AI as applied to an autonomous gun-toting military robot. I would want to pick apart the code on that one.

 

[Davian]

...
I would phrase it thusly: A and B, therefore X is without significance.

...
Which means what to you?

If you have something for which you have no evidence, no theory or hypothesis, then objectively, it would not be of significance. How could it be?

That in the absence of theory and evidence you stop searching out the question? Again, I'll give you a chance to clarify, but that would not be my approach. In the absence of theory and evidence I often have an intuition. So, I might have a direction I want to pursue, but I cannot yet articulate that direction in a logically coherent manner.

That is apparent.

As you have written above, you have your answer, and you are searching out the question. Kinda backwards.

I thnk you should use the scientific method, specifically in the manner that is intended to provide falsification, and avoid confirmation bias. Define your premise, observe, hypothesize, test, and analyze. And repeat. YMMV.

That is why I asked you at the onset for an example of what you were claiming. Something demonstrable.