Yeah, I know. But really, if you study biochemistry and cell biology, you discover that, fundamentally, that's what it is. Of course, that process has generated some wonderful ways to keep going...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, I know. But really, if you study biochemistry and cell biology, you discover that, fundamentally, that's what it is. Of course, that process has generated some wonderful ways to keep going...A little (no a lot) too reductionist for my taste.
That is where we diverge: "meaningful way". As you said , there is no clear place to draw that line.
So lets not draw it.
Unless we arbitrarily go with:
But then even bacteria does that, right?
- responsiveness to the environment;
- growth and change;
- ability to reproduce;
- have a metabolism and breathe;
- maintain homeostasis;
- being made of cells; and.
- passing traits onto offspring
Ardbeg is better. I bought a bottle of the Lagavulin 16 a few months back. It's good. But, I felt I've had good or better for 1/2 the price. The Uigeadail and Coryvreken are easily better. Much more complex and interesting. (YMMV)Correct.
Edit: But which is like saying that the bottle of Lagavulin* I just treated myself to an hour ago (lockdown isn't all bad) is nothing more than the distillate from some fermented barley which has been left lying around in a wooden barrel for a few years.
*"Revered by connoisseurs and experts, Lagavulin is known as “the king of Islay”. It is an 'essential' Scotch Whisky that any connoisseur or enthusiast must have in their collection; one of the world's favourite Malt Whiskies. Aged in oak casks for at least 16 years, this much sought-after Single Malt has the massive peat-smoke flavour that's typical of southern Islay, while also offering richness and a dryness that turns it into a truly interesting dram. The Lagavulin 16 Year Old has become a benchmark Islay dram from the Lagavulin distillery. A gift for all occasions for lovers of peaty and powerful whiskies." https://www.malts.com/en-au/product...n-16-year-old-single-malt-scotch-whisky-70cl/
Roll on sunset...
Can't help but wonder what will happen when some AI is assigned the task of learning across multiple, diverse and complex areas. I mean at the moment, their chess playing abilities produce solutions and strategies we can barely rationalize. What happens as the task complexity factor increases (alongside their ever growing capacity for more and more computations)? Could we rationalize their solutions for everyday life situations? Looks like the answer is 'no'!?Agreed. But I was making the point that a basic unit such as a bacterium can (has) evolved into conscious beings. And then drawing a comparison with computers which could be designed to have most of those characteristics. And extrapolate from there.
I'm sceptical of 'universal consciousness or awareness', but I can conceive of conscious awareness without intelligence.
I do have a soft spot for Lagavulin because the first time I had it was on a stormy eve in a hotel pub in Lochboisedale (Outer Hebrides) Scotland with a E. German girl and a retired English gardener.Ardbeg is better. I bought a bottle of the Lagavulin 16 a few months back. It's good. But, I felt I've had good or better for 1/2 the price. The Uigeadail and Coryvreken are easily better. Much more complex and interesting. (YMMV)
ETA: Stolen from the Whiskey Vault/Tribe youtube channels who no doubt stole it from traditional Irish toasts: If you fight, may you fight for a friend. If you steal, may you steal a lover's heart. If you drink, may you drink with us!
Speaking of conciousness?I do have a soft spot for Lagavulin because the first time I had it was on a stormy eve in a hotel pub in Lochboisedale (Outer Hebrides) Scotland with a E. German girl and a retired English gardener.
Can't help but wonder what will happen when some AI is assigned the task of learning across multiple, diverse and complex areas. I mean at the moment, their chess playing abilities produce solutions and strategies we can barely rationalize. What happens as the task complexity factor increases (alongside their ever growing capacity for more and more computations)? Could we rationalize their solutions for everyday life situations? Looks like the answer is 'no'!?
No actually. I met the gal on the bus (actually a jeep) to Lochboisedale. We were going to camp in the empty ferry waiting room to escape the storm, but it was locked. So we got a last minute BnB room, and to my regret we never 'did' anything. Oh well. Might have been for the best. Was great fun anyway. We got dinner at the pub where we met the gardener.Speaking of conciousness?
You went home with the gardener?
I have a spiritual truth meter of sorts that I run things through. When I run New Age stuff through my meter, it seems to flunk pretty badly.Check out the New-Age BS Generator. It's as close to Chopra as makes no difference, but it won't try to empty your wallet.
I meant exactly what I wrote, straight up.There is no 'life force' or 'Life Force', unless you mean that as a metaphor, in which case your extensions of it are nonsensical.
Which is what we also have in a corpse. But when I look into my own grand-daughter's eyes and see the light of glee when she laughs, there's a lot more going on there than chemistry.Life is essentially a complex form of persistent oxidation/reduction (redox) chemistry, similar in principle to fire (combustion), but at much lower temperatures.
It sounds like he thinks that electrons have consciousness and intelligence of sorts. AndAccording to Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Albert Szent-Györgyi: “Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest.” (American Society for Microbiology)
I realize that those are the parts. But a parts list at this granular level is massively insufficient for appreciating the whole.Yeah, I know. But really, if you study biochemistry and cell biology, you discover that, fundamentally, that's what it is. Of course, that process has generated some wonderful ways to keep going...
It goes a certain distance in building up our view of the whole.I realize that those are the parts. But a parts list at this granular level is massively insufficient for appreciating the whole.
I don’t know how this isn’t the same thing as saying added complexity. These different areas of the brain are responsible for different functions in an individual way, and then at a later stage everything is reassembled into a coherent whole. But all of these functional dependent regions could also exist for qualia zombies too, they too would require a ton of different sensory mechanisms in order to avoid running across a busy street 1 second too early or too late, or to chop a carrot without chopping off a fingertip, etc. But we don’t escape the privileged 1st person information problem, we can’t know via brain functions if a person who cut their finger instead of the carrot really feels the pain or if they are just going through the motions and acting like they are in pain. THAT their brain mechanisms matches what my brain mechanisms look like when I feel pain is an objective FACT, but whether or not the pain experience itself is being faked or is genuine in that person is unfortunately reduced to an inference. It’s this reduced quality of knowledge that is the explanatory gap when moving from the physiological data to the assurance that we don’t have a qualia zombie.It's not just a question of adding complexity. We already know that the brain is not just complex; there is a large number of brain areas that are functionally specific and connected together in specific ways.
Such deficits in motor function ability, speech, etc, would be objective facts. But lost consciousness, and sense of self could come or could still remain without us knowing for sure. It’s like the argument about whether a coma patient can hear & understand you (or even more precisely could THIS coma patient here you, or how about THAT coma patient?). There’s no such argument about the coma patient’s brain scans.We also know that specific damage to these areas or their inter-connections causes specific deficits in consciousness, affect, and sense of self.
I do not disagree that higher states of consciousness are an easy inference to make since we have tons of test subjects to verify that higher level functions in the cortex relates to mental states that don’t exist for lower level entities such as those with just hindbrains. But it’s that “What is it like to be a bat” problem. A friend of mine once made the claim that sharks have to be the most miserable creatures on Earth because of their disturbed & lousy sleep patterns. Now what if I made the argument that sharks live in a state of bliss? We know that levels of distress and contentness in organisms are real properties in reality (and sharks might also feel nothing at all), but to answer this shark debate a hard science can never help us (even though each individual shark would know the answer), we would be reduced to some soft science like Behaviorism to just make an inference. Unanswerable questions about reality (questions that we know for sure HAVE answers) that can’t be answered by the tools of hard physical sciences to me reveals that more exists in reality than the physical. Because we just became forced into a situation where we can only use a tool of mental language to describe a part of reality that we know is real…and that is the claim, that there’s a mental fabric of reality that falls outside of the scope of physical reality (although they are both intimately entangled, and dependent on each other).We also have tentative models for how the supporting framework for high-level consciousness functions, from internal and external senses to hind-brain structures to mid-brain structures and on to the cortex. These models are broadly based on the evolutionary sequence that produced the mammalian brain.
Yeah I think so too, kind of like a lie detector test but with way more information. Well that’s if we don’t kill ourselves first and have to start over with sticks & stones. Some of these stories about the record droughts, temperatures, water scarcity, floods, etc are weirding me out.Given what we know now, and the advances in exploratory techinques in recent years, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we may eventually be able to identify all the functional requirements (i.e. processes and information inputs) and relations necessary to result in subjective experience. Whether we will be able to say precisely how they do so is a moot point, but we should have a better understanding of it than we do now. Ultimately, it may be that we'll only be able to say that if you connect these processes together in this way and feed it this kind of information, the system will have subjective experience.
How do we know for sure those questions have answers?Unanswerable questions about reality (questions that we know for sure HAVE answers) that can’t be answered by the tools of hard physical sciences ..
All that means to me is that you already have a fixed idea about what else 'exists in reality'. I say that's all just belief, (where a belief is that which is held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic).Vap841 said:.. to me reveals that more exists in reality than the physical.
Try on that all reality is mental. Problem solved!Vap841 said:Because we just became forced into a situation where we can only use a tool of mental language to describe a part of reality that we know is real…and that is the claim, that there’s a mental fabric of reality that falls outside of the scope of physical reality (although they are both intimately entangled, and dependent on each other).
Saying that there is no answer to the question of what the internal state of a shark is doesn’t make sense, there has to be an answer. Even if they are like robots and they feel nothing at all that would still be the answer to the question.How do we know for sure those questions have answers?
They might well just be irrelevant questions .. so the assumed sought after answers, could be equally as irrelevant.
No I think that that part of reality is knowable only by introspection, however introspection is much more prone to uncertainty than the scientific method, so therefore because of its more iffy interpretations I basically think that it’s impossible to reach an exhaustive knowledge about reality.All that means to me is that you already have a fixed idea about what else 'exists in reality'.
Oh no way, my inner 12 year old and my love of superhero movies most definitely has my preferences out of line with my beliefs, I prefer to be reincarnated as Clarke Kent on a planet without kryptonite lol.I say that's all just belief, (where a belief is that which is held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic).
I don’t believe in Idealism, however I do somewhat understand where people like that are coming from. I also wonder if some people move into Idealism as a reaction against Materialism, I’m not sure.Try on that all reality is mental. Problem solved!
Saying that there is no answer to the question of what the internal state of a shark is doesn’t make sense, there has to be an answer. Even if they are like robots and they feel nothing at all that would still be the answer to the question.
I’m not understanding how it could be consistent to say #1 there is an answer to the question, but #2 it makes no sense to ask the question.I guess you could say that there is an answer to everything. If you consider the number of grains of sand in the universe then there is, at this exact moment, an exact number. So that number would be the answer. But does that mean that it makes sense in asking the question? Of course not. It's nonsensical to even contemplate asking it.
Bad analogy would be an understatement here. It is a fact that it is like something to be a shark, but angels dancing on the end of a pin is where you should be using the word nonsensical. Furthermore I don’t even see the comparison to grains of sand, the difficulty levels involved are night & day, a test subject with a mere 3.5 lb brain can be placed in the center of a room full of researchers and they would have access to everything they need conveniently sitting in a chair.So it is with the concept of 'what it is like to be...a bat' or a shark. Or you. It's the equivalent of asking how many angels can dance on the end of a pin. You can keep asking difficult questions but at some point the answers become so detached from what can be observed that they become meaningless in themselves.
I’m not understanding how it could be consistent to say #1 there is an answer to the question, but #2 it makes no sense to ask the question.
Bad analogy would be an understatement here. It is a fact that it is like something to be a shark, but angels dancing on the end of a pin is where you should be using the word nonsensical. Furthermore I don’t even see the comparison to grains of sand, the difficulty levels involved are night & day, a test subject with a mere 3.5 lb brain can be placed in the center of a room full of researchers and they would have access to everything they need conveniently sitting in a chair.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?