About a deity full of love and compassion

[atanu]

I see no confliction here. We have simply used the processes in our brain to figure out the processes in our brain. It's not a paradox exactly.

You are correct. This is like characters emergent out of a movie -- fighting, or making love, or arguing about correctness of their views.

Or it may be like characters in a novel doing the same.

However, there must be an observer of the movie or enjoyer of the novel to know of the characters.

 

[Mellonhead]

Well, the paradox is that we are conscious of "using our brain to figure out the processes in our brain."

Again, that's not a paradox. That's like saying it's a paradox to use tools to make other tools. We just started with simple scientific studies, and slowly advanced. Our brain is a compilation of all the reactions that happen in it. And we still don't understand EVERYTHING that happens in it.

Besides, heads have been split and actual brain matter studied. It's not a paradox if we have some tissue to work with, gruesome as it may seem.

 

[Mellonhead]

You are correct. This is like characters emergent out of a movie -- fighting, or making love, or arguing about correctness of their views.

Or it may be like characters in a novel doing the same.

However, there must be an observer of the movie or enjoyer of the novel to know of the characters.

What?

Please give some supporting evidence to that claim.

 

[atanu]

I see no confliction here. We have simply used the processes in our brain to figure out the processes in our brain. It's not a paradox exactly.

I agree. Characters of a novel have no real confliction ever.

 

[atanu]

What?

Please give some supporting evidence to that claim.

Electrochemical reactions asking for evidence?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Again, that's not a paradox. That's like saying it's a paradox to use tools to make other tools. We just started with simple scientific studies, and slowly advanced. Our brain is a compilation of all the reactions that happen in it. And we still don't understand EVERYTHING that happens in it.

Besides, heads have been split and actual brain matter studied. It's not a paradox if we have some tissue to work with, gruesome as it may seem.

Using our brain to define our brain is very much a paradox. It's like defining a word by using the word in the definition.

 

[not yet now]

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; for it is the power of God unto life, to all who believe in it; whether first they are of the Jews, or whether they are of the Gentiles.
Rom 1:17 For in it is revealed the righteousness of God, from faith to faith; as it is written, The righteous by faith, shall live.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God from heaven is revealed against all the iniquity and wickedness of men, who hold the truth in iniquity.
Rom 1:19 Because a knowledge of God is manifest in them; for God hath manifested it in them.
Rom 1:20 For, from the foundations of the world, the occult things of God are seen, by the intellect, in the things he created, even his eternal power and divinity; so that they might be without excuse;
Rom 1:21 because they knew God, and did not glorify him and give thanks to him as God, but became vain in their imaginings, and their unwise heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 And, while they thought within themselves that they were wise, they became fools.
Rom 1:23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness to the image of a corruptible man, and into the likeness of birds and quadrupeds and reptiles on the earth.
Rom 1:24 For this cause, God gave them up to the filthy lusts of their heart, to dishonor their bodies with them.
Rom 1:25 And they changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the created things, much more than the Creator of them, to whom belong glory and blessing, for ever and ever: Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause, God gave them up to vile passions: for their females changed the use of their natures, and employed that which is unnatural.
Rom 1:27 And so also their males forsook the use of females, which is natural, and burned with lust toward one another; and, male with male, they did what is shameful, and received in themselves the just recompense of their error.
Rom 1:28 And as they did not determine with themselves to know God, God gave them over to a vain mind; that they might do what they ought not,

 

[PolyHedral]

Using our brain to define our brain is very much a paradox. It's like defining a word by using the word in the definition.

But our brain is not defined in terms of our brain. It is defined in the terms of chemistry, biology and physics. It can be described in terms of English, or of other brains, or any other whichway you like, but that's not a definition.

Well, the paradox is that we are conscious of "using our brain to figure out the processes in our brain."

The theory that our consciousnesses are nothing but emergent properties of a special combination of materials called brain is somewhat like characters of a novel declaring themselves to be emergent of the novel.

If our consciousnesses are nothing but emergent properties of a special combination of materials called brain, then how do we place so much certainty on the process of science? On one hand, we say consciousness is a mere result of electrochemical reactions and on the other hand, we say that those electrochemical reactions themselves are capable of understanding the mechanisms and we also vouch for the accuracy of our theories as true.:sarcastic

Both of you appear to be assuming that a machine cannot be aware of itself, or of it's own thought processes. Is there a reason to assume this that I've missed?

Also, it is a maxim in creative writing that the characters and plot should be indistinguishable. In the hypothetical perfectly-characterized novel, it would be true that the characters and their actions emerge purely from the history and circumstances in the novel.

 

[Willamena]

Both of you appear to be assuming that a machine cannot be aware of itself, or of it's own thought processes. Is there a reason to assume this that I've missed?

Also, it is a maxim in creative writing that the characters and plot should be indistinguishable. In the hypothetical perfectly-characterized novel, it would be true that the characters and their actions emerge purely from the history and circumstances in the novel.

It's not the case that I'm making the assumption that a machine cannot be aware of itself. The machine that is aware of itself defines itself in terms. If those terms are of brain creating awareness/consciousness/mind, and if in defining itself in those terms, the machine utilizes awareness/consciousness/mind, then it becomes a test of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" A test with an arbitrary answer.

I'll see if I can find a particular prior thread that I have in mind, that might be of interest to you on this topic.

Re the other thing, regardless that the characters and plot should be indistinguishable, regardless that we lose ourselves in the movie, there is an audience aware of writers and a movie screen.

 

[atanu]

It's not the case that I'm making the assumption that a machine cannot be aware of itself. The machine that is aware of itself defines itself in terms. If those terms are of brain creating awareness/consciousness/mind, and if in defining itself in those terms, the machine utilizes awareness/consciousness/mind, then it becomes a test of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" A test with an arbitrary answer.

And that leads to a fundamental problem. Suppose, I accept that it is possible to duplicate entirety of a person by the person onto the computer machine. For that to happen, the person must know himself in entirety without a fault -- and that is an impossibilty given that the knower cannot be known.

IMO, western philosophers ignore this and then create very elaborate arguments that are not needed.

 

[PolyHedral]

And that leads to a fundamental problem. Suppose, I accept that it is possible to duplicate entirety of a person by the person onto the computer machine. For that to happen, the person must know himself in entirety without a fault

No, something must know the person entirely. This is not necessarily a human, and could quite easily be a machine millions of times more powerful than the human.

 

[atanu]

No, something must know the person entirely. This is not necessarily a human, and could quite easily be a machine millions of times more powerful than the human.

Could be, yes. Why stop at millions, it could be infinite times. You are proposing a god in another name.

 

[PolyHedral]

I'm not really exaggerating that much when I say millions of times faster. Check the technical guide for any home computer, and you'll find the processor speed listed in "GHz", or Gigahertz. That's literally 1,000,000,000 computations per second. Per processor, and the most modern computers have several processors. The issue in AI is the program, not the hardware.

 

[atanu]

I'm not really exaggerating that much when I say millions of times faster. Check the technical guide for any home computer, and you'll find the processor speed listed in "GHz", or Gigahertz. That's literally 1,000,000,000 computations per second. Per processor, and the most modern computers have several processors. The issue in AI is the program, not the hardware.

Some new knowledge.:sleep:

We were actually talking about the blue highlighted part. Your premise that intelligence can be precisely described and simulated is fiction and not the reality and not possible for several fundamental reasons. 1)The uncertainty principle; 2) No third object can know the subject; 3) A computer or man, which are observed objects cannot know the knower; 4)Consistent system is not complete; 5) The consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system; and 6) Mind and Computational systems are different.

If our consciousnesses are emergent properties of a special combination of materials called brain, then the process of science is limited to the system. I repeat that on one hand, we say consciousness is a mere result of electrochemical reactions and on the other hand, we say that those electrochemical reactions themselves are capable of understanding the mechanisms.

 

[PolyHedral]

We were actually talking about the blue highlighted part. Your premise that intelligence can be precisely described and simulated is fiction and not the reality.

In order for my premise to be false, intelligence must originate from outside of a mathematically consistent system. Thus, intelligence is not necessarily consistent. Stop: an inconsistent argument cannot be true within a consistent universe.

A computer or man, which are observed objects cannot know the knower.

There is no external "knower," as far as physics or mathematics can determine. There are only computers of various types, and the inputs, outputs and processes of those, all of which are within the universe. You can treat the universe as a movie, but that doesn't guareentee that there is an audience.

Consistent system is not complete. And the consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system.

Godel only meaningfully applies to self-referential systems, which do not exist within the physical universe, only in mathematics.

I repeat that on one hand, we say consciousness is a mere result of electrochemical reactions and on the other hand, we say that those electrochemical reactions themselves are capable of understanding the mechanisms.

Yes. This is not a contradiction. The concept of a machine that can understand parts of itself is very well established. The parts can then be extended to collectively cover the whole machine, to avoid the problem of understanding everything at once.

 

[Willamena]

In order for my premise to be false, intelligence must originate from outside of a mathematically consistent system. Thus, intelligence is not necessarily consistent. Stop: an inconsistent argument cannot be true within a consistent universe.

Intelligence is an argument?

I like the image, but...

There is no external "knower," as far as physics or mathematics can determine. There are only computers of various types, and the inputs, outputs and processes of those, all of which are within the universe. You can treat the universe as a movie, but that doesn't guareentee that there is an audience.

The "external knower", the "observer", is "I" in the sentence, "Believe me, I know what you mean." It's nature is illusive*, and hence its existence undoubtable. It's as real as the "outputs and processes... which are within the universe." Without it, there's no language of verbs ("I do..."), nouns ("it... in relation to me") and opinions ("how I feel about a thing"). All of our language is structured around "I".

You can treat the universe as a movie --and that there's a known universe guarantees there's an audience.


*as in illusion

 

[atanu]

In order for my premise to be false, intelligence must originate from outside of a mathematically consistent system. Thus, intelligence is not necessarily consistent. Stop: an inconsistent argument cannot be true within a consistent universe.

Argument and Intelligence are same? Argument cannot know the Intelligence. Argument proceeds from intelligence. And actually that is the essence of the problem. The effect of intelligence (existence apparently full of dualism) is confounded with intelligence, which is subtle and of the nature of continous waves.

Suppose in a very hot furnace (wherein the heat energy is not visible), there is an iron ball, which glows in the heat. There would be a mistake of perception that iron ball has heat. There will also be a mistake of attributing solidness to energy and the suble energy property to gross iron ball.

There is no external "knower," as far as physics or mathematics can determine.

Yes. All observations are external to the knower. You know yourself from a distance. Through your or someone else's eyes. Or in a mirror. But you do not know the person that knows. You don't know the person at zero distance (since actually you are that centre).

And thus algorithms are never going to replicate the knower.

Yes. This is not a contradiction. The concept of a machine that can understand parts of itself is very well established. The parts can then be extended to collectively cover the whole machine, to avoid the problem of understanding everything at once.

This is.

A part can never recognise another, if intelligence does not pervade both. If Intelligence is an after effect of interaction, then the interacting parts cannot be known by the after effects. Interacting parts are known only because of inherent human intelligence -- this point the philosophers from whom you borrow your arguments conveniently ignore. If Intelligence emerges at a point of time, nothing before that point of time is knowable. It is funadamental limitation that algorithms cannot overcome.

Actually, when one says that Intelligence emerges, it means that Intelligence manifests and thus all matter actually have basic nature of intelligence.

My friend, I do not wish to argue on this issue any more. If your actions and emotions are solely controlled by some electrochemical reactions and you are otherwise blind and zombie, then so be it. Why should anyone convince you? You are willing yourself to a position of being a mere effect of some chemicals.

But we know that through mechanisms of yoga, bio-feedback etc. we master our emotions and negative tendencies of self. This would be impossible, if intelligence and will were mere after effects.

 

[atanu]

You can treat the universe as a movie --and that there's a known universe guarantees there's an audience.

:clap

Ya.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

But our brain is not defined in terms of our brain. It is defined in the terms of chemistry, biology and physics. It can be described in terms of English, or of other brains, or any other whichway you like, but that's not a definition.

But we have to use our brain to understand all these things.

 

[PolyHedral]

Intelligence is an argument?

I like the image, but...

Sorry, whoops. I meant that if you try and argue that intelligence doesn't come from consistent rules, then your argument falls apart immediately, because it's supposing something that isn't consistent, and so runs into the principle of explosion.

The "external knower", the "observer", is "I" in the sentence, "Believe me, I know what you mean." It's nature is illusive*, and hence its existence undoubtable.

I'm confused. Why is an illusion undoubtable?

It's as real as the "outputs and processes... which are within the universe." Without it, there's no language of verbs ("I do..."), nouns ("it... in relation to me") and opinions ("how I feel about a thing"). All of our language is structured around "I".

If "I" is "real", then what other patterns are real? Are planets somehow more than large rocks? Are books somehow more then paper, binding and ink?

You can treat the universe as a movie --and that there's a known universe guarantees there's an audience.

But is the movie/universe still there even if there is no audience? Saying there is something special about "seeing" the universe means we would have to work out what things can "see" and which can't. Does a computer count as the audience to the universe's movie, or is something more complicated needed?

But we have to use our brain to understand all these things.

But they surely still exist even if we don't understand them.