Artificial Intelligence

[MD]

I'm not really following. Sensing isn't created. Sensing is a reaction to stimuli which results in experiencing something. A light wave and/ or sound wave is decoded in the brain as stimuli. We don't really know if that is what light looks like or sound sounds like, it is the experience we get which allows us to have reaction to the stimuli whether it be heat, sound, light or any other physical attributes.

Sensing isn't created, but perception is. That's my point. How can you decode something that exists within the universe into something that does not exist at all objectively speaking? We should see color as waves, not as white, blue, green, etc. We should feel sound as vibrations only, not as music or laughter. And you can apply that principle to any single mental property.

That's the whole point of qualia, the decoding of stimuli. If stimuli are decoded into things that exist within the universe, then we should have only physical reactions that fit within a universe. Red should be a longer wavelength, violet a shorter one. Why the richness of 'color' itself? In the universe as stated, we should simply see light as what it is: waves.

It is the decoding gap which leaves people to either suggest qualia are metaphysical or unecessary. The one 's who call it unecessary state that there's no explanation for the decoding of sensation and we should just leave it. But that's not good for AI. In a way AI research has made the subject of qualia big.

Color is a product of light existing. It isn't invented, it exists.

Color is an interpretation of different wavelengths of light. Light is just a wavelength of energy, calling it light is a mental interpretation of it.

 

[idav]

Sensing isn't created, but perception is. That's my point. How can you decode something that exists within the universe into something that does not exist at all objectively speaking? We should see color as waves, not as white, blue, green, etc. We should feel sound as vibrations only, not as music or laughter. And you can apply that principle to any single mental property.

That's the whole point of qualia, the decoding of stimuli. If stimuli are decoded into things that exist within the universe, then we should have only physical reactions that fit within a universe. Red should be a longer wavelength, violet a shorter one. Why the richness of 'color' itself? In the universe as stated, we should simply see light as what it is: waves.

It is the decoding gap which leaves people to either suggest qualia are metaphysical or unecessary. The one 's who call it unecessary state that there's no explanation for the decoding of sensation and we should just leave it. But that's not good for AI. In a way AI research has made the subject of qualia big.



Color is an interpretation of different wavelengths of light. Light is just a wavelength of energy, calling it light is a mental interpretation of it.

Well it is very interesting your saying what light should look like. My point is that no matter what the stimuli is the reaction shows an interpretation. It doesn't matter what the interpretation is. It wouldn't matter we saw all color as ultracolor, it is just a reaction to stimuli. The light is real and the spectrum is real therefore the eye is just interpreting physical phenomenon. Light simply became a way of detecting objects cause we can't really see the objects our eyes can only detect the light reflecting off the objects. If we could really see objects we should be able to see in the dark.

 

[MD]

Well it is very interesting your saying what light should look like. My point is that no matter what the stimuli is the reaction shows an interpretation. It doesn't matter what the interpretation is. It wouldn't matter we saw all color as ultracolor, it is just a reaction to stimuli. The light is real and the spectrum is real therefore the eye is just interpreting physical phenomenon. Light simply became a way of detecting objects cause we can't really see the objects our eyes can only detect the light reflecting off the objects. If we could really see objects we should be able to see in the dark.

I agree, but this is the hard problem of consciousness. The decoding part. Which is why I suggest that we create novel interpretations of physical stimuli through mental properties. And mental properties are properties on their own. And thus if such properties exist separate from physical matter, then it must be a component of the universe just as much as spin or charge.

 

[1137]

See, there is a difference between consciousness being a property and a fundamental property. Of course, the former in no way invalidates that consciousness has a material cause. I would consider emotion to exist just as much as spin does, both have a physical cause. The issue with qualia is on way they are an absurd idea and the other they show absolutely nothing. The existence of subjective experience is obvious, but it in no way implies mysticism over physicalism. The problem that seems to be arising is the idea that "we don't fully understand, so it is magic incapable of being fully understood". It is a comforting copout.

 

[MD]

See, there is a difference between consciousness being a property and a fundamental property. Of course, the former in no way invalidates that consciousness has a material cause. I would consider emotion to exist just as much as spin does, both have a physical cause. The issue with qualia is on way they are an absurd idea and the other they show absolutely nothing. The existence of subjective experience is obvious, but it in no way implies mysticism over physicalism. The problem that seems to be arising is the idea that "we don't fully understand, so it is magic incapable of being fully understood". It is a comforting copout.

Novel properties must be reducible. If novel properties were irreducible then they would be considered magical. Thus mental properties must be reducible and as such must be fundamental. In a physical universe qualia are magical because they are irreducible.

 

[idav]

I agree, but this is the hard problem of consciousness. The decoding part. Which is why I suggest that we create novel interpretations of physical stimuli through mental properties. And mental properties are properties on their own. And thus if such properties exist separate from physical matter, then it must be a component of the universe just as much as spin or charge.

The hard problem is that we can't experience first hand the experience of others. So it makes it hard to determine if consciousness or awareness even exist outside of ourselves which becomes a philosophical issue not a science issue. Everything that science has uncovered is explainable by physical phenomenon. Cause and effect leading to reaction to stimuli leading to volition, all just basic functions increasing in complexity leading to intelligence and consciousness.

 

[idav]

Novel properties must be reducible. If novel properties were irreducible then they would be considered magical. Thus mental properties must be reducible and as such must be fundamental. In a physical universe qualia are magical because they are irreducible.

It is reducible and I've given examples. Intelligence is reducible as they are related to several functions in the brain. Take something out like memory and intelligence is hampered but other functions could still work like problem solving and figuring out new things rather than using already obtained knowledge.

 

[1137]

Novel properties must be reducible. If novel properties were irreducible then they would be considered magical. Thus mental properties must be reducible and as such must be fundamental. In a physical universe qualia are magical because they are irreducible.

So reduce them to physical causes, you don't need to reduce them directly to some fundamental level of reality. There is no problem there and no need for these mysticism based views. Nothing suggests that consciousness is fundamental, that's all there is to it. The need to believe such goes past fact and into personal desire. The existence of subjective expetience in no way specifically implies mysticism.

 

[MD]

The hard problem is that we can't experience first hand the experience of others. So it makes it hard to determine if consciousness or awareness even exist outside of ourselves which becomes a philosophical issue not a science issue. Everything that science has uncovered is explainable by physical phenomenon. Cause and effect leading to reaction to stimuli leading to volition, all just basic functions increasing in complexity leading to intelligence and consciousness.

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics such as colours and tastes"

Your definition might be true, but it is incomplete. I've thoroughly outlined why qualia are impossible in a purely physical universe with several analogies.

 

[MD]

It is reducible and I've given examples. Intelligence is reducible as they are related to several functions in the brain. Take something out like memory and intelligence is hampered but other functions could still work like problem solving and figuring out new things rather than using already obtained knowledge.

I'm not talking about intelligence. I'm talking about qualia. In a purely physical universe colors don't exist. Even if our brain interprets light into color that doesn't explain how our brains create his novel phenomenon.

Intelligence without qualia is useless, that's nothing more than a calculator. Meaning is non algorithmic. That's why it's a huge topic in AI and consciousness.

 

[MD]

So reduce them to physical causes, you don't need to reduce them directly to some fundamental level of reality. There is no problem there and no need for these mysticism based views. Nothing suggests that consciousness is fundamental, that's all there is to it. The need to believe such goes past fact and into personal desire. The existence of subjective expetience in no way specifically implies mysticism.

Okay take a human body. On the outside it looks fantastic. It's superb. But you can reduce it, and reduce it and reduce all the way down to its bare constituents. But human beings are made of particles. We know particles exist. So it's obvious our bodies are an 'emergence' of trillions of atoms and it has been proven.

Can you really reduce the color red, when color doesn't even exist in the universe except for our minds?

The only way physicalism is true (because materialism is incomplete with regards to explaining qualia) is if there is some hidden quantum property that is involved in the creation of qualia. And honestly that's as mystic as saying consciousness is a fundamental component of reality because if our minds are fundamentally quantum, we are literally one with the universe.

 

[idav]

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics such as colours and tastes"

The problem there is throwing in qualia in the first place as if sensation is somehow independent of your physical brain. Various sensations were acquired through evolution, that is the how.

Your definition might be true, but it is incomplete. I've thoroughly outlined why qualia are impossible in a purely physical universe with several analogies.

I've thoroughly shown that sensation has everything to do with the physical. If I were to run through the process of hearing and recalling a sound, where is qualia necessary in that? When recalling a sound are you recalling something that doesn't exist?

You had gave another example about feeling pain. You say a person should just retract from fire automatically without feeling it but the pain is the mechanism for triggering a reaction. We react, just like any other organism, based on touch. Sensation of pain is just touch reaching a threshold of danger just like looking into the sun crosses a threshold for sight to the point of cells being damaged.

 

[MD]

The problem there is throwing in qualia in the first place as if sensation is somehow independent of your physical brain. Various sensations were acquired through evolution, that is the how.

Well don't complain to me, complain to the neuroscientists of the world.

I never said it's independant of our brains, they work together. Are you saying sensations were acquired through evolution? Or perceptions?

I've thoroughly shown that sensation has everything to do with the physical. If I were to run through the process of hearing and recalling a sound, where is qualia necessary in that? When recalling a sound are you recalling something that doesn't exist?

Sensation and perception are two different things. Sensation is the afferent and perception is the efferent. For example sound, as in waves, goes through our ear and hits the tympanic membrane. You get the hair cells moving around resulting in action potentials. The action potentials eventually reach the MGN where sound is created. Sounds are not 'real' in the physical sense, but are 'real' in the mental sense. Right?

Now how does the brain convert waves into sound? One is a purely physical process. The other is a purely mental process. That's a huge gap. You can't just say it interprets the waves into sound because that doesn't explain the existence of sound whatsoever.

You had gave another example about feeling pain. You say a person should just retract from fire automatically without feeling it but the pain is the mechanism for triggering a reaction. We react, just like any other organism, based on touch. Sensation of pain is just touch reaching a threshold of danger just like looking into the sun crosses a threshold for sight to the point of cells being damaged.

We FEEL pain. Feelings should not exist in a rational objective universe. We react, we have reflexes. But we also feel the pain after we react. Such feelings are qualia. They are non physical.

 

[idav]

I never said it's independant of our brains, they work together. Are you saying sensations were acquired through evolution? Or perceptions?

Both, the perception depends on the species and evolutionary stage.

Sensation and perception are two different things. Sensation is the afferent and perception is the efferent. For example sound, as in waves, goes through our ear and hits the tympanic membrane. You get the hair cells moving around resulting in action potentials. The action potentials eventually reach the MGN where sound is created. Sounds are not 'real' in the physical sense, but are 'real' in the mental sense. Right?

Now how does the brain convert waves into sound? One is a purely physical process. The other is a purely mental process. That's a huge gap. You can't just say it interprets the waves into sound because that doesn't explain the existence of sound whatsoever.

The existence of sound is already explained as a wave. The sound is both real in a physical and mental sense. Whatever is recorded in our brain is based on the physical representation of sound. I really don't see a gap.

We FEEL pain. Feelings should not exist in a rational objective universe. We react, we have reflexes. But we also feel the pain after we react. Such feelings are qualia. They are non physical.

If it wasn't sensed in the first place there would be no reaction. The reactions I speak of our chemical changes and signals being sent to the brain which are purely physical.

Let me put it this way. If someone doesn't have feeling in their hand they will not react when being burned, why should they. It is the sense that gives a feeling in the first place, the physical touch.

 

[1137]

Okay take a human body. On the outside it looks fantastic. It's superb. But you can reduce it, and reduce it and reduce all the way down to its bare constituents. But human beings are made of particles. We know particles exist. So it's obvious our bodies are an 'emergence' of trillions of atoms and it has been proven.

Can you really reduce the color red, when color doesn't even exist in the universe except for our minds?

The only way physicalism is true (because materialism is incomplete with regards to explaining qualia) is if there is some hidden quantum property that is involved in the creation of qualia. And honestly that's as mystic as saying consciousness is a fundamental component of reality because if our minds are fundamentally quantum, we are literally one with the universe.

The issue I have first is color isn't made by the mind, at least light isn't. We also know how color works with light, cones in the eye, etc (I have no issue admitting I personally don't know specifics). I guess I'm just not understanding why physicalism doesn't work. Yes, you can reduce us to atoms, possibly to strings, even possibly to some incomprehensible Tao. But none of that contradicts the idea that consciousness has a physical cause. To say believing it does is magical / mystical is like saying evolution is also.

 

[idav]

The issue I have first is color isn't made by the mind, at least light isn't. We also know how color works with light, cones in the eye, etc (I have no issue admitting I personally don't know specifics). I guess I'm just not understanding why physicalism doesn't work. Yes, you can reduce us to atoms, possibly to strings, even possibly to some incomprehensible Tao. But none of that contradicts the idea that consciousness has a physical cause. To say believing it does is magical / mystical is like saying evolution is also.

That is the sort of argument I hear against ai that it needs something that biology has that we can't possibly replicate artificially. I think once we start tapping into the brain people could have the tech to have part machinery doing brain functions.

 

[otokage007]

Okay the school of fish example is one example I gave. Another one would be a computer program (although I stronly disagree with the computational theory of mind, but I'll try to use this as an example).

Imagine you have a machine which analyzes data, let's say it analyzes light or dark. In the universe where the machine exists, there's simply light, dark and the machine. When it analyzes light or dark, it has an input. Now let's say the program has an output, to move an arm.

Light = move an arm.

Dark = do not move an arm.

Now let's say we leave this machine alone for billions of years. And let's say we somehow have a mechanism which allows random changes to the program. And that the machine reproduces. What you're saying is that billions of years after the original machine, through random mutations, it's descendants have created a rich array of colors so that red means move the arm halfway up, green means move the arm halfway down, blue means move it laterally etc.

The creation of colors themselves are novel. Such novel phenomenon are impossible in a universe simply made of light and dark and the machine. Thus there is another component to the universe which we didn't take into account previously. Either that or there is an outside programmer who has somehow input color into the machine (aka God).

So actually your only problem with materialism is not that you don't think the brain creates colors, which you do, but the fact that colors don't exist outside our mind, so "how could the brain just invent such a thing?". Well, evolution does this kind of incredible things all the time.

 

[MD]

So actually your only problem with materialism is not that you don't think the brain creates colors, which you do, but the fact that colors don't exist outside our mind, so "how could the brain just invent such a thing?". Well, evolution does this kind of incredible things all the time.

How? I want a detailed explanation of how evolution creates completely novel things that don't exist in our universe.

 

[1137]

How? I want a detailed explanation of how evolution creates completely novel things that don't exist in our universe.

Homo sapiens didn't exist, now we do. Ba-duh, the magic of evolution.

 

[MD]

The issue I have first is color isn't made by the mind, at least light isn't. We also know how color works with light, cones in the eye, etc (I have no issue admitting I personally don't know specifics). I guess I'm just not understanding why physicalism doesn't work. Yes, you can reduce us to atoms, possibly to strings, even possibly to some incomprehensible Tao. But none of that contradicts the idea that consciousness has a physical cause. To say believing it does is magical / mystical is like saying evolution is also.

Light is simply energy with waves, nothing more nothing less. If you were to look at light from a purely objective perspective, it is just electromagnetic waves. We have evolved to make the waves into what we now call light. We have evolved to create colors out of different spectrums of light. But evolution doesn't work based on magic. There is a physical process through things happen. To suggest that we evolved a protein which just spontaneously created color tells us nothing about how that color is created. It implies magic.

And color is just one example of qualia. There are lot more complicated examples I could think of. Like why does serotonin give us a sense of euphoria. Or why does increased dopamine exacerbate schizophrenia. There's a gap between the physical and mental and there's no explanation within classical materialism which can explain the gap.