waitasec
Veteran Member
i wouldn't call it bad...just not up to par.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Faith in permanent death
- Thread starter 839311
- Start date
i wouldn't call it bad...just not up to par.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I don't think that Polyhedral was talking about IE being sentient. Rather, he was trying to get you to acknowledge that the higher level systemic behavior of a running program cannot be understood by focusing just on its low level operations. In a human brain, you aren't going to define cognition at the level of neurons, although it is the interaction of neurons that ultimately gives rise to it.
Let's not call a sentient machine a "computer". Let's call it an "AI", which is the popular term for it in science fiction. I imagine that, if we ever create a bona fide AI, it will be a combination of human geeks and evolutionary genetic programming techniques that brings it about. It will be a long time before we understand enough about brains and minds to replicate them in computing machinery. There is no reason at this point in time to believe that such a thing would be impossible.
Sounds like a Bollywood movie.
There is no "Turing hypothesis", and you appear to be confusing a "Turing machine" with the "Turing test". The former is an abstract computing machine, whereas the latter is a superficial technique (not very good, IMHO) for judging that a machine has achieved status as an AI.
You would only say this if you did not understand what a Turing machine was.
You have misconstrued the points we've been making. A Turing machine is a theoretical device that can be used to simulate any algorithmic calculation. I originally brought it up as an analogy--not to claim that a Turing machine is itself an AI. Nobody is claiming that we have created a true AI in any machine.
Now you've shifted over to the idea of a "Turing test", which is something quite apart from a Turing machine. This point is, again, based on a complete misunderstanding of what we've been saying, and it is just plain false.
You repeat and compound your misunderstanding. False.
Another false statement.
Again, a Turing machine is a theoretical device. It is not equivalent to an AI.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
No, it was an analogy about abstraction.
I hate to correct you, since you logic is usually impeccable, but there is the Church-Turing thesis about the relationship between Turing machines and generalized computable functions.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
In other words, you are agreeing with my point to Atanu, right? You were not calling IE a sentient program.
OK, there is something that we could call the "Turing hypothesis" (although it is usually referred to as the "Turing thesis" or "Church-Turing thesis"), but that was not what Atanu was referring to. He was, in fact, confusing "Turing machine" with "Turing test". Turing machines have nothing directly to do with intelligence.
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Yes.
I possibly just interpreted the sentence differently, but the text-as-quoted is correct. We don't know that the human brain is Turing-equivalent, rather than Turing-superior, we only have every reason in the world to suspect it is. (Unless you've got a brain running on a Turing-equivalent machine somewhere?
) Also, atanu, you've cut off my question. Please answer this:
I could choose a Machine by a dice roll. Am I then its creator? If so, in what way does that affect its function? The function was already established as completely random.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
It doesn't matter much to me personally, but I think people would appreciate the life they have more if they didn't expect another one after it, sometimes as some kind of reward. At the moment I see no reason to expect there to be some sort of afterlife so my position, if any, is that there isn't one. I don't expect there to be faeries either, so my position is that there aren't any.
If adequate evidence should surface to prove me wrong, I will change my position.
He is a great educator, and for me, as a teacher, quite the role-model.
My position is simply that I will include these phenomena into my view of reality when we have evidence that they are real.
Until then I will continue to treat them as if they are not, and look upon those who believe they are real as somewhat delusional.
I don't buy subjective anecdotes as evidence, and neither does science.
I've experienced how much my brain can mess things up first hand so when people say they saw a ghost/angel/alien/whatever, I'm quite sure they think they saw what they claim. I'm not necessarily calling them liars (although there are enough of those as well), but I do question the correctness of their observation.
What we do know is that when brain damage occurs a person could lose not only memories and motor skills, but also parts of their personality.
We also know that various impulses, chemical or physical, can alter our perception of reality.
This indicates that what we think of as our consciousness is a physical property.
It may be that my position is different from most atheists.
I wouldn't know.
But on the whole, my position on life after death is similar to my position on god(s), and can be summed up quite easily:there is no reason to think they exist so why waste time on them?
Indeed. And yet, we do not choose to live in a constant morphine high.
Reality and truth has its own value, and neither promise to be comfortable.
It is still better to deal with them as they are rather than making stuff up, don't you think?
Science is a tentative endeavour and all knowledge can be followed with the tag "As far as our current data and evidence tells us".
So it is in this case. So far our current (lack of) evidence tells us that there is no afterlife, so that is our current position.
It just seemed that way since you appeared to think that people need the comforting thought of an afterlife.
Me, I think this life is enough. I hope you do too.
I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said.
Glad to hear that.
If all people took from that was mere personal comfort, I'd leave well enough alone and let them have their comfort.
The problem is that once you accept the notion of an afterlife there are any number of people showing up and telling you what you must and must not do in order to obtain this afterlife, and thus trying their best to control you.
It's the same problem that I have with the belief in god(s) actually.
If it was something that people did in their homes and never took with them outside, I would probably have no problem with it.
But instead many of them use their god as a crowbar to gain control over society, legislation, science and education.
And I won't stand for that, and it seems as if it is an inevitable consequence.
AgnosticAtheistDebate770
New Member
Innocent until proven guilty, or, in this case, no afterlife until proven afterlife.
Or, afterlife until proven no afterlife. Works either way.
sigh. Too bad we can't find out until after we're dead.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Depends on who is making the positive statement.
I've merely stated that there is no reason to believe that there is an afterlife.
I've not stated that there is one, nor that there isn't one, but merely that we have no reason to think there is.
Of course the word 'reason' in this context might need clarification, but in my case that would be objective scientific evidence, which, in my view, is how we should define what we consider to be real.
In that respect my statement is similar to the statement 'there is no reason to think that there are faeries'.
Basically my feelings on the matter too. I have no reason to believe an afterlife exists, so why get my hopes up, or live as if I have more time than I truly do?
I did have a friend recently describe to me his feelings on the matter. He says "We're all supernovas". Our energy/matter will feed back into the universe and bits will colesce back into something new. So in a way we "live" on. It was at least a beautiful way of putting the usual "Nothing happens after death" stance.
Yes.
I possibly just interpreted the sentence differently, but the text-as-quoted is correct. We don't know that the human brain is Turing-equivalent, rather than Turing-superior, we only have every reason in the world to suspect it is. (Unless you've got a brain running on a Turing-equivalent machine somewhere?
Thank you PolyHedral for clearing up the confusion. But I agree that my use of terms has not been consistent and that might have led to legitimate doubts in Copernicus. I was indeed refering to the philosophy and hypothesis employed in Turing Test and not to Church Turing thesis.
There is no agreement whether passing Turing Test will mean intelligence. Here I will like to point out that Turing acknowledged that the Turing Test was only meant for mimicing human cognition and he did not claim that there were no other kinds of cognition -- lower or higher.
However, the conclusion remains the same: We don't know that the human brain is Turing-equivalent. I thank you for pointing out here what I was trying to convey.
Tha's true. In your position you could randomly select. But does that mean that machine was randomly created through natural selection.
What I have come to understand is that there is a confusion between the substratum consciousness, which is awareness of "I AM" and is not localized vs. . another emergent 'body consciousness' called "I am Atanu". This consciousness is attached to a body and is called Ego-consciousness.
Clarke Gable has played many roles. He is Clarke Gable but in particular roles he takes up different names -- that are temporary.
Similarly, the "I Am" consciousness modifies itself in association with different bodies. If the substratum consciousness was not there and only the localised consciousness were true, then we could not communicate through language. We could not store our knowledge in language. The awareness provides the link and the language. (Although, I know that you will not agree to this right away).
Thanks and Regards
Last edited:
Afterlife for whom? For the ego consciousness, which is emergent and which is linked to body? Or for the causal consciousness (the bundle of desires and wishes along with memory), which is the seed of the body-mind? Or for the homogeneous undifferentiated consciousness, whereupon the causal consciousness subsists?
It is not required for science to understand the layering of consciousness upon consciousness. But the spiritual purpose is different. Knowledge of oneself is the prime requirement for happiness. 'Know Thyself' is a prescription in all religions.
Ya. Your ideas sound like that only.
This thread, IMO, is now mature to delve a bit deeper into the question of afterlife. Since, this concept is so strong in Hinduism, I paste a conversation between Shri Ramana and a devotee of his and some other material from.
Reincarnation
Shri Ramana
Question: So you do not uphold the theory of rebirth?
Maharshi: No. On the other hand I want to remove your confusion that you will be reborn. It is you who think that you will be reborn. See for whom the question arises. Unless the questioner is found, such questions can never finally be answered.
Swami Vivekananda
Birth and death are in nature, not in you. Yet the ignorant are deluded; just as we under delusion think that the sun is moving and not the earth, in exactly the same way we think that we are dying, and not nature. These are all, therefore, hallucinations. Just as it is a hallucination when we think that the fields are moving and not the railway train, exactly in the same manner is the hallucination of birth and death. When men are in a certain frame of mind, they see this very existence as the earth, as the sun, the moon, the stars; and all those who are in the same state of mind see the same things.
Bhagavat Gita
It (the self) is not born, and It does not die; nor is it ever that this One having been nonexistent becomes existent again. This One is birthless, eternal, undecaying, ancient; It is not killed when the body is killed. -Gita Ch.2 Verse 20
Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. The nature of both of them, indeed, has been realised by the seers of Truth. -Gita Ch.2, Shloka 16
As after rejecting (discarding) wornout clothes a man takes up other new ones (clothes), likewise after rejecting wornout bodies the embodied one (soul) duly attains new ones. -Gita Ch.2 Verse 22
Since death of anyone born is certain, and of the dead (re-)birth is a certainty, therefore you ought not to grieve over an inevitable fact. -Gita Ch. 2 Verse 27
The concept of Re-birth in Hinduism can be read in more detail at: Reincarnation
The most important question to ask is "Who has taken birth?" It is ego self, which is a wrong notion, an emergent and false consciousness, and an image of the true consciousness in mind-thoughts that takes birth and dies. The true consciousness neither takes birth nor dies.
Reincarnation
Shri Ramana
Question: So you do not uphold the theory of rebirth?
Maharshi: No. On the other hand I want to remove your confusion that you will be reborn. It is you who think that you will be reborn. See for whom the question arises. Unless the questioner is found, such questions can never finally be answered.
Swami Vivekananda
Birth and death are in nature, not in you. Yet the ignorant are deluded; just as we under delusion think that the sun is moving and not the earth, in exactly the same way we think that we are dying, and not nature. These are all, therefore, hallucinations. Just as it is a hallucination when we think that the fields are moving and not the railway train, exactly in the same manner is the hallucination of birth and death. When men are in a certain frame of mind, they see this very existence as the earth, as the sun, the moon, the stars; and all those who are in the same state of mind see the same things.
Bhagavat Gita
It (the self) is not born, and It does not die; nor is it ever that this One having been nonexistent becomes existent again. This One is birthless, eternal, undecaying, ancient; It is not killed when the body is killed. -Gita Ch.2 Verse 20
Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. The nature of both of them, indeed, has been realised by the seers of Truth. -Gita Ch.2, Shloka 16
As after rejecting (discarding) wornout clothes a man takes up other new ones (clothes), likewise after rejecting wornout bodies the embodied one (soul) duly attains new ones. -Gita Ch.2 Verse 22
Since death of anyone born is certain, and of the dead (re-)birth is a certainty, therefore you ought not to grieve over an inevitable fact. -Gita Ch. 2 Verse 27
The concept of Re-birth in Hinduism can be read in more detail at: Reincarnation
The most important question to ask is "Who has taken birth?" It is ego self, which is a wrong notion, an emergent and false consciousness, and an image of the true consciousness in mind-thoughts that takes birth and dies. The true consciousness neither takes birth nor dies.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I don't see how there's any philosophy in the Turing Test. It is basically a technical demonstration.
Of course he didn't; the Church-Turing thesis actually implies the opposite. A TM can compute all kinds of cognition, it can simulate all computable universes, and answer all calculable questions, given enough time and memory.
And also, passing the Turing Test means the machine can convincingly talk to a human. That's certainly "intelligent" from a AI standpoint.
I like that you've cut out the qualifier, we have every reason in the world to think it is.
No, because I could be using quantum random number generators, which would be completely, truly random.
Apes have been taught language. Robots have evolved it. I don't really understand why language requires a "global" consciousness, since it's entirely a matter of associating certain sounds with certain concepts.
Actually, if there was a larger consciousness involved as you say, wouldn't that imply we should be speaking the same language?
What? The tests are without a premise?
That is Dennet speaking.
And also, passing the Turing Test means the machine can convincingly talk to a human. That's certainly "intelligent" from a AI standpoint.
I like that you've cut out the qualifier, we have every reason in the world to think it is.
May be from AI standpoint, limited to its aim and scope that has commerce as the main focus. But not from the point of truth.
We have every reason in the world to think it is not. Ablity to mimic Chinese, based on programmed instructions, does not mean that there is any understanding. Kindly do not talk about science fiction.You mean that your random number generator will create a machine out of thin air? And then, even in this example, you with your given cognition power -- that you have not created, is present.
It is man's ego and conceit which does not recognise the given gift of intelligence and energy that man has not created neither owned.
Last edited:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/
It is not Schrodinger or Wigner who are at mistake. But second hand readers of Dennet et al. have wrong notions embedded in their minds.
It is not Schrodinger or Wigner who are at mistake. But second hand readers of Dennet et al. have wrong notions embedded in their minds.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I don't understand. The test is more along the lines of a benchmark of what constitutes "artificial intelligence." (Since it was written in the 1950s when other concepts of intelligence had not arisen.)
The second portion of that sentence was assuming that the thesis is true. I'm aware that it hasn't been proven so. (Though the quoted authors apparently aren't.) However, the thesis has also not been proven false, i.e. nothing has been found that cannot, in principle, be calculated by a Turing machine.
You're right; there isn't any understanding in the Chinese Room Problem. The man doing the looking up does not understand Chinese; the table he is consulting doesn't understand Chinese, being just a table full of characters. What does, then? IMO, it is only the combination of both the man and the table that understand Chinese.
Also, the Chinese Room is theoretically capable of passing the Turing Test, which would involve the appearance of consciousness. Is the Room conscious or not? If not, how do you distinguish between me and the Room, as we both claim we are conscious?
Yes, it's a theoretical machine after all.
And you've failed to establish how my own cognition is relevant. I could give the instructions to a computer, or even someone (very patient) who didn't even understand what a Turing machine was.
So that is the point. Turing test is extrapolated beyond its scope.
Setting up a series of benchmarks requires a premise. That premise is limited only to things that can be obeyed, simulated, calculated, or produced by a machine that implements ‘effective’ methods in Turing's original thesis.
Can human emotion be calculated?
Even if it is proven, that will not prove that mimicry means understanding. Moreover, the machines are really translation of intelligence of programmers.
See above.
Yes, it's a theoretical machine after all.
Because you through your cognition know that there exists such a machine that can mimic human actions and decide to use that machine.
Simple. In all that we do, the intelligence that we are endowed with but which we have not created plays the pivotal role. But ego does not acknowledge the gift.
Last edited: