Maintaining a thesis at all costs

[atanu]

I will not further derail, but seems to be a factor of many religious disagreements. When people disagree over the nature of souls or of existence or anything like that it seems to come up. The one person will say that thinking is the result of a process, and the other will say no. Its all over this forum. Naturally the support of Science and its reputation is sought by all concerned.

Yes. I agree, however pointing out that science and naturalism are not same.

 

[sayak83]

I understand what you are saying. That does not, however, explain why an unconscious process empowers Dennet with objective intelligence.

We can show formation of many natural products in laboratory. Let anyone show creation of consciousness and intelligence in laboratory.



Sorry. Similar, but just the reverse. For Shankarharya, the Universe, Jagat is mAyA, that is built upon a real consciousness.

If an AI is built, what then? You think conscious machines can't be built?
Many would say intelligent machines are already here and are today more intelligent than any human.
https://singularityhub.com/2017/10/...t-itself-to-be-the-worlds-greatest-go-player/

 

[atanu]

If an AI is built, what then? You think conscious machines can't be built?
Many would say intelligent machines are already here and are today more intelligent than any human.
https://singularityhub.com/2017/10/...t-itself-to-be-the-worlds-greatest-go-player/

Consciousness is about self consciousness, to be able to stand apart from body and mind-thoughts. It is not merely an extension of an thermostat, which also has basic intelligence. Is there any evidence that a thermostat or an AI machine is self conscious? I do not know.

Turing in 1950 proposed a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Although, Professor Searle through his Chinese Room Argument refuted the validity of the Turing's argument, let us for this thread accept its validity.

So, has any computer passed the Turing test? And then who has the power to declare that a computer has indeed passed the Turing test? Eventually a conscious being has to certify that a machine has passed the Turing's test. Or we have to programme the machine to self certify.
...

 

[atanu]

I kinda get where he's coming from, but I think it's pretty clear that there is an external world we are (alibet imperfectly) perceiving through stimuli so I don't agree with the idea that everything is just all in the mind which appears to be the implication.

The apple doesn't exist because it's a subjective division of energy and interactions, not because there isn't a blob of energy and interactions there in the first place, part of an indivisible whole that we might call the Universe.

It's kind of really hard to go through life, not making up, dividing and naming things like this. Thus even someone who knows an apple is a conceptual tool will still call it an apple. Because how else do we communicate what localized bits of energy and interactions we are talking about? Language is inherently dualistic like our minds. Trying to describe a nondual world. That's what it ultimately comes down to.

Vedanta holds that the non dual is indescribable but is inherently existent and conscious.

 

[sayak83]

Turing in 1950 proposed a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Although, Seattle through his Chinese Room Argument refuted the validity of the Turing's argument, let us for this thread accept its validity.

So, has any computer passed the Turing test? And then who has the power to declare that a computer has indeed passed the Turing test? A conscious being has to certify that a machine has passed the Turing's test.
......

Yes. They have. Many types quite comprehensively.
University of Reading
MIT's artificial intelligence passes key Turing test | ZDNet

Though playing GO is a more sensitive indicator of AI than Turing test.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interesting title for this thread, seeing how disconnected from the OP it is.

Science and naturalism are indeed not the same.

Still, the alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism, and supernaturalism is just not useful for scientific research - there is only so much to do with claims of supernatural happenings, particularly if one is attempting to understand how things actually happen and work in discernible reality.

Which is to say, I don't think I see a point in the OP.

 

[atanu]

Yes. They have. Many types quite comprehensively.
University of Reading
MIT's artificial intelligence passes key Turing test | ZDNet

Though playing GO is a more sensitive indicator of AI than Turing test.

Not really.
No, A 'Supercomputer' Did NOT Pass The Turing Test For The First Time And Everyone Should Know Better

Further, a line from the page you linked "We are therefore proud to declare that Alan Turing's Test was passed for the first time on Saturday." This validates my point that a conscious being will have to validate (fate or true) the result.

And finally emulation is not self consciousness. (Note: We can discuss "Buddhi, Manas, Ahankar, and Chitta separately in another thread. Because intelligence is not only the intellect).

 

[atanu]

Interesting title for this thread, seeing how disconnected from the OP it is.

That is Thomas Nagel's view. I reproduced because I agree.

Science and naturalism are indeed not the same.

Yes. Thanks.

Still, the alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism, and supernaturalism is just not useful for scientific research - there is only so much to do with claims of supernatural happenings, particularly if one is attempting to understand how things actually happen and work in discernible reality.

Which is to say, I don't think I see a point in the OP.

It is genuinely fine that way. But may be you do not see correctly? I asked a few questions for discussion. Probably you did not find them.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is Thomas Nagel's view. I reproduced because I agree.

I'm honestly not sure of what Thomas Nagel means to say in that article. Nor do I see how the text would connect to this thread's title.

It is genuinely fine that way. But may be you do not see correctly? I asked a few questions for discussion. Probably you did not find them.

Those in bold blue type in the OP?

I don't think I have much of significance to say about those.

 

[atanu]

I'm honestly not sure of what Thomas Nagel means to say in that article. Nor do I see how the text would connect to this thread's title.

Those in bold blue type in the OP?

I don't think I have much of significance to say about those.

Luis, then it is not for you.

 

[shunyadragon]

As explained in the OP, I find it impossible that, as per Dennet, the world is representational, but the brain and its states are not so. And why Dennet's intelligence is free to be objective and unravel the truth of brain, which at first place should be just a representational object -- illusion.

The consciousness is given. Even to claim that consciousness is illusion, consciousness is required.

I have difficulty with considering consciousness as an illusion. Whatever you wish to describe it, it is a natural product of the evolution of the brain, apparent in almost all animals with a brain.

That is the fundamental hypothesis on which the whole view rests. Dennett acknowledges it as an hypothesis. But enthusiasts take it as a proven thing.

If enthusiasts take it as a proven thing they are groupies, not scientists. Scientists do not take evolution as proven. It is simply the best game in town based on the evidence.

Consciousness is not anything, it is simply an aspect of how the brain functions in relationship to the world around it and other brains. This is a point where I disagree with Dennett.

 

[atanu]

I have difficulty with considering consciousness as an illusion.

Dennet says this. Not me.

If enthusiasts take it as a proven thing they are groupies, not scientists. Scientists do not take evolution as proven. It is simply the best game in town based on the evidence.

I am not talking of Darwin's evolution, which dealt with forms of life and not with creation of life. Neo Darwinian's OTOH, extend TOE evolution to creation of life too.

Evolution goes through five levels of description of the world, with Dennett claiming that each level can develop out of the previous one:

1. Mechanistic events at the level of the atomic components of matter in the Laplacean model of the universe or in its game-of-life toy version.
2. Complex patterns of events and events that appear to be avoided.
3. Agents taking actions in isolation.
4. Agents acting cooperatively.
5. Morality, responsibility, and blame.

Dennet however does not explain how the transition from level 2 to level 3 occurs. He simply concludes that conscious agents arrive on the scene due to blind evolution process.

This is not science, howsoever much he or his followers may claim.

 

[atanu]

Consciousness is not anything, it is simply an aspect of how the brain functions in relationship to the world around it and other brains. This is a point where I disagree with Dennett.

Can you explain this? To me you are not saying anything different from Daniel Dennet.

 

[shunyadragon]

Dennet says this. Not me.

I am not accusing you. This is simply a point I disagree with Dennett. Actually even those that support Dennett's work disagree with his descriptive use of consciousness as an illusion. I do not consider this abstract view of consciousness as effecting Dennett's work.

I am not talking of Darwin's evolution, which dealt with forms of life and not with creation of life. Neo Darwinian's OTOH, extend TOE evolution to creation of life too.

It is the science of abiogenesis that extends to the origins (not creation) of life prior to existence of organisms that reproduce. Neo- Darwinism is a half baked slanderous term that is meaningless. It remains that the science of evolution and abiogenesis are at present the best explanation based on the evidence.

Evolution goes through five levels of description of the world, with Dennett claiming that each level can develop out of the previous one:

1. Mechanistic events at the level of the atomic components of matter in the Laplacean model of the universe or in its game-of-life toy version.
2. Complex patterns of events and events that appear to be avoided.
3. Agents taking actions in isolation.
4. Agents acting cooperatively.
5. Morality, responsibility, and blame.

Dennet however does not explain how the transition from level 2 to level 3 occurs. He simply concludes that conscious agents arrive on the scene due to blind evolution process.

This is his view of evolution, and not an attempt to explain evolution. It is that actual science of evolution that provides the best explanation based on the evidence.

This is not science, howsoever much he or his followers may claim.

Dennett's descriptive use of evolution is not the science of evolution. The science of evolution and abiogenesis stands on their own merits. Dennett is not scientist in the fields of evolution nor abiogenesis, and his terminology in these sciences is at times awkward.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you explain this? To me you are not saying anything different from Daniel Dennet.

My explanation does not describe it as an illusion. It is a very real nature of the brain in all animals with a brain as the relationship of the brain to the world and other brains. This is not an illusion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you explain this? To me you are not saying anything different from Daniel Dennet.

To me?

Consciousness is very real and we can see the consequences of consciousness in the neurological activity of the brain. The brain is the thing. When we are conscious of colors, emotions, things and other people we can see the neurological activity in the brain. Thinking is an attribute of consciousness. This does not fit the definition of illusion.

Nonetheless Dennett does consider consciousness and human will the result of physical processes. What Dennett should say is that the explanation of consciousness is at present illusive and incomplete, with some contradictions; such as; 'our brain through consciousness often tries and succeeds to deceive or fool ourselves. At times our consciousness creates illusions.'

From: illusion definition - Google Search
Illusion -
a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses. "the illusion makes parallel lines seem to diverge by placing them on a zigzag-striped background"
synonyms: mirage, hallucination, apparition,

figment of the imagination, trick of the light, trompe l'oeil; More

• a deceptive appearance or impression.
  "the illusion of family togetherness"
  synonyms: appearance, impression, semblance; More
  
  
• a false idea or belief.
  "he had no illusions about the trouble she was in"
  synonyms: delusion, misapprehension, misconception, false impression;

 

[atanu]

I am not accusing you. This is simply a point I disagree with Dennett. Actually even those that support Dennett's work disagree with his descriptive use of consciousness as an illusion. I do not consider this abstract view of consciousness as effecting Dennett's work.

???
But you are rejecting the final teaching. I cannot understand how his abstract view of consciousness does not affect rest of his work. By negating consciousness altogether he avoids answering the so-called hard problem of consciousness.

It is the science of abiogenesis that extends to the origins (not creation) of life prior to existence of organisms that reproduce. Neo- Darwinism is a half baked slanderous term that is meaningless. It remains that the science of evolution and abiogenesis are at present the best explanation based on the evidence.

If I try to impose my idea, built upon the assumption that abiogenesis is already proven, I create unrest. It is indeed like proselytism.

 

[atanu]

To me?
Consciousness is very real and we can see the consequences of consciousness in the neurological activity of the brain. The brain is the thing. When we are conscious of colors, emotions, things and other people we can see the neurological activity in the brain. Thinking is an attribute of consciousness. This does not fit the definition of illusion.

Yeah. But I can hardly understand the red part. The neurological activities are consequences or consciousness is the consequence?

If you believe in the latter then I will invite you to:
First party consciousness states and third party correlations thereof

 

[atanu]

I am a geochemist. I see evolution and diversification of life forms through geological age.

But then, I just checked up WIKI regarding abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

A line in the beginning reads: On Earth, the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event but a gradual process of increasing complexity.

From the above, it seems that abiogenesis is a proven fact. Is that correct? This is state of affairs. Those who write about science do not follow the scientific rigour.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah. But I can hardly understand the red part. The neurological activities are consequences or consciousness is the consequence?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but the best way is a two way street where the neurological activity is the consequence of the relationship with the world around us, and the consciousness that arises is a consequence of the neurological activity.

If you believe in the latter then I will invite you to:
First party consciousness states and third party correlations thereof

I may take up the offer, but as I described both relationships are at play, which maybe two or more brains, or the relationship between the mind and stimulus from the world around us, which results in our mind and consciousness.