LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Freud opened the door to the notion that we are motivated unconsciously and that makes our motivations not only irrational but curable. Self knowledge is the process of becoming conscious of what we are unconscious of. For that to begin one must first get to first base, begin to credit the notion that we do not understand how we operate. This is profoundly difficult to do because it is an affront to the ego. Imagine you not knowing you. Who wants to believe that? Hehe. But if you saw Forbidden Planet you will know the unconscious is destroying the world.
Well.. as you can imagine there are probably a few hundred folks who don't have a therapist... granted they all live in China...
Edit.. hit button again.. the wrong one.. hehehe
But all the rest of us... not everyone is in misery... assuming normal behavior and life... and it is possible some do not experience all the negative input or even input turned negative... and are happy little clams.. I can't imagine everyone being deluded and now reacting to that delusion or doing so now and again..
Me thinks you speak to a deeper elimination of 'stuff'... getting to the nitty gritty of nothingness... a place (like Zen) where emotion is null... then reacting to life .. like the Zen Master chuckling at the chaos around them... but who can get there are but a few.. a very few.. with concerted dedicated effort...
(Didn't see 'Forbidden Planet' but can see exactly who is destroying the planet and it ain't the apes nor the gnu.... it is usins..)
We all have rather ironic bullshit detectors built into our brain that seem to work specifically against free thought. We learn the standards of society and then proceed to reject anything that strays to far from these standards. Its why we assume that everyone living under a dictator lives a terrible life. Its why we can't imagine being happy if we lived 500 years ago when death was more common and average lifespan was short. Its why republicans see a strong economy and democrats see a weak one. Its why so many reject the inevitable development of machines with intelligence greater than our own.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
That (the bold part) is another issue Moonster has mentioned in the past that I've been at odds with since I first read about that.
Intelligence is reasonably defined as the ability to reason, learn and understand... Granted a machine can do calculations faster and memorize data and information and take that and formulate new information and perhaps extrapolate independently within some parameter(s). I keep falling back to Hal the computer in 2000 and 2010 Space Odyssey. AND Gary Kasparov versus that massive computer in chess.
In the above I'd agree that a computer can learn... and can understand... but I can't accept yet that a computer now or in the future can reason.. Can't learn to reason and can't understand reasoning or the reasoning process... No matter what data it ingests it will utilize some math process to deduce the next step... emotion is absent. Its Zen is complete..
A machine won't have the 'human' factor that employs reasoning... but maybe it can.. I just don't see it..
Originally posted by: LunarRay
That (the bold part) is another issue Moonster has mentioned in the past that I've been at odds with since I first read about that.
Intelligence is reasonably defined as the ability to reason, learn and understand... Granted a machine can do calculations faster and memorize data and information and take that and formulate new information and perhaps extrapolate independently within some parameter(s). I keep falling back to Hal the computer in 2000 and 2010 Space Odyssey. AND Gary Kasparov versus that massive computer in chess.
In the above I'd agree that a computer can learn... and can understand... but I can't accept yet that a computer now or in the future can reason.. Can't learn to reason and can't understand reasoning or the reasoning process... No matter what data it ingests it will utilize some math process to deduce the next step... emotion is absent. Its Zen is complete..
A machine won't have the 'human' factor that employs reasoning... but maybe it can.. I just don't see it..
It took nature several billion years to produce a spider. We are at the spider level of intelligence in machines already today, I think. That took only a few decades to achieve. The study if the brain with a view to reverse engineer its functions is proceeding at an ever quickening pace. I think we are a biological machine made up of essentially lifeless atoms. It is our complexity that gives life. Dead atoms not based on carbon will, I think, be no less alive given the same complexity. The miracle is not human consciousness, I think, but that the universe produced it as a function of universal law. The universe itself seems to have as its fundamental property the potential to awake. Perhaps then it will unwind itself to find all its past conscious parts and bring them home. Wouldn't you?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
That (the bold part) is another issue Moonster has mentioned in the past that I've been at odds with since I first read about that.
Intelligence is reasonably defined as the ability to reason, learn and understand... Granted a machine can do calculations faster and memorize data and information and take that and formulate new information and perhaps extrapolate independently within some parameter(s). I keep falling back to Hal the computer in 2000 and 2010 Space Odyssey. AND Gary Kasparov versus that massive computer in chess.
In the above I'd agree that a computer can learn... and can understand... but I can't accept yet that a computer now or in the future can reason.. Can't learn to reason and can't understand reasoning or the reasoning process... No matter what data it ingests it will utilize some math process to deduce the next step... emotion is absent. Its Zen is complete..
A machine won't have the 'human' factor that employs reasoning... but maybe it can.. I just don't see it..
It took nature several billion years to produce a spider. We are at the spider level of intelligence in machines already today, I think. That took only a few decades to achieve. The study if the brain with a view to reverse engineer its functions is proceeding at an ever quickening pace. I think we are a biological machine made up of essentially lifeless atoms. It is our complexity that gives life. Dead atoms not based on carbon will, I think, be no less alive given the same complexity. The miracle is not human consciousness, I think, but that the universe produced it as a function of universal law. The universe itself seems to have as its fundamental property the potential to awake. Perhaps then it will unwind itself to find all its past conscious parts and bring them home. Wouldn't you?
My coffee maker has no Soul.. Not sure why that matters in this analysis but I see the reasoning aspect of the human never being shared with the mechanical counterpart. And, I do so because I believe that there is a GOD... and Noah didn't look for any Ipods way back when.. I can see the pure scientific logic and have no problem with being made up of dead atoms.. and all that... but suppose the crux of the matter is: God didn't make my refrigerator in his image... I made it in the image and function I desired.. not bad but not equal.. The Soul enables a conscience. Conscience is the reason, employed about questions of right and wrong or good and bad...
[Don't say "How do you know your coffee maker don't have a soul or at least the soul of all coffee makers or could develop one.... hehehhe It is where the extrapolation from the known (or what we think we know) into the unknown allows for my position.. and yours]
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
That (the bold part) is another issue Moonster has mentioned in the past that I've been at odds with since I first read about that.
Intelligence is reasonably defined as the ability to reason, learn and understand... Granted a machine can do calculations faster and memorize data and information and take that and formulate new information and perhaps extrapolate independently within some parameter(s). I keep falling back to Hal the computer in 2000 and 2010 Space Odyssey. AND Gary Kasparov versus that massive computer in chess.
In the above I'd agree that a computer can learn... and can understand... but I can't accept yet that a computer now or in the future can reason.. Can't learn to reason and can't understand reasoning or the reasoning process... No matter what data it ingests it will utilize some math process to deduce the next step... emotion is absent. Its Zen is complete..
A machine won't have the 'human' factor that employs reasoning... but maybe it can.. I just don't see it..
It took nature several billion years to produce a spider. We are at the spider level of intelligence in machines already today, I think. That took only a few decades to achieve. The study if the brain with a view to reverse engineer its functions is proceeding at an ever quickening pace. I think we are a biological machine made up of essentially lifeless atoms. It is our complexity that gives life. Dead atoms not based on carbon will, I think, be no less alive given the same complexity. The miracle is not human consciousness, I think, but that the universe produced it as a function of universal law. The universe itself seems to have as its fundamental property the potential to awake. Perhaps then it will unwind itself to find all its past conscious parts and bring them home. Wouldn't you?
My coffee maker has no Soul.. Not sure why that matters in this analysis but I see the reasoning aspect of the human never being shared with the mechanical counterpart. And, I do so because I believe that there is a GOD... and Noah didn't look for any Ipods way back when.. I can see the pure scientific logic and have no problem with being made up of dead atoms.. and all that... but suppose the crux of the matter is: God didn't make my refrigerator in his image... I made it in the image and function I desired.. not bad but not equal.. The Soul enables a conscience. Conscience is the reason, employed about questions of right and wrong or good and bad...
[Don't say "How do you know your coffee maker don't have a soul or at least the soul of all coffee makers or could develop one.... hehehhe It is where the extrapolation from the known (or what we think we know) into the unknown allows for my position.. and yours]
I hope, one day, your coffee maker doesn't have the same suspicions about you. How could this unit that kills billions of its fellows have a soul?
This is true. What is surprising is that computers may have the computational capacity of the brain by 2030, according to Ray Kurzweil. The exponential trends in technological growth are remarkable and undeniable.
Why do you believe that we even have a soul? If you believe we do have one then surely you must have some idea of its function. Why do you believe the soul gives rise to consciousness?
SSSnail
Lifer
- Nov 29, 2006
- 17,458
- 83
- 86
I've read this entire thread and cannot help but wondering, have any of you ever had a conversation with inpatients from your local mental institution?
If you're logical, you wouldn't even bother to answer the original post.
If you're illogical, well, then I guess you would be debating, regardless of which stance you take.
If you're logical, you wouldn't even bother to answer the original post.
If you're illogical, well, then I guess you would be debating, regardless of which stance you take.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well.... I "believe" that God is God.. that God is a truth.. To me God is the creator of all that is... Among the bits he created (in my belief) are humans and monkeys and donkeys and gnu. The bodies of each of these creatures will eventually cease to exist and become bits of the earth but If one believes in the Eternity of God they must latch onto something that enables that.. The soul is the essence of humanity.. the intangible part like the mind and may even be part of the mind like the conscious and subconscious... but does not exist in other life forms. Other animals and maybe the trees and plants seem to have a thinking process but they don't seem to reason. They seem to react and don't bother dealing with right and wrong. The conscience of humans is what enables this.. and I suppose the Soul is what God said would be judged some day.. and there it is.. I can't point to a soul or point to the absence of one either..
You may create a Mr. Data from Star Trek.. but for that machine to reason beyond its 'program' you'd have to have more than just the physical human assets... you'd have to have the hand of God and that is beyond my belief.. Just as the out side of the universe is... or even the absence of time.. as an eternal being must exist in.. So not much I can point to but then not much to debate about either.. heheheh Least ways that is what I believe.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
That (the bold part) is another issue Moonster has mentioned in the past that I've been at odds with since I first read about that.
Intelligence is reasonably defined as the ability to reason, learn and understand... Granted a machine can do calculations faster and memorize data and information and take that and formulate new information and perhaps extrapolate independently within some parameter(s). I keep falling back to Hal the computer in 2000 and 2010 Space Odyssey. AND Gary Kasparov versus that massive computer in chess.
In the above I'd agree that a computer can learn... and can understand... but I can't accept yet that a computer now or in the future can reason.. Can't learn to reason and can't understand reasoning or the reasoning process... No matter what data it ingests it will utilize some math process to deduce the next step... emotion is absent. Its Zen is complete..
A machine won't have the 'human' factor that employs reasoning... but maybe it can.. I just don't see it..
It took nature several billion years to produce a spider. We are at the spider level of intelligence in machines already today, I think. That took only a few decades to achieve. The study if the brain with a view to reverse engineer its functions is proceeding at an ever quickening pace. I think we are a biological machine made up of essentially lifeless atoms. It is our complexity that gives life. Dead atoms not based on carbon will, I think, be no less alive given the same complexity. The miracle is not human consciousness, I think, but that the universe produced it as a function of universal law. The universe itself seems to have as its fundamental property the potential to awake. Perhaps then it will unwind itself to find all its past conscious parts and bring them home. Wouldn't you?
My coffee maker has no Soul.. Not sure why that matters in this analysis but I see the reasoning aspect of the human never being shared with the mechanical counterpart. And, I do so because I believe that there is a GOD... and Noah didn't look for any Ipods way back when.. I can see the pure scientific logic and have no problem with being made up of dead atoms.. and all that... but suppose the crux of the matter is: God didn't make my refrigerator in his image... I made it in the image and function I desired.. not bad but not equal.. The Soul enables a conscience. Conscience is the reason, employed about questions of right and wrong or good and bad...
[Don't say "How do you know your coffee maker don't have a soul or at least the soul of all coffee makers or could develop one.... hehehhe It is where the extrapolation from the known (or what we think we know) into the unknown allows for my position.. and yours]
I hope, one day, your coffee maker doesn't have the same suspicions about you. How could this unit that kills billions of its fellows have a soul?
Hehehehhe.... God killed all sorts of people and animals back with Noah.. .. well.. the sons of man and the Sons of God.. what ever that is meant to mean.. people as far as I'll opine.. maybe some angelic beings tossed in too.. And he did a number on Sodom and that other place.. so WMD's are not new to God nor was he afraid to use them.. We are made in his image.... so I'm afraid we from time to time select the bad and reason it to be good.. faulty reasoning is all.. not the absence of a soul..
My coffee maker may indeed intake data and conclude what it does.. but will it ever learn to rationalize? To feel bad? To feel good? Will it incur debt at Christmas time to insure the coffee cups have presents and if it does .. what will it feel as it sees them open the tea bags? As HAL said to Dave.. 'will I feel pain'..
This point of view, I feel, falls easily in contradiction with other points of view and our own experiences with other living beings. Of course, this is the basis of much religion, yet, I assert, that much of religion shows its human heritage and is problematic because of this particular point of view. There's no denial that the human being is qualitatively different from the animal or plant being, etc., and it's fine to concentrate on that difference, but I assert that reducing animals to non-sentience or non-possession of souls, etc., is but another particular form of chauvinism that doesn't bear up to much science nor religion.
By giving up this point of view can one hope to reconcile "Eastern" and "Western" religions, and also creationism and evolution.
Now, this position is quite different from the norm here, and besides, discoursing on the nature of the soul among the blind is a game for fools, so I'm not going to spend much effort trying to defend the position; I'm merely pointing out the existence of this point of view should that be needed. And as a reference for any interested further reading, I'll suggest Rumi's discourses.
That, btw, also has one very elegant answer to Moonie's (rhetorical?) question about the beloved.
What is the difference between a hurt finger and a hurt mind?
How can a mind be harmed without words to tell it it deserves to hurt?
How does a mind suffer without feeling worthless?
Is Zen or Buddhism the lack of emotion or the transcendence of suffering?
Is it possible that negative emotion is an illness we have and that health is something we can't remember?
How can a mind be harmed without words to tell it it deserves to hurt?
How does a mind suffer without feeling worthless?
Is Zen or Buddhism the lack of emotion or the transcendence of suffering?
Is it possible that negative emotion is an illness we have and that health is something we can't remember?
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Man used to believe that the world consisted of what was visible from horizon to horizon and that lightning was a message from an angry god. What man couldn't see he imagined didn't exist and what man didn't understand he gave magical explanations to.Originally posted by: LunarRay
In the above I'd agree that a computer can learn... and can understand... but I can't accept yet that a computer now or in the future can reason.. Can't learn to reason and can't understand reasoning or the reasoning process... No matter what data it ingests it will utilize some math process to deduce the next step... emotion is absent. Its Zen is complete..
Mankind has gotten a lot smarter over the last 100,000 years, but the design has essentially remained unchanged.
You say a computer can't "reason." And can't learn to reason or understand reasoning.
I believe that the fact that you don't understand what goes on in your head when you "reason" - that, in fact, you really don't understand "reasoning" at all - is, ironically, why you think you reason and computers don't.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: shira
Man used to believe that the world consisted of what was visible from horizon to horizon and that lightning was a message from an angry god. What man couldn't see he imagined didn't exist and what man didn't understand he gave magical explanations to.Originally posted by: LunarRay
In the above I'd agree that a computer can learn... and can understand... but I can't accept yet that a computer now or in the future can reason.. Can't learn to reason and can't understand reasoning or the reasoning process... No matter what data it ingests it will utilize some math process to deduce the next step... emotion is absent. Its Zen is complete..
Mankind has gotten a lot smarter over the last 100,000 years, but the design has essentially remained unchanged.
You say a computer can't "reason." And can't learn to reason or understand reasoning.
I believe that the fact that you don't understand what goes on in your head when you "reason" - that, in fact, you really don't understand "reasoning" at all - is, ironically, why you think you reason and computers don't.
I don't know for sure but I would think the great majority of rational and thinking people in the world would take LR's side and not mine in this. So far, he not I am correct, as far as we know. Doesn't mean the galactic core might not be alive with conscious soulful machines.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: shira
Man used to believe that the world consisted of what was visible from horizon to horizon and that lightning was a message from an angry god. What man couldn't see he imagined didn't exist and what man didn't understand he gave magical explanations to.Originally posted by: LunarRay
In the above I'd agree that a computer can learn... and can understand... but I can't accept yet that a computer now or in the future can reason.. Can't learn to reason and can't understand reasoning or the reasoning process... No matter what data it ingests it will utilize some math process to deduce the next step... emotion is absent. Its Zen is complete..
Mankind has gotten a lot smarter over the last 100,000 years, but the design has essentially remained unchanged.
You say a computer can't "reason." And can't learn to reason or understand reasoning.
I believe that the fact that you don't understand what goes on in your head when you "reason" - that, in fact, you really don't understand "reasoning" at all - is, ironically, why you think you reason and computers don't.
OK... hehhehehe I'll buy that... I accept that I don't know what I don't know and to extrapolate from that ignorance out to some probability is not worth much... So I'm stuck with what I do know or at least think I know and add to that those 'bits' that I accept as truth with out tangible proof... faith... Then using that limited base I can see clearly what has to be...
The one sure thing we both must accept is that tomorrow's events are NOT known today. We never, as an Earth, may see the tomorrow that holds the answer... So at best all we can say is: Shoulda, Woulda and Coulda.... And cuz we don't agree on the base from which we both project our end results have to be different... but given Infinity as a possibility I'd suspect all things that can occur will... I don't, however, see Infinity as a reality as it applies to this universe.. or actually, humankind on earth... we will or ought to be long gone by the next ice age..
Edit: ... the bold bits of your statement.... are quite telling.. you have made as fact certain thingi. You have empowered your dialog using as fact assumption and ascribe to me the absence of a basis with which to opine with any potential to be correct... hehehhehe You should qualify a bit... don't you think.. ?? If this then that... hehehehe
I think I know a bit about how the brain functions and thus the mind... and from that add the factor I previously made regarding God.... You can't take part and not the whole... you'd not go to the store and bite a part of the apple and not expect to pay for the entire thing now would you?
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
There is no logical basis for the validity of Christianity. Revelation is not a logically valid basis for the truth or validity of a particular belief system. Your logic fails.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
It definitely would have been more accurate to have written, "No one understands what goes on inside the human brain when a person reasons . . . . " However, I personalized that statement to you because it's relevant to what you say you can't accept.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: shira
Man used to believe that the world consisted of what was visible from horizon to horizon and that lightning was a message from an angry god. What man couldn't see he imagined didn't exist and what man didn't understand he gave magical explanations to.Originally posted by: LunarRay
In the above I'd agree that a computer can learn... and can understand... but I can't accept yet that a computer now or in the future can reason.. Can't learn to reason and can't understand reasoning or the reasoning process... No matter what data it ingests it will utilize some math process to deduce the next step... emotion is absent. Its Zen is complete..
Mankind has gotten a lot smarter over the last 100,000 years, but the design has essentially remained unchanged.
You say a computer can't "reason." And can't learn to reason or understand reasoning.
I believe that the fact that you don't understand what goes on in your head when you "reason" - that, in fact, you really don't understand "reasoning" at all - is, ironically, why you think you reason and computers don't.
OK... hehhehehe I'll buy that... I accept that I don't know what I don't know and to extrapolate from that ignorance out to some probability is not worth much... So I'm stuck with what I do know or at least think I know and add to that those 'bits' that I accept as truth with out tangible proof... faith... Then using that limited base I can see clearly what has to be...
The one sure thing we both must accept is that tomorrow's events are NOT known today. We never, as an Earth, may see the tomorrow that holds the answer... So at best all we can say is: Shoulda, Woulda and Coulda.... And cuz we don't agree on the base from which we both project our end results have to be different... but given Infinity as a possibility I'd suspect all things that can occur will... I don't, however, see Infinity as a reality as it applies to this universe.. or actually, humankind on earth... we will or ought to be long gone by the next ice age..
Edit: ... the bold bits of your statement.... are quite telling.. you have made as fact certain thingi. You have empowered your dialog using as fact assumption and ascribe to me the absence of a basis with which to opine with any potential to be correct... hehehhehe You should qualify a bit... don't you think.. ?? If this then that... hehehehe
I think I know a bit about how the brain functions and thus the mind... and from that add the factor I previously made regarding God.... You can't take part and not the whole... you'd not go to the store and bite a part of the apple and not expect to pay for the entire thing now would you?
That statement is not an "assumption". Science has the barest information on what goes on inside a human brain. We have maps of where within the brain various higher processes occur, and it's believed that "consciouness" is a consequence of complex interactions between various brain systems. But exactly what those interactions are - how a cascade of electrical impluses traveling/spreading among neurons within and among various areas of the brain - somehow results in consciousness, thought, "reason" is a mystery.
By stating that "reasoning" is now and forever unreproducible within computers you are effectively saying that reasoning is beyond the laws of physics - that it is magic. As I've written in other posts, that's the "God of the Gaps" - you are finding God (or alternatively/additionally, the "specialness" of humanity) in what is mysterious and wonderful. To put it Moonbeam's way, you are letting your ego get in the way.
What's the big deal if human's are just big hunks of meat with highly evolved gray hunks of meat within their skulls? What's so difficut in accepting that the meat-body grows, is born, lives, dies, and decomposes, and that the universe is oblivous from beginning to end?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter