Artificial Intelligence

[idav]

Qualia is real. And it is evidential, it exists in all of us. Are you denying you see color? Or love music? To deny qualia would be to deny yourself.

Recollection is merely a replaying of something stored as data. I really can't see how any organism or machine can recall data without having experienced it first in one form or another.

It shows that the universe is not only made of matter and there is another substance there.

There is something else other than matter as I mentioned spacetime one word.

Many neuroscientists who study consciousness are neutral monists. In fact the most famous ones are. They believe all things associate with mind and all things associated with matter are derived from a neutral substance.

I don't know what you mean here. What is a "neutral" substance?

I have no idea how quantum fluctuations would give rise to subjectivity, perhaps you could expand on that? Are you referring to Orch OR?

Because when working in the quantum level you leaving the realm of linear logic and thinking. Something becomes subjective when there is more than one correct answer. The quantum fluctuations work at the level of spacetime which is at 4D level. What it does is unite all of matter and energy at which point matter and energy are able to act with purpose.

 

[MD]

Recollection is merely a replaying of something stored as data. I really can't see how any organism or machine can recall data without having experienced it first in one form or another.

There is no such thing as experience in an objective universe made only of matter. Qualia should not exist in an objective universe. In an objective universe light does not have color, sound waves do not have sound and glucose shouldn't taste sweet. Yet they do. And to say our brains create them is akin to saying that our brains have magical properties which create completely novel experiences that are not reducible. There is a reason why people call it the hard problem of consciousness.

I don't know what you mean here. What is a "neutral" substance?

Some people call it information. Others say it's an undiscovered substance. Others call it spacetime, or energy, or God. I don't know what it is.

Because when working in the quantum level you leaving the realm of linear logic and thinking. Something becomes subjective when there is more than one correct answer. The quantum fluctuations work at the level of spacetime which is at 4D level. What it does is unite all of matter and energy at which point matter and energy are able to act with purpose.

Your matter/energy response is interesting. But it then goes to show that the brain works at the fundamental level of the universe, a quantum mind. Whatever it is, neurons themselves are not only what are responsible for creating our minds.

 

[idav]

There is no such thing as experience in an objective universe made only of matter. Qualia should not exist in an objective universe. In an objective universe light does not have color, sound waves do not have sound and glucose shouldn't taste sweet. Yet they do. And to say our brains create them is akin to saying that our brains have magical properties which create completely novel experiences that are not reducible. There is a reason why people call it the hard problem of consciousness.

Why wouldn't there be experience in an objective universe? I disagree, lets go with your color example. When experiencing color it is merely a representation of the physical attributes of the atoms and molecules. It is just one of many ways to see an object but eyes connected to brains isn't the only way to see things. Physical processes can explain you cellular interataction with it's outside environment just like any other organism and whatever senses they are able to utilize.

To say that the brain needs some other substance to experience is evoking magic. Our experiences are due to how our cells react to their environment, no magic needed.

Whatever it is, neurons themselves are not only what are responsible for creating our minds.

What evidence do we have for this.

 

[idav]

Some people call it information. Others say it's an undiscovered substance. Others call it spacetime, or energy, or God. I don't know what it is.

A quick google search lead me to wiki's neutral monism which states there is only one substance to explain reality which is neither physical or mental thus "neutral". That ain't a bad idea, it is what I pretty much think as a natural pantheist but really I find no reason for the physical mental duality in the first place. 'All is one' covers it nicely.

Neutral monism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MD]

Why wouldn't there be experience in an objective universe? I disagree, lets go with your color example. When experiencing color it is merely a representation of the physical attributes of the atoms and molecules. It is just one of many ways to see an object but eyes connected to brains isn't the only way to see things. Physical processes can explain you cellular interataction with it's outside environment just like any other organism and whatever senses they are able to utilize.

Light has no color to it. Light is simply waves and particles. If we were to actually see patterns, they should only be black and white. Our brains cannot magically create color, so either such mental properties exist in our universe or it's magic. Now light is the simplest qualia. I'm not even going to get into music, or art, or emotions. Another example is pain. Physical processes can help you explain how we perceive pain, but it doesn't explain what pain even is. If the universe was purely objective then when I touch a hot stove I shouldn't feel pain. I should reflexively move away from the pain but I should not 'feel' it. This is David Chalmers main argument, which I am partial to. It does a heck of a lot better job at explaining consciousness than Dennett's illusion argument.

To say that the brain needs some other substance to experience is evoking magic. Our experiences are due to how our cells react to their environment, no magic needed.

From a purely physical view the environment is nothing more than particles and waves. Experience is a mental term. Thus if consciousness was a phenomenon of matter only, we would have no such thing as experience. Just observation.

What evidence do we have for this.

I am repeating myself here. Qualia are ample evidence that there is something else at play.

You also said matter and energy work together to create purpose and subjectivity. Neurons are made of matter, are you saying they interact with time and space? If that is true then it's not only matter which is involved in creating qualia. Energy is not matter.

 

[idav]

Light has no color to it. Light is simply waves and particles.

So far so good.

If we were to actually see patterns, they should only be black and white. Our brains cannot magically create color, so either such mental properties exist in our universe or it's magic.

Pure light is white or black and what we see is light at a certain frequency due to matter. Matter itself would be grey but appear with color due to its interaction with light. Nothing magic just explainable phenomenon like a rainbow.

Now light is the simplest qualia. I'm not even going to get into music, or art, or emotions. Another example is pain. Physical processes can help you explain how we perceive pain, but it doesn't explain what pain even is.

If we can understand something like seeing and memory of it, it is a first step. Emotions are other senses that our brains have.

If the universe was purely objective then when I touch a hot stove I shouldn't feel pain. I should reflexively move away from the pain but I should not 'feel' it.

Really there shouldn't even be a threshold. Our cells are hitting a threshold and telling the brain which causes us to make a choice even without being conscious of it. You feeling it is the very way our biology has learned to react to something that is really physically happening, with a burn it is your cells dieing. Why shouldn't we feel pain when a cell dies, it is alive in its own right. It is a part of us dying.

From a purely physical view the environment is nothing more than particles and waves. Experience is a mental term. Thus if consciousness was a phenomenon of matter only, we would have no such thing as experience. Just observation.

Experience is an observation your able to recall. That is the real difference and needs no additional substance other than the brain.

I am repeating myself here. Qualia are ample evidence that there is something else at play.

I don't agree, it is just a way of looking at it.

You also said matter and energy work together to create purpose and subjectivity. Neurons are made of matter, are you saying they interact with time and space? If that is true then it's not only matter which is involved in creating qualia. Energy is not matter.

I don't know of anyone who has pinned down the theory of everything yet.

Atoms are 99% space.

Matter is a changed form of energy.

 

[MD]

Pure light is white or black and what we see is light at a certain frequency due to matter. Matter itself would be grey but appear with color due to its interaction with light. Nothing magic just explainable phenomenon like a rainbow.

I don't think you understand what qualia are. Pure light is frequency. It has no color. Pure matter are also frequencies on a macroscopic scale (I think). When we see a rainbow because the light undergoes refraction, the one wavelength of white light to appear as many wavelengths. But they are all wavelengths. Now our brain somehow interprets these wavelengths into color. Okay. How does it do that? A pure patterned approach? Okay then we should see shorter patterns with shorter wavelengths or longer patterns with longer ones. We should see cool complex colorless patterns. Where did color come from? You say the brain makes it up. Well to me that's nothing short of pure magic. Creating something out of nothing is magical.

Really there shouldn't even be a threshold. Our cells are hitting a threshold and telling the brain which causes us to make a choice even without being conscious of it. You feeling it is the very way our biology has learned to react to something that is really physically happening, with a burn it is your cells dieing. Why shouldn't we feel pain when a cell dies, it is alive in its own right. It is a part of us dying.

Again you're missing my point with regards to qualia. First of all the PNS doesn't tell our brain to make a decision, it tells our brain to MOVE. The very fact that we have reflexes shows that our brains decide to remove the hand before we are even consciously aware of it. In a purely objective universe, we should only have reflexes and no pain. However the pain still resides even after moving away from the hot stove. Pain is a subjective experience. You cannot describe pain in any other words, excpet for pain. Think about it, try to describe pain in any other words. Or describe love in a way that doesn't involvesubjective words. And to top it off, you can use your conscious mind to control pain. How is that possible if it's a product of the brain, then how can it also have an effect on the brain?

I don't know of anyone who has pinned down the theory of everything yet.
Atoms are 99% space.
Matter is a changed form of energy.

There will never be a TOE, but that's another topic for another time. You seem to think that the quantum mind theories might have answers. That's another can of worms I do not wish to open lol.

 

[idav]

I don't think you understand what qualia are. Pure light is frequency. It has no color. Pure matter are also frequencies on a macroscopic scale (I think). When we see a rainbow because the light undergoes refraction, the one wavelength of white light to appear as many wavelengths. But they are all wavelengths. Now our brain somehow interprets these wavelengths into color. Okay. How does it do that? A pure patterned approach? Okay then we should see shorter patterns with shorter wavelengths or longer patterns with longer ones. We should see cool complex colorless patterns. Where did color come from? You say the brain makes it up. Well to me that's nothing short of pure magic. Creating something out of nothing is magical.

It is how we, as an organism, sense light. There isn't anything special about it as it is just a very tiny spectrum that we happen to see. We can't see the other wave lengths but there are animals that can see spectrums that we can't like infrared. You can call it magic if you want, it is extraordinary, but it is based on purely objective phenomenon. This is how we evolved to sense our environment.

Again you're missing my point with regards to qualia. First of all the PNS doesn't tell our brain to make a decision, it tells our brain to MOVE. The very fact that we have reflexes shows that our brains decide to remove the hand before we are even consciously aware of it. In a purely objective universe, we should only have reflexes and no pain. However the pain still resides even after moving away from the hot stove. Pain is a subjective experience. You cannot describe pain in any other words, excpet for pain. Think about it, try to describe pain in any other words. Or describe love in a way that doesn't involvesubjective words. And to top it off, you can use your conscious mind to control pain. How is that possible if it's a product of the brain, then how can it also have an effect on the brain?

I understand what you are saying. Your comparing us to a machine and saying well if the machine video records something it doesn't really experience the video recording cause it needs qualia.

I'm not so sure about that. In order to even record something whether it is a camcorder or your eye socket it amounts to the same thing. The machine accomplished at least the visual storing and retrieval of the data, it may not understand it but the basics of sensing something is there. It would only need more learning and experience to have understanding of the video.

There will never be a TOE, but that's another topic for another time. You seem to think that the quantum mind theories might have answers. That's another can of worms I do not wish to open lol.

OK, yea of little faith.

 

[MD]

It is how we, as an organism, sense light. There isn't anything special about it as it is just a very tiny spectrum that we happen to see. We can't see the other wave lengths but there are animals that can see spectrums that we can't like infrared. You can call it magic if you want, it is extraordinary, but it is based on purely objective phenomenon. This is how we evolved to sense our environment.

That still doesn't explain what color is and how it's made. Or why it even exists? Although on a space time level there might be a whole new aspect of reality I cannot even begin to fathom, from a classical material perspective the idea of color is impossible. Either all physical properties have mental properties to them, or the quantum world has something that our brains interact with. Either way classical materialism is incomplete.

I understand what you are saying. Your comparing us to a machine and saying well if the machine video records something it doesn't really experience the video recording cause it needs qualia.

I'm not so sure about that. In order to even record something whether it is a camcorder or your eye socket it amounts to the same thing. The machine accomplished at least the visual storing and retrieval of the data, it may not understand it but the basics of sensing something is there. It would only need more learning and experience to have understanding of the video.

I agree a machine that is sensing and storing the data is very minimally aware that it is processing this information. If you and I agree on that then awareness cannot be an evolved process because then only some biological organisms can be capable of awareness. The machine is aware because of the connectivity it has within its nodes, which is allowing consciousness to emerge from the rudimentary consciousness of space and time.

OK, yea of little faith.

Godel's incompleteness theorem is why I feel there will never be a TOE.
Stephen Hawking; Gödel and the end of physics

 

[Pleroma]

Strong AI is impossible. Intelligence exists in platonic realms and therefore machines will never be able to have human intelligence. Human beings can solve problems for which no algorithm exists and therefore human beings are more than machines.

Roger Penrose is a strong Platonist and Gödel said "I don't believe in Natural Sciences".
The Third Culture - Chapter 14

Roger Penrose says Conscious thought consists of non-computable ingredients in it and Bernard D' Espagnat is convinced that the empirical world i.e including the brain and physical matter cannot exist independent of human consciousness. Therefore consciousness cannot arise out of the brain in fact brain and physical matter arise out of a metaphsyical mind.

To create a self aware machine with qualia one has to inevitably solve the problem of Universals - Problem of universals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is Platonic Realism, Nominalism and Idealism and I think Platonic realism is correct qualia are far more fundamental than anything else and they do exist in its own realm and these are only things which are Real because they are eternal and unchanging.

Show a machine capable of strong AI, I mean transfer my consciousness on to a machine and make me experience what it is like to be a machine then the whole religion of Hinduism along with other religions will be falsified.

Based on this strong AI is impossible.

 

[otokage007]

Qualia's existence is just an hypothesis, it is not proven by neurophisiology. Plus colors, tastes and smells, are just neuronal nets, not something metaphysical.

 

[MD]

Qualia's existence is just an hypothesis, it is not proven by neurophisiology. Plus colors, tastes and smells, are just neuronal nets, not something metaphysical.

To deny qualia would be to deny your existence.

Please read up on the 'hard problem of consciousness' before making such ridiculous statements.

 

[1137]

Qualia ( /ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkwaːle]) is a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.

Maybe the wrong word is being used, but by this definition of course qualia exist and they prove absolutely nothing relative to the discussion on strong AIs. Our brains all work in at least slightly different ways and are alzo influenced by genetics. Using this to attack the materialists view of the mind-body problem is like saying I have clinical depression because my soul has a tear in it or something ridiculous.

 

[MD]

Maybe the wrong word is being used, but by this definition of course qualia exist and they prove absolutely nothing relative to the discussion on strong AIs. Our brains all work in at least slightly different ways and are alzo influenced by genetics. Using this to attack the materialists view of the mind-body problem is like saying I have clinical depression because my soul has a tear in it or something ridiculous.

Ok. Let me break this down for you in very simple terms since you're having a hard time grasping it. Qualia does not mean subjective in the sense that I like the color red and you like the color blue so that way we are subjectively different in what we like.

Qualia refers to the experience of seeing red and blue. Materialism states that the neural pattern firing when perceiving waves = complex patterns. Then we should have complex patterns of colorless waves. But to create colors out of nothing. That's literally magic! And color is the SIMPLEST qualia. Which is why classical materialism is incomplete.

There's a reason why the bulk of theories regarding consciousness state that consciousness exists in the universe on a fundamental level. It's the only way we can bridge the ontological gap. Either that or there's some quantum properties going on.

With regards to strong AI, it depends on what you define as strong AI.

Now as an atheist this idea may threaten your worldview. So here's an atheists perspective on what I'm talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIr22Puh1Wk

 

[otokage007]

Ok. Let me break this down for you in very simple terms since you're having a hard time grasping it. Qualia does not mean subjective in the sense that I like the color red and you like the color blue so that way we are subjectively different in what we like.

Qualia refers to the experience of seeing red and blue. Materialism states that the neural pattern firing when perceiving waves = complex patterns. Then we should have complex patterns of colorless waves. But to create colors out of nothing. That's literally magic! And color is the SIMPLEST qualia. Which is why classical materialism is incomplete.

There's a reason why the bulk of theories regarding consciousness state that consciousness exists in the universe on a fundamental level. It's the only way we can bridge the ontological gap. Either that or there's some quantum properties going on.

With regards to strong AI, it depends on what you define as strong AI.

Now as an atheist this idea may threaten your worldview. So here's an atheists perspective on what I'm talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIr22Puh1Wk

"The mind", the conciousness and the awareness are just a brain mechanism, that's why the more complex is the brain, the more present are those three brain activities. So suggesting that mind trascends the brain, is what is magical here.

 

[MD]

"The mind", the conciousness and the awareness are just a brain mechanism, that's why the more complex is the brain, the more present are those three brain activities. So suggesting that mind trascends the brain, is what is magical here.

Well I never said the mind transcends the brain, I simply added that video for the atheists. However consciousness is not an illusion, which is the only argument a materialist can give. It's an argument rejected by most scientists studying it.

What you're suggesting is as much of a faith position as what I am, the only difference is that your theory is a complete dead end.

 

[1137]

Ok. Let me break this down for you in very simple terms since you're having a hard time grasping it. Qualia does not mean subjective in the sense that I like the color red and you like the color blue so that way we are subjectively different in what we like.

Qualia refers to the experience of seeing red and blue. Materialism states that the neural pattern firing when perceiving waves = complex patterns. Then we should have complex patterns of colorless waves. But to create colors out of nothing. That's literally magic! And color is the SIMPLEST qualia. Which is why classical materialism is incomplete.

There's a reason why the bulk of theories regarding consciousness state that consciousness exists in the universe on a fundamental level. It's the only way we can bridge the ontological gap. Either that or there's some quantum properties going on.

With regards to strong AI, it depends on what you define as strong AI.

Now as an atheist this idea may threaten your worldview. So here's an atheists perspective on what I'm talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIr22Puh1Wk

And I thought we were having an adult conversation here. One can hope I suppose. Light does exist, light causes color the way the brain and eye take it in, not my field of study. I am sure it is much more complex than that. The point is, color does not just magically exist, you can do some research on it if you actually wanted to, I am strapped for time. There is no way that consciousness exists at the fundamental level, otherwise everything in the universe would at least show signs of being conscious. Go pull up a plant in your back yard and see if it fights you to survive, if it complains, if it gives one single hint of awareness. I can save you time and tell you it will not, otherwise your theory might hold the slightest bit of merit.

Well I never said the mind transcends the brain, I simply added that video for the atheists. However consciousness is not an illusion, which is the only argument a materialist can give. It's an argument rejected by most scientists studying it.

What you're suggesting is as much of a faith position as what I am, the only difference is that your theory is a complete dead end.

I would never say consciousness is an illusion just like I would never say that emotions are an illusion. They exist, they are just caused by the physical. If by "faith" you mean accepting something supported by evidence, fact, and logical inference then yes, the poster you quoted has great amounts of faith. I have great faith that the earth is round, based on your apparent definition.

 

[1137]

Here, educate yourself on the magic of color:

Color or colour (see spelling differences) is the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, green, blue, and others. Color derives from the spectrum of light (distribution of light power versus wavelength) interacting in the eye with the spectral sensitivities of the light receptors. Color categories and physical specifications of color are also associated with objects, materials, light sources, etc., based on their physical properties such as light absorption, reflection, or emission spectra. By defining a color space, colors can be identified numerically by their coordinates.
Because perception of color stems from the varying spectral sensitivity of different types of cone cells in the retina to different parts of the spectrum, colors may be defined and quantified by the degree to which they stimulate these cells. These physical or physiological quantifications of color, however, do not fully explain the psychophysical perception of color appearance.
The science of color is sometimes called chromatics, chromatography, colorimetry, or simply color science. It includes the perception of color by the human eye and brain, the origin of color in materials, color theory in art, and the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (that is, what we commonly refer to simply as light).

Color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[otokage007]

Well I never said the mind transcends the brain, I simply added that video for the atheists. However consciousness is not an illusion, which is the only argument a materialist can give. It's an argument rejected by most scientists studying it.

What you're suggesting is as much of a faith position as what I am, the only difference is that your theory is a complete dead end.

I've been searching for something but I don't find it. Hopefully you have seen it or at least heard it somewhere. It is an experiment where conecting a guy to a computer, (i mean, they put this cables terminated in a vacuum on the forehead and around the head), scientists would send electric stimuli to the guy's brain and made him see diferent colors.

So how exactly do you explain this can happen?

 

[MD]

And I thought we were having an adult conversation here. One can hope I suppose. Light does exist, light causes color the way the brain and eye take it in, I am sure, not my field of study. Color does not just magically exist, you can do some research on it if you actually wanted to, I am strapped for time. There is no way that consciousness exists at the fundamental level, otherwise everything in the universe would at least show signs of being conscious. Go pull up a plant in your back yard and see if it fights you to survive, if it complains, if it gives one single hint of awareness. I can save you time and tell you it will not, otherwise your theory might hold the slightest bit of merit.

I'm sorry but you really do not grasp what I'm talking about with regards to qualia. There seems to be a mental block because of your views, and in that aspect you are no different from a creationist. I know all about rods, cones, rhodopsin, the occipital lobe etc. Again that's not what I'm talking about.

If world renowned neuroscientists struggle to explain color or any other hard problem of consciousness, how can you even claim that it's simple neural activity? And about plants here are some articles which will well show your example to be flawed.

Do Plants Think?: Scientific American
http://www.linv.org/images/about_pdf/Trends 2007 Brenner.pdf#page2
The long, strange quest to detect plant consciousness - Page 5 - Boston.com

If by "faith" you mean accepting something supported by evidence, fact, and logical inference then yes, the poster you quoted has great amounts of faith. I have great faith that the earth is round, based on your apparent definition.

What kind of argument is that? There's 0 evidence that color is caused by our brains. There's ample proof that color is correlated to our brains. The earth has been viewed to be round from space, and initially Magellen proved it through his voyages. What part of 'there is no evidence that colors are created by neurons' don't you understand?