Proud of scientific achievements?

[Polymath257]

Poppel asks how do we know that something reasonable comes out of the network and how an identity is maintained over actions and thoughts?

Well, we have a long history of unreasonable things coming out of the network of the brain. There most certainly is no guarantee that people will have the discipline to actually pursue the truth as opposed to accepting a more pleasant falsehood.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'maintaining an identity over actions and thoughts'. As far as I can see, the fact that animals (like us) tend to maintain bodily integrity gives us an identity and a brain that works well with this for survival will oversee the actions taken. That is what gives a 'sense of identity'.

How do you propose to address the first point? Can a created intelligence determine the truth of its creation? And if the intellect is created how can be ever be proud of its output?

Well, 'created' is a work with a lot of baggage. Can an evolved intelligence determine the truth of its evolution? Sure, why not? The only barrier I can see is whether enough information is preserved to do so. If not, then not. Same with any number of other historical truths.

And I'm not sure why being 'proud' is relevant for truth seeking.

 

[atanu]

Ego self, which is an illusory self, can be proud. Scientist or not, when the truth of ego self is known, pride has to go.

This i is not creator of life-intelligence. Why should it feel proud about anything?

 

[atanu]

Well, we have a long history of unreasonable things coming out of the network of the brain.

Sure. ‘I am this body’ is the primary one.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'maintaining an identity over actions and thoughts'. As far as I can see, the fact that animals (like us) tend to maintain bodily integrity gives us an identity and a brain that works well with this for survival will oversee the actions taken. That is what gives a 'sense of identity'.

Identity is the key data which contains the baggage of memory and all subjective data. If you insist that this is property of matter (as we know it now) you have to demonstrate it.

Well, 'created' is a work with a lot of baggage. Can an evolved intelligence determine the truth of its evolution? Sure, why not? The only barrier I can see is whether enough information is preserved to do so. If not, then not. Same with any number of other historical truths.

What is the difference between ‘God did it’ and ‘Evolution did it’?

Evolved out of what? If there is gold, I can design better and better jewellery. Or I can do it in imagination too. So what is the substance?

And I'm not sure why being 'proud' is relevant for truth seeking.

Ego self is proud (or depressed). Is there an ego self? Where is it?

A lot of aggression that wee see in this forum will vanish if the enquiry “Whence this I?” was undertaken authentically. Humbleness will result from a genuine enquiry about one’s life-intelligence.

A common river of awareness of “I” runs through all. It is not woo. It is empirical and experience of all. If we insist that this “I” is property of a mechanical process, then too we must accept that it is a fundamental aspect of existence.

And if we insist that consciousness is epiphenomena of mechanical processes (unknown) then we must also accept that a created product cannot unravel its truth.

 

[atanu]

How i address the first point? I dont, philosophy is not science.

Thank you. I value and appreciate your directness.

So we have no answer for “how do we know that something reasonable comes out of the network?” within science — at least as of now.

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you. I value and appreciate your directness.

So we have no answer for “how do we know that something reasonable comes out of the network?” within science — at least as of now.

We have no scientific answer because it is not a scientific question. There may be many philosophical answers or guesses.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure. ‘I am this body’ is the primary one.

Well, I was thinking about all beliefs in a supernatural, but OK.

Identity is the key data which contains the baggage of memory and all subjective data. If you insist that this is property of matter (as we know it now) you have to demonstrate it.

I don't think I agree with your first sentence here. Identity is simply a 'sense of self'. Memory is a different aspect. I'm not sure what 'subjective data' even means.

What is the difference between ‘God did it’ and ‘Evolution did it’?

We have evidence that evolution happens.

Evolved out of what? If there is gold, I can design better and better jewellery. Or I can do it in imagination too. So what is the substance?

Evolved from previous life. Humans evolved from earlier apes.

Ego self is proud (or depressed). Is there an ego self? Where is it?

There is an ego (concern for oneself) and there is the perception of self.Where is the program for a running computer?

A lot of aggression that wee see in this forum will vanish if the enquiry “Whence this I?” was undertaken authentically. Humbleness will result from a genuine enquiry about one’s life-intelligence.

I see it as far from clear that searching for the answer to one question will bring humility. People manage to be egotistical no matter what they learn.

A common river of awareness of “I” runs through all. It is not woo. It is empirical and experience of all. If we insist that this “I” is property of a mechanical process, then too we must accept that it is a fundamental aspect of existence.

I'm not sure how that follows. We have a sense of self because our brains evolved to see as as an individual. cats do the same thing.

Why that means it is 'fundamental' isn't clear either. It is an emergent property of some systems of matter. At this point, it is limited to beings that have brains as far as we know.

And if we insist that consciousness is epiphenomena of mechanical processes (unknown) then we must also accept that a created product cannot unravel its truth.

Why would that follow? What information is absent that prevents figuring that out?

 

[atanu]

I am seeking answer to the question raised by Poppel "....how do we know that something reasonable comes out of the network?” I do not see a response to that.

All your responses are standard. We have been discussing these for last many years? (I guess PolyHedral had similar views).

Well, I was thinking about all beliefs in a supernatural, but OK.

We feel "I am" and then see a body (in waking or in dream) and then assume for life that the "I am" is the body. It is the idol worship and supernatural belief.

I don't think I agree with your first sentence here. Identity is simply a 'sense of self'. Memory is a different aspect. I'm not sure what 'subjective data' even means.

Why? The packet of subjective feelings associated with the "I" sense defines a person and directs his thoughts and actions. Where is this data? Where is evidence that neurones possess subjective experiences?

We have evidence that evolution happens.

Yes, I agree. Yet, the whole of space-time is not external to consciousness. There is no space-time separate from the cognising consciousness.

Evolved from previous life. Humans evolved from earlier apes.

And monkey intelligence evolved from? ... And intelligence evolved from chemical molecules?

Where is the evidence?

There is an ego (concern for oneself) and there is the perception of self.Where is the program for a running computer?

Where is the person that has concern for itself?

I see it as far from clear that searching for the answer to one question will bring humility. People manage to be egotistical no matter what they learn.

I cannot debate on this.

I'm not sure how that follows. We have a sense of self because our brains evolved to see as as an individual. cats do the same thing.

Why that means it is 'fundamental' isn't clear either. It is an emergent property of some systems of matter. At this point, it is limited to beings that have brains as far as we know.

There is no evidence of "I am" sense in any inanimate chemicals etc. On the other other hand, a dead body does not display intelligence. So, intelligence is co-lateral with life, which we do not know. Why pretend that we know life-intelligence. This is the lack of humility -- inability to acknowledge "We do not know".

Why would that follow? What information is absent that prevents figuring that out?

Common sense, of course. Does anyone expect Harry Potter to know its creator J.K. Rowling? Does a building understand its architect? ......

But there is a proof in the Incompleteness Theorem, wherefrom Godel himself drew the following corollary:

So the following disjunctive conclusion is inevitable: Either mathematics is incompletable in this sense, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems of the type specified . . . (Gödel 1995: 310).

That is, his result shows that either (i) the human mind is not a Turing machine or (ii) there are certain unsolvable mathematical problems. ​

https://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/#H4

 

[Polymath257]

I am seeking answer to the question raised by Poppel "....how do we know that something reasonable comes out of the network?” I do not see a response to that.

Well, it comes about through training and hard work to get over the evolved mistakes of reasoning that tend to be ingrained.

All your responses are standard. We have been discussing these for last many years? (I guess PolyHedral had similar views).

We feel "I am" and then see a body (in waking or in dream) and then assume for life that the "I am" is the body. It is the idol worship and supernatural belief.

OK, truthfully, I cannot see the obsession with the 'I am' aspect of things. To me, it seems absolutely trivial. I identify myself.

Why? The packet of subjective feelings associated with the "I" sense defines a person and directs his thoughts and actions. Where is this data? Where is evidence that neurones possess subjective experiences?

Plenty of data on how the brain works, on anesthesia, on sleep, etc.

Yes, I agree. Yet, the whole of space-time is not external to consciousness. There is no space-time separate from the cognising consciousness.

Sure there is. MOST of spacetime is separated from consciousness. Everything that we know to be conscious is on the Earth, which is an incredibly small piece of spacetime.

And monkey intelligence evolved from? ... And intelligence evolved from chemical molecules?

Well, we get into definitional issues. Are bacteria intelligent? I would say not and so intelligence developed long after life got started.

Where is the evidence?

For which? That we evolved from other apes? That primates evolved from other mammals? That mammals evolved from certain reptiles? If you are really interested, I can point you to books that cover this.

Where is the person that has concern for itself?

Well, even bacteria maintain internal state and 'act' to do so. But the term 'concern' implies a type of higher functioning that probably doens't exist until the vertebrates.

I cannot debate on this.

There is no evidence of "I am" sense in any inanimate chemicals etc. On the other other hand, a dead body does not display intelligence. So, intelligence is co-lateral with life, which we do not know. Why pretend that we know life-intelligence. This is the lack of humility -- inability to acknowledge "We do not know".

Self-reflection is a state that is fairly far advanced in how the brains work. But, for example, it is clear than many mammals have this.

I have no idea what you mean by the term 'life-intelligence'. Life and intelligence are different things.

Common sense, of course. Does anyone expect Harry Potter to know its creator J.K. Rowling? Does a building understand its architect? ......

Neither understands anything. One is fiction and the other doesn't have intelligence. We do, so that is a false analogy.

But there is a proof in the Incompleteness Theorem, wherefrom Godel himself drew the following corollary:

So the following disjunctive conclusion is inevitable: Either mathematics is incompletable in this sense, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems of the type specified . . . (Gödel 1995: 310).

That is, his result shows that either (i) the human mind is not a Turing machine or (ii) there are certain unsolvable mathematical problems. ​

https://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/#H4

Yes, so there are mathematical problems humans will never solve. That's pretty obvious, truthfully. I'm also not 100% sure that a Turing machine is an appropriate model for even a computer interacting with an external world. But that is a more technical discussion.

 

[ecco]

This i is not creator of life-intelligence. Why should it feel proud about anything?

I guess you don't have any kids.

This I is creator of life-intelligence. I have two kids.

 

[atanu]

Well, it comes about through training and hard work to get over the evolved mistakes of reasoning that tend to be ingrained.

Well. That is the question. How crewe sure that neuronal activities enable us for reasoning? There is no evidence that neurones or their activities are wise or intelligent.

OTOH, I know that you are wise. But I ascribe that wisdom to consciousness being the very fabric of the existence. It passes the Occam's razor test most elegantly.