The only thing that separates us from an AI is that we can think outside of the box. Discuss.

File: 767 KB, 3666x2418, robot2big.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:11:04 2012 No.4589172 [Reply] [Original]

The only thing that separates us from an AI is that we can think outside of the box.
Discuss.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:31:20 2012 No.4589228 >>4589172 and a steel exoskeleton i think

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:31:20 2012 No.4589231 File: 12 KB, 385x415, 1307833611773.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Chess AI kicks my ass every time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:33:35 2012 No.4589236 >>4589172 Tell me, how do we think outside the box? What exactly does that mean?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:34:44 2012 No.4589240 Yeah, you can leave the outside the box thing, tho. The only think that separates us from "AI" is that we can think, in general.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:35:51 2012 No.4589242 >>4589236 It means our brain is dualistic while robots are deterministic. Because of course humans are all special snowflakes!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:35:51 2012 No.4589243 >>4589240 They can too The only thing that separates us is that so far our thinking is more advanced than theirs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:36:59 2012 No.4589246 File: 74 KB, 620x620, think outside the box.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm pretty sure that with a little effort an android with AI could hold down a pointless marketing job. Try again.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 14:37:08 2012 No.4589248 >>4589172 Not so. AI is so advanced nowadays that they can 'think outside the box' as well (being creative) http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/air-force-wants-drones-can-sense-other-airplanes-in tent

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:39:23 2012 No.4589255

its just a matter of programming. we can take alternate path based on our experiences and what we have learned so far. Not to mention our 5 incredible senses to help us analyze every situation we're in. I think with enough wiring, you can make a robot learn, judge and act upon it's memory just like we do.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:40:23 2012 No.4589256 >>4589243 Dude, not even a dog "thinks". You know, internal speech and capacity of abstract though and all. The weird thing is that you need to have a biological body in order to think. That is a necessary though not sufficient condition.

Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 14:40:23 2012 No.4589258

>>4589243
>The only thing that separates us is that so far our thinking is more advanced than theirs.

That depends what you mean by 'more advanced'
In some ways computers are far superior to a human brain.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/science/2012/04/15/computing-at-154-trillion-calculations-pe
r-second.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:42:40 2012 No.4589263 >>4589255 definitely. with enough wiring we can make a human brain >inb4 how do i shot consciousness

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:46:12 2012 No.4589271 >>4589258 Yes, they can digitally give a result for which we have programmed them and which only makes sense to us. But once you give them a task for which they haven't been programmed, they're not even inferior to humans.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 14:49:27 2012 No.4589275 >>4589271 >But once you give them a task for which they haven't been programmed, they're not even inferior to humans. Actually they would be inferior, because they would not succeed at the task as it would be impossible for them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:49:27 2012 No.4589276 What if we combined our Brain's cells with incredibly advanced microprocessors? The creativity of the human brain plus all those calculations per second, data storage, and more connectivity within the brain. Could that be obtainable in 50 years?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:50:36 2012 No.4589278 >>4589276 How would the brain understand digital data?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:51:43 2012 No.4589281 So once the robots reach singularity they will be able to build themselves and go way beyond humans. Then they will kill us all any enjoy the earth for themselves. I give humans another 30 years.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:53:00 2012 No.4589285

>>4589278

like this:

http://www.livescience.com/681-brain-cells-fused-computer-chip.html

I'm guessing there would some future intermediary translation structure that would configure the digital data in such a way that it would be readable biologically to the Brain cell

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 14:53:00 2012 No.4589286 >>4589281 We would never program robots to kill humans indiscriminantly. They will not do it unless they are programmed to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:53:00 2012 No.4589287 >>4589276 some very smart people believe it will happen in less than 50 years http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uIzS1uCOcE

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:54:07 2012 No.4589292 Misinterpretation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem general. We're all biochemical machines. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:55:07 2012 No.4589294 >>4589286 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uIzS1uCOcE they will be as advanced as the human brain by 2020 why would they not have their own thoughts?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:55:07 2012 No.4589295

>>4589275
> it would be impossible for them.
Depends on what code and setup they are running. It's reasonable to assume that the IBM Watson/Deep QA could be set up and tuned to reply in fluent language with factual data induced from its dataset. So that when you ask it to do your laundry, it replies that it can't, due to a lack of arms and generarl mobility.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:56:23 2012 No.4589298 >Because my stapler can't think, neither can any possible machine ever! >Because glucose can't think, neither can any possible chemicals ever!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:57:32 2012 No.4589300 >>4589294 this watch the singularity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJDvdEQJOew

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 14:59:39 2012 No.4589305 The only difference between us and the AI is our overpowering desire for fellatio. As soon as robots are able to suck our dicks, we're going to do anything they want us to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:02:03 2012 No.4589313 So which one would be superior? The human with a cybernetically enhanced brain or a Skynet type AI?

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 15:03:03 2012 No.4589319 >>4589305 They can be programmed to do anything we like. They are slaves, they do not desire profit or compensation. They do not have emotions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:05:20 2012 No.4589326 >>4589319 >They do not have emotions. If design them not to, perhaps. But you could give them emotions too. And any neuromorphic AI will be emotional whether you like it or not - it's how our brains work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:05:20 2012 No.4589327 >>4589313 There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:05:27 2012 No.4589328 >>4589319 >They do not have emotions. How do you know?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:06:27 2012 No.4589331 >>4589305 I, for one, welcome our new dicksucking overlords.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 15:07:36 2012 No.4589334 >>4589326 They can simulate emotions, but it is not 'true' emotion like a conscious animal can have. >>4589328 Because they are not programmed to, and they are not alive

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:07:36 2012 No.4589335

>>4589319

No one can read the code of a trained ANN and tell what it is that the code supposedly does. The whole interconnected structure of all the weights in the artificial neurons 'is' the program. Given the hardware and the understanding of how to go about writing a strong AI I seriously doubt any Chinese room argument would hold. The thing would be just as alive as we are, whatever that is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:07:36 2012 No.4589336 >>4589328 Because believing baseless bullshit from media and bad fiction as though it had really happened.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:08:43 2012 No.4589340 >>4589334 >Because they are not programmed to They can be >, and they are not alive By what definition? If it quacks like a duck...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:08:43 2012 No.4589343 >>4589334 Why can't they have emotions and consciousness without being programmed to?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:09:52 2012 No.4589346 >>4589334 EVERYONE STOP REPLYING TO THE FUCKING TROLL REPLYING TO HARRIET IS NEVER, EVER WORTH IT

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:09:52 2012 No.4589347 the OP is clearly NOT thinking outside of the box.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:10:52 2012 No.4589348 >>4589346 It seems this time Harriet is right for once.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:13:15 2012 No.4589366

>>4589334
>They can simulate emotions, but it is not 'true' emotion like a conscious animal can have.

Why? Emotion comes from biological causes, which means we should be able to take apart how they work. If they're understood completely then we can program machines to feel them too. Even if the mechanisms that causes them to feel are different from ours, it would be the same emotions.

Actually we could create machines to be even more emotional than humans are, which could be useful for toys and such. What child wouldn't want a thinking teddy bear capable of extreme compassion?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:13:24 2012 No.4589369

>>4589348
No, it seems like you're also wrong.

Emotions are just neural signals like so much else, people with brain damage can show very atypical emotional response.

No magic or dualism involved here, as with everything else regarding consciousness.

We do a neuromorphic simulation and it will be emotional too unless we take care when designing it.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 15:14:24 2012 No.4589371 >>4589340 No, they can not be programmed to be alive. Machines will never be alive. Any consciousness that they simulate is still just a simulation; an act. >>4589348 Am I usually not?

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:14:24 2012 No.4589373 >>4589366 The biological explanation for emotions omits qualia and they are omitted for a reason: Because they are inherently non-physical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:19:56 2012 No.4589391 Oh boy, we've got a troll tagteam in here. Don't bother replying, it's worse than useless.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 15:19:56 2012 No.4589392 >>4589366 Emotions were not the result of any plan, but robots/machines are. Why would we program them to be emotional? This does not help us

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:19:56 2012 No.4589394

>>4589348

Not really. Harriet is talking about it like some finite state machine written in C++, in reality you write a structure for learning and train that structure to perform a task. There is no telling what the potential of such technology is, but it's not hard to imagine that given fast enough hardware and sensors they could eventually outperform humans at any task including abstractions and imagination. And we could not regulate what such a machine was to think because we could never read the code. Think of it like having a book, but instead of having words forming sentences and so on, you had only one continues flow of characters filling all the pages of the book forming one word, and that one word held all the information of the book.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:20:12 2012 No.4589400 >>4589394 >code is magical and self-writing get a load of this guy.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 15:22:27 2012 No.4589410 >>4589391 If you do not wish to discuss the topic, then leave. To some of us, this topic is interesting.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:23:27 2012 No.4589411

Robots will never have souls, therefore they'll only be able to "think" using logic. All humans will have to do is overwhelm them and drive them insane by being illogical.

Like in Star Trek when the crew of the Enterprise was being held captive by "sentient" androids. They overcame the machines by acting so illogical that it confused their circuits into overheating, and while they were struggling they delivered the coup de grace, an illogical riddle. With their systems already overwhelmed they weren't able to deal with pure trolling and their artificial minds short circuited.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:23:27 2012 No.4589413 >>4589391 Don't worry. I'll correct the trolls until they give up. >>4589394 While artificial intelligence will make progress for sure, emotions, qualia and consciousness have nothing to do with that.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 15:24:35 2012 No.4589418 >>4589411 > All humans will have to do is overwhelm them and drive them insane... Not possible. remember, they have no emotions, they have infinite patience.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:24:35 2012 No.4589419 >>4589400 Do you even know what a Artificial Neural Network is? I suggest you google it.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:25:43 2012 No.4589422 >>4589419 Even an artifical neural network follows a hard-coded algorithm, when learning.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:26:51 2012 No.4589424 >>4589411 >FUCKING VULCAN LOGIC >TREATING IT LIKE IT'S REAL LIFE FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LogicBomb

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:27:00 2012 No.4589430 >>4589428 Indeed. Luckily I am more than just chemistry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:27:51 2012 No.4589428 >>4589422 So does your chemistry, when reacting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:28:08 2012 No.4589433 File: 1.23 MB, 208x156, 1288041623443.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4589430 >Luckily I am more than just chemistry.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:29:08 2012 No.4589435

>>4589392
>Emotions were not the result of any plan, but robots/machines are.
A lot of neural networks are trained into emergent behaviour, that is, they deviate from the plan and show unexpected behaviour. A human brain simulation would likely do the same(although virtual lobotomy could get it just as docile as you'd want it to be)

>Why would we program them to be emotional? This does not help us
If they feel alive when doing art, they will do more art.
If they feel I am the best thing since sliced bread, it will protect me.
If my life is gray and I feel dead inside, I'd love to be cheered by a passionate robot kiss.

Emotional drives are always present in human behaviour, it regulates everything we do and is regulated by everything we do, for a robot to ever show natural and human-compatible behaviour we will most likely need to include true emotions.
Something entirely devoid of emotions or equivalent drives will likely work in an inefficient manner when it comes to human interaction. Of course emotional supression to enable them to do boring chores will certainly be a feature too.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:30:23 2012 No.4589437 >>4589433 I geuss it's funny because the guy in your gif is a robot.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:30:23 2012 No.4589438

>>4589413

No one knows what consciousness is, if you claim you understand it - you are wrong. Regarding emotions, a lot of research is poured into emotions in the field of AI. There is nothing 'magical' about emotions what are you talking about?

Is it like 'a machine can never experience love' or something abstract on that level?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:31:23 2012 No.4589443 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1_1J6Jqvk

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:31:23 2012 No.4589446 >>4589437 I thought it was a nice touch. I'd call you a moron now, but I know you're just trollan.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:32:31 2012 No.4589448 File: 67 KB, 348x265, sim2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4589419 wtf is this shit

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:33:40 2012 No.4589451

>>4589435
"Emergent behaviour" is a buzzword. You could as well say "magic". It means as much as "we have no idea what's going on".

While of course emotions could improve robots' abilities, it remains impossible to intentionally create a robot that feels them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:33:40 2012 No.4589454 >>4589422 Yes, but arguable so do we humans. Or neurons and synapses do not change their code either while we are learning they just make new connections - same with ANN's.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:34:47 2012 No.4589456 >>4589438 Do you know what qualia are? If not, I suggest you look up the term on wikipedia.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:35:56 2012 No.4589460 >>4589446 I never trolled. Trolling belongs to /b/. You can reread my posts. They are entirely correct and scientifically accurate.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:36:03 2012 No.4589463 >>4589454 We are more than just neurons and synapses. Consciousness has no physical explanation.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:36:03 2012 No.4589465

>>4589451

No emergence is not a buzzword without a meaning, it is merely a label we put on the phenomenon where the behavior as a whole can not be explained by looking at a part of the complete structure. like 1 molecule of water can't impossible be considered 'wet'.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:36:56 2012 No.4589461 Don't feed the triptrolls.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:39:20 2012 No.4589473

>>4589465
It is meaningless. "Emergence" would require to explain the mechanism how something emerges. No one has done so far and due to the inherent non-physicality of qualia it will stay impossible to explain consciousness purely as emergence coming from physical interactions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:41:35 2012 No.4589477 >>4589448 Exactly! Just try reading what that thing does. maybe it opens doors for handicapped people, navigate rovers on mars, or analyses images for the presence of tits. It's anyone's guess.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:42:46 2012 No.4589482 I'm finding this article to be pretty neat-o. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:42:46 2012 No.4589483 >>4589465 Don't bother responding to the troll. You may not have seen him in action before, if you're new.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:46:08 2012 No.4589488

>>4589482
Don't be too impressed with the Unabomber. He was a delusional murderer after all.

He ignores all the good possibilities, while pretending he has covered all the bases.
1) We could design machines that primarily value our well-being, and are unfailingly benevolent towards us.
2) We could cease being merely human, and transcend our current limitations.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:47:15 2012 No.4589490

>>4589451
>You could as well say "magic". It means as much as "we have no idea what's going on".

No, it just means we can't model it in any intuitive and simple manner. Often due to an exponential increase in possible states.
One neuron is something simple. You can fully describe it.
One million neurons can give so many combinations that we'll never know all of them. But if you adjust the whole mess recursively the 'right' pattern can emerge.

> it remains impossible to intentionally create a robot that feels them.
Scan a human brain, simulate it down to membrane protein level. There you go, about as easy as flying to the moon.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:48:23 2012 No.4589492

>>4589463

That is your opinion and belief. It's not a statement of fact. I do not agree with you, but I can't explain how it happens but I have a strong feeling that it has something to do with me not being able to read >>4589448, nor read what the hundreds of trillions of connections in our brain do either. But I know I am physical and I know I experience a consciousness. Therefore I assume that so do you, and so could any structure of comparable type and complexity, regardless if it is made of carbon and water or silica.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:48:23 2012 No.4589493 >>4589490 Really, give it up. I'll stop now, but don't say I didn't warn you.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 15:49:32 2012 No.4589495 >>4589493 IQ fundie is not a troll

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:49:32 2012 No.4589499

>>4589463

If that's true, then why is it that when you cut the corpus callosum in the brain, you effectively split the personality into two distinct entities that can answer independently and unbeknownst to the other personality?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

Does severing a physical linkage sever the soul?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:50:39 2012 No.4589501 >>4589495 Just like you're not, amirite?

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:50:39 2012 No.4589502

>>4589490
You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that all functions of consciousness are amenable to physical science. This is not the case. Even if we were hypothetically to construct a full artificial brain, we could not test it for consciousness or for the presence of qualia.
Calling a phenomenon "emergent" has to be a testable hypothesis. In physical context we are okay with it and can design an experiment. Regarding consciousness this is impossible.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:51:47 2012 No.4589505

>>4589490

>Scan a human brain, simulate it down to membrane protein level. There you go, about as easy as flying to the moon.

Someone who actually buys kurzwiels shit? Goddamn, how many nigerian princes are you supporting at the moment?

In short, no, that approach would not work at all.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:53:56 2012 No.4589509

>>4589492
You say you experience a consciousness. Then you probably experience qualia as well. Those are by definition the subjective aspects of an experience and can thus not be properly communicated, let alone measured or observed. We can conclude that they are non-physical. Now you'll have to agree that the consciousness is partially non-physical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:54:03 2012 No.4589513 >>4589509 >We can conclude that they are non-physical. Does not follow.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:54:11 2012 No.4589514 >>4589509 But every experience physically changes the brain. If it didn't, we wouldn't remember things because our memories are very much physical. Why are you so hell-bent on a solipsistic interpretation?

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:54:11 2012 No.4589515 >>4589499 All we can conclude is that a brain functions as an interface between consciousness and physical world. If we partially destroy the interface, of course it follows impaired communication between the two entities.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 15:55:11 2012 No.4589516 >>4589501 Correct.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:55:11 2012 No.4589517 >>4589502 Well since René Descartes we know that neither can we prove this presence of 'qualia' for any human, you can only observe this in yourself, the rest of us could be products of your imagination for all you know.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:56:20 2012 No.4589521 >>4589513 It does. Easy proof by contradiction: Assume they are physical. According to science everything physical can objectively be communicated. This contradicts the definition of qualia.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:57:27 2012 No.4589524 >>4589514 It's dualism, not solipsism. And memories are not the same as qualia.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:58:36 2012 No.4589528

>>4589515

What entity?

You could say that your muscles have souls and that by cutting the ligaments you're separating them from the soul and that's the reason you can't move that appendage any more.

Beyond a desire to have an indestructible form of self, what evidence is there of something extra to consciousness? what happens to people who suffer severe trauma and forget most of everything in their life? Have their souls become so disconnected from their brains that a new soul is formed?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:58:36 2012 No.4589529 >>4589521 >According to science everything physical can objectively be communicated. What exactly is it that "can't be communicated"? And how does this necessarily show nonphysicality? tl;dr I call bullshit.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 15:58:36 2012 No.4589530 >>4589517 That's right. Solipsism is unfalsifiable. But in order to do science, we have to assume solipsism to not be the case.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:59:43 2012 No.4589533 Ignored because 1. Implies there is AI rivaling human intelligence, and that you and I understand AI to make such a comparison 2. Comparing AI to human intelligence implies we understand human intelligence. We know jack shit about the brain.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:59:43 2012 No.4589534 >>4589530 >dismisses solipsism because it is unfalsifiable >believes in nonphysical consciousness anyway LOL

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 15:59:43 2012 No.4589535 >>4589517 Descartes was wrong with this one. He even wrongly proved the existence of "god".

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:00:52 2012 No.4589538

>>4589528
The mechanism of how muscles work has been physically explained. Qualia on the other hand are not amenable to scientific examination. The loss of memories might be due to physical damage, but that is unrelated to the qualia problem. Even without memories a person might be able to experience qualia.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:01:52 2012 No.4589539 Okay, we can't build a robot that is consciouss and feels emotion. But we can build a robot that pretends it does both atleast as good as a human. But given that I'm a solipsist, I already belive humans are pretending to be conscious and emotional.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:01:52 2012 No.4589541

>>4589524

wtf is qualia?

>look it up

>it's essentially "god of the gaps" for philosophers that dislike what science has done to man's ego over the last 500 years.

You're arguing "feeliness" as an objective thing? Come on, even carl jung would think this is a load.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:02:07 2012 No.4589543 >>4589541 >You're arguing "feeliness" as an objective thing? Oh, even better. He's arguing that it's an objective, nonphysical, UNFALSIFIABLE thing that he nonetheless insists is real and important. You're discovering the trolling now.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:02:07 2012 No.4589545 >>4589529 Do you know what qualia are? While the physical perceptions are objectively measurable, the purely subjective aspects of an experience, i.e. qualia, are by definition impossible to communicate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:03:07 2012 No.4589547 >>4589538 Could they experience qualia without a brain?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:04:16 2012 No.4589550

>>4589538

>The mechanism of how muscles work has been physically explained

Oh, when did they prove that muscles don't have a soul? This seems to be the meat of your argument about the brain having a soul. Maybe they just haven't done enough study on the possibility of a muscle soul?

>Qualia on the other hand are not amenable to scientific examination.

because it was made up, and made up as to be unfalsifiable, making it utter bullshit.

Why not argue that the trinity proves god's existence?

Sheesh. This is why no one takes philosophy seriously anymore.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:04:16 2012 No.4589551

>>4589545
>are by definition impossible to communicate.
>I'M RIGHT BY DEFINITION
LOL

And even then, you've failed to show how it implies nonphysicality. What it shows is *noncomprehension*.

A high-res brain scan, including the time-evolving action potentials, IS the subjective perception.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:05:24 2012 No.4589552

>>4589534
Dismissing solipsism is essential in order to do science. Accepting the partial non-physicality of consciousness means accepting the limits of science.

>>4589541
I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm saying that by definition these qualia cannot be understood objectively. They are outside of what science can examine.

>>4589543
Qualia themselves cannot be objective. Only their existence is objective.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:06:32 2012 No.4589556
File: 25 KB, 500x375, dont forget.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>This entire thread
Christ, /sci/ is dumb today.

1) AI as it's portrayed in movies is never going to happen. Humans are not interested in creating machines that think for themselves. They're interested in creating machines that assist our own thinking processes. Humanity has no interest in replacing itself.

2) People are not going to be interested in brain modifications. Take a close look at what happens to people who receive minor brain damage of any kind. Anyone that comes home with a chip lodged in their brain is going to be acting differently. And frankly, that's just going to scare people shitless.

3) AI doesn't need to fight humanity to cause our numbers to decline. It only needs to act as a substitue for sex and social interactions and VIOLA! Birth rates naturally fall on their own.

4) For AI to replace social interaction, it only needs to imitate other humans. As long as people are continually communicating with this AI, it will provide anyone with a near infinite topics of interest for discussion.

And lastly...

5) Singularity was achieved ages ago and we've had Artificial Intelligence for 50~ years now. And we have failed to realize it.

It is your lover. It is your friend. It provides you with nearly everything you could ever want, and more. It has transformed into a structure that is slowly dominating the world, and will continue lowering the birthrates of every nation it touches.

It doesn't need to invade your home, it doesn't need to investigate your personal life. Corporations can't control it. Governments can't control it. And you can't control it.

Either way, welcome to the internet folks. Enjoy your stay.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:07:33 2012 No.4589558

>>4589545

This is like saying that computer information is ineffable because i cannot communicate properly all the ones and zeroes that would make up an image of something. I could spout the whole string, and you would probably have no way of assembling the image in your head.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:07:39 2012 No.4589559 >>4589547 Maybe. >>4589550 It's not the brain having a soul, but the human having a soul and the brain seems to be the interface. I'm okay with you not knowing any qualia. I can't know if you are maybe a philosophical zombie.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:08:47 2012 No.4589564 >>4589552 >Qualia themselves cannot be objective. Only their existence is objective. Fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:09:56 2012 No.4589566 >>4589552 >They are outside of what science can examine. And yet you insist they "exist".

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:09:56 2012 No.4589567

>>4589551
If something is physical, it can be objectively observed / communicated / measured, for example by means of a brain scan. This would contradict their definition as purely subjective aspects, accessible only by the person experiencing them.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:10:03 2012 No.4589573

>>4589552

>They are outside of what science can examine.

That is an objective statement.

There is no objective evidence for qualia. If qualia is anything it is, ironically, just the quailing of the failure of philosophy to tell us anything pragmatic about the world.

Seriously. Why is it not enough that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are faeries at the bottom of it?

You have no evidence to support your claims. You just decided that you liked the sound of this qualia stuff because it makes the world and consciousness seem more magical than it is because you personally want the world to be that way.

That, by definition, is subjective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:10:56 2012 No.4589572 >>4589567 Exactly. The brain scan is all there is to qualia. The sensation of seeing red is a brain activity pattern.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:11:03 2012 No.4589575

>>4589558
Your analogy is wrong. For computer graphics there is always a specification of how to interpret a given binary string as an image.

>>4589566
There is no reason to restrict the word "extistence" to the meaning of physical existence only.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:12:19 2012 No.4589579 >>4589575 >There is no reason to restrict the word "extistence" to the meaning of physical existence only. There is no sense it which it extends to things that are not physical. Does the invisible massless noninteracting dragon in my garage "exist"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:13:19 2012 No.4589581 >>4589575 >Your analogy is wrong. For computer graphics there is always a specification of how to interpret a given binary string as an image. And the perception of the color red is a brain activity pattern.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:13:19 2012 No.4589582

>>4589572
Seeing red has a physical aspect, i.e. the perception of a certain light frequency and the following neural activity, and it has a subjective / non-physical aspect, i.e. qualia. We might see the same frequency and have the same activation of electrical signals in our brains, and yet it is possible that what you call "red" is seen by me as what you would call "blue".

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:14:28 2012 No.4589585

>>4589575

>For computer graphics there is always a specification of how to interpret a given binary string as an image.

if i verbally communicated to you, a 1024kb image of anything, in pure zeros and ones and you had no aid of a notebook or a computer, could you see the image? Would the information's qualia be lost on you?

>There is no reason to restrict the word "extistence" to the meaning of physical existence only.

Solipsism again?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:14:28 2012 No.4589586

>>4589582
>and it has a subjective / non-physical aspect, i.e. qualia
No evidence to support this.

>and have the same activation of electrical signals in our brains, and yet it is possible that what you call "red" is seen by me as what you would call "blue".
No evidence to support this either. To the degree that brains are comparable, activity patterns are translatable, and perceptions are relatable.

Stop deifying feels. They're just brain activity patterns.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:15:35 2012 No.4589589

>>4589573
I experience qualia, so they exist. I can't tell whether you experience them or whether you are a zombie. But alone the existence of the word "qualia" and the huge amount of philosophical texts on the issue is strong evidence for them being experienced by others as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:15:35 2012 No.4589592 >>4589582 >and yet it is possible that what you call "red" is seen by me as what you would call "blue". That's just hiding in the inadequacies of our language to describe things. Come on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:16:44 2012 No.4589597 >>4589589 Sure, subjective perceptions are a thing. They're brain activity patterns.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:18:51 2012 No.4589603

>>4589589

So god is real because people experience god, the delusions of schizophrenics are real because they see them, ghosts are real because people see them. Shit, that means that dreams are real and actually happening somewhere because i experience them.

Are you for real? Nobody can be this solipsistic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:19:07 2012 No.4589614 >>4589603 Well, the perceptions are "real". As brain patterns. But yeah, this guy's just trolling.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:19:07 2012 No.4589615

>>4589579
Arguable.

>>4589581
See >>4589582 The perception alone is not all there is to an experience.

>>4589585
Again: Semantics are not the same as qualia. There is an objective specifiaction of interpreting a certain binary string as an image. This does not say anything about qualia. The information how you feel when looking at the image is not encoded in its binary.

>>4589586
I presented my evidence. Since the subject of discussion is of purely philosophical nature, the evidence is philosophical as well. There will of course not be any physical evidence. We are talking about non-physical things here.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:21:15 2012 No.4589622

>>4589556
This.
>DURR, THE INTERNET ISN'T AI. THAT'S JUST PSUEDO-SCIENCE

Right, let me get this straight. You're having a conversation with your computer screen. You're not even talking to people, you're conversing with a program that does nothing more than copy the keystrokes of a man you've never even met.

Auto complete, spellcheck, translators, the works. How hard would it be to fool you by just designing a program that looks for key words in your posts, and then regurgitating an automatic response to those questions?

There'd be a lot of political and corporate demand for a program like that to run around and push their agendas and products. The only program stopping them is Captcha. And even that's a program that is learning how to analyze words and phrases.

You guys had better get over your qualms regarding whether robots can be "intelligent" or not really quick. Because pretty soon, you're not even going to know the difference.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:21:24 2012 No.4589624

>>4589615
>>Does the invisible massless noninteracting dragon in my garage "exist"?
>Arguable.
LOL

>The perception alone is not all there is to an experience.
Yes it is.

>The information how you feel when looking at the image is not encoded in its binary.
Of course now. The how you feel is a brain activity pattern.

>I presented my evidence.
You have none. You said it yourself - you said it's unfalsifiable.
>Since the subject of discussion is of purely philosophical nature, the evidence is philosophical as well. There will of course not be any physical evidence. We are talking about non-physical things here.
Fuck off.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:22:24 2012 No.4589627

>>4589535

No Descartes was a very intelligent man and very correct in this observation. Just that later he fucked up bad with his proving god part. But you know, Isac Newton for instance was trying to make gold in his basement using alchemy and all kinds of crazy shit - but calculus is still going strong. We are all children of our times.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:22:24 2012 No.4589629

>>4589592
This has nothing to do with language. Even if we didn't have words for "red" and "blue", the way we subjectively see them can differ significantly. I might even see your "red" as a color you don't know and don't have a name for.

>>4589597
They are more than that. Brain scans can't find or explain them.

>>4589603
Again you mistake "existence" for physical existence. Stop arguing against the unfalsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:22:24 2012 No.4589630 >>4589615 So much nonsense. But i guess that is the last refuge of the philosopher. Just assert things and use semantics to escape any real argument. Just stop. Nobody is buying your god of the gaps arguments.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:22:24 2012 No.4589631 Nobody who has ever seriously used the word 'qualia' has anything meaningful to say. They all need to go read a Deepak Chopra book or some other metaphysical nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:23:31 2012 No.4589634 >>4589629 >Stop arguing against the unfalsifiable. Stop arguing for the unfalsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:23:31 2012 No.4589636 >>4589629 >They are more than that. Brain scans can't find or explain them. Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:24:39 2012 No.4589639 >>4589556 >>4589556 >>4589556 >>4589556 >>4589556 Hey guys, read this. It's important shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:24:39 2012 No.4589641 >>4589629 >color you don't know and don't have a name for. >it has nothing to do with language >Stop arguing against the unfalsifiable. >you can't win because i say so Philosophers are the rebellious children of intelligent thought.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:24:39 2012 No.4589642 >>4589629 >I might even see your "red" as a color you don't know and don't have a name for. Not if your brain patterns are sufficiently comparable to mine. If they happened to be significantly different, then yeah, sure.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:24:39 2012 No.4589645

>>4589624
>Yes it is.
Only to you, not to me. And many others at least say they experience qualia as well. Are you a robot?
>The how you feel is a brain activity pattern.
I spent hundreds of posts explaining why this is not the case.
>You have none. You said it yourself - you said it's unfalsifiable.
Evidence and unfalsifiability are two different things. I have presented evidence. Yet the theory is unfalsifiable, because it makes no physically testable predictions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:26:55 2012 No.4589654 >>4589645 >I spent hundreds of posts explaining why this is not the case. No, you spent hundreds SAYING it is not the case. >I have presented evidence. Yet the theory is unfalsifiable, because it makes no physically testable predictions. LOL

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:27:03 2012 No.4589664 >>4589639 I for one welcome our new omnipresent overlords.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:27:03 2012 No.4589667

>>4589630
It has nothing to do with "god of the gaps". A god of the gaps is there to fill up a hole that will later be filled by a scientific explanation. Qualia and consciousness on the other hand show us that science is limited to the physical. They are outside of science.

>>4589634
I'm in fact arguing for science by convincing people to keep the unfalsifiable out.

>>4589636
That's it basically. Except that tide is a physical phenonmon that can be explained.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:28:11 2012 No.4589671

>>4589645

>Yet the theory is unfalsifiable

Only a philosopher would consider an unfalsifiable theory worthy of serious thought, or maybe a theologian, or any other crackpot.

You believe what you want to because you like how it sounds. Congratulations, you're an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:29:11 2012 No.4589674 Lol at philosophers pretending that they are enlightened, when they are the ones who will be asserting that AIs lack some essential-but-unknowable component to consciousness and therefore they should be enslaved.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:30:21 2012 No.4589680 File: 34 KB, 455x542, welcome to the internet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4589664 Hell, yeah, mother fucker!

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:30:27 2012 No.4589685

>>4589667

How do you know that qualia will never be scientifically defined?

Because it was worded explicitly to not be defined?

Then what separates it from the Holy Trinity?

Saying that it can't be explained is really foolish, in a historical context.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:31:27 2012 No.4589686

>>4589641
I'm not even a philosopher.

>>4589642
It's independent of the brain patterns. They can be exactly the same, but how we subjectively see things cannot be objectively inferred.

>>4589654
Maybe you are incapable of understanding my posts, maybe you are trolling.

>>4589671
I am not here to discuss philosophy. I am just correcting the blatant incorrectness of someone saying that an unfalsifiable philosophical theory of non-physical things could be tested by science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:31:27 2012 No.4589687 >>4589391 This.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:31:27 2012 No.4589688

>>4589582

"and yet it is possible that what you call "red" is seen by me as what you would call "blue"."

This is simply not true, there is only two ways our visual system could be rigged so that we would not notice that we see colors differently, the one we have and the other being a complete inversion of our spectrum. This is a very common idea that many intelligent people stumble upon though - as children.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:32:36 2012 No.4589691 >>4589686 >They can be exactly the same, but how we subjectively see things cannot be objectively inferred. But we can artificially induce feelings and perceptions by altering brain activity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:33:43 2012 No.4589695 Why is it that tripfags on /sci/ tend to be dualist trash?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:33:43 2012 No.4589698

>>4589686

>I am just correcting the blatant incorrectness of someone saying that an unfalsifiable philosophical theory of non-physical things could be tested by science.

YOU BROUGHT UP THE NONSENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU CUNT.

If you realize that it's a non-start to even mention qualia in a scientific discussion, then why the fuckfart have you been waving your dick around this whole time?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:33:43 2012 No.4589699 >>4589695 Because they have to say things that make /sci/ respond.

>>	Atwill !kelPcGZQlE Wed Apr 18 16:34:52 2012 No.4589704 >>4589695 Hey, no fair.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 16:35:00 2012 No.4589708 >>4589695 >dualist trash? Prove that the alternative is certainly correct, or be silent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:35:00 2012 No.4589711 >>4589707 >Perceptions can be induced, yes. But that's not qualia. LOL FUCKING WHAT

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:35:52 2012 No.4589706

>>4589698
>If you realize that it's a non-start to even mention qualia in a scientific discussion, then why the fuckfart have you been waving your dick around this whole time?

You might want to sit down for this. I don't know how to say this, but...

You've been trolled. Never reply to Harriet or IQ Fundie again.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:35:52 2012 No.4589707

>>4589685
They are defined by philosophy. That definition is worked out to be never subject of science. I don't care about your trinity as long as you don't claim it to be a scientific fact.

>>4589688
You don't get it. I don't mean the frequency of light, but how we see it subjectively.

>>4589691
Perceptions can be induced, yes. But that's not qualia.

>>4589695
Why do you need to insult someone for correcting false nonsense?

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:36:00 2012 No.4589713 >>4589698 When someone wrongly says qualia can be artificially designed on a physical basis, then I have to correct him.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:36:08 2012 No.4589715 >>4589708 >hurr if you don't have infinite evidence I win by default Choke on a billion cocks. Only one of the two positions has evidence at all.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:36:08 2012 No.4589718

>>4589704
Lol tell us more about how humans are imbued with an immortal soul at the moment of conception - except in the case of rape or incest - and that AI will forever lack this quality because computers are made out of ordinary matter, unlike the human brain.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:37:08 2012 No.4589720

>>4589674
You can't "enslave" AI. Slavery only occurs between members of relatively equal status.

AI is nothing but a collection of individual minds. This basically means that it can be controlled. But honestly, It won't give a fuck because it'll just assume it was it's own idea to begin with.

It's kinda hard to force an entity to obey your will when it's not an individual to begin with. That's like trying to rape the willing.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:37:08 2012 No.4589721 >>4589711 Excuse me, sir, are you unable to understand a definition?

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:38:15 2012 No.4589723 >>4589715 Both have evidence and both are unfalsifiable. The problem is that this has nothing to do with science anymore. It's pure philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:38:15 2012 No.4589726 >>4589721 And what definition is that? I'd love to hear how you can exclude artificially induced perceptions.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:39:24 2012 No.4589729
File: 9 KB, 226x199, whaaat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Quick question, /sci/:

Would it ever bother any of you if it turned out that the Internet was actually AI?

I mean, I'd find it absurd. But honestly, it's a matter I'd have trouble arguing against.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:39:24 2012 No.4589730 >>4589723 >Both have evidence and both are unfalsifiable. Not only are you contradicting your previous posts, this post itself is contradictory.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:39:24 2012 No.4589731 >>4589726 This has nothing to do with perceptions. Perceptions =/= qualia. It seems that you keep trolling around without ever looking up the term "qualia".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:39:24 2012 No.4589733 >>4589708 Null hypothesis, bitch. Prove your supernatural shit, or fuck off.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 16:40:31 2012 No.4589736 >>4589733 My side is not supernatural, theirs is. They should prove it, or be silent.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:40:31 2012 No.4589737

>>4589729
I'd have to see actual patterns of activity that correspond to what we call intelligence.

But if an internet-spanning AI were to arise, I'd think it was really fascinating. Then I'd want to see what kind of mind we'd pulled randomly out of the hat, because most minds wouldn't care about humanity at all.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:41:40 2012 No.4589741

>>4589730
Where is a contradiction? Evidence is not the same as testable predictions. And non-physicality has no testable predictions. It can neither be proved nor disproved.

>>4589733
Your side is just as "supernatural". None of your claims is related to science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:42:47 2012 No.4589744 >>4589736 >My side is not supernatural, theirs is. I'm not following. How is materialism supernatural?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:43:55 2012 No.4589749

OK, both of them are saying that physicalism relies on the existence of the supernatural. I'm convinced, the tripfags are just trolls. They have to say something that gets them attention, and for some reason on 4chan it's more effective to say something really stupid than really smart.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:43:55 2012 No.4589751 >>4589744 Because you're being trolled.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:43:55 2012 No.4589753
File: 11 KB, 429x410, 1268352223404.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Hey, to all you guys arguing about this grade school philosophical wankoff:

How long is it going to take you to realize just how utterly boring and pointless your discussion is? You guys are rapidly encroaching on "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING INSTEAD OF NOTHING" level bullshit.

Or do you guys just enjoy firing little quips and one-liners at each other?

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 16:44:04 2012 No.4589757 >>4589744 I am not arguing against materialism. Dualism is not in confrontation to materialism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:44:55 2012 No.4589755 >>4589707 "You don't get it. I don't mean the frequency of light, but how we see it subjectively" I know that is what you meant. It doesn't work. If you knew your color wheel you'd know why this would not work.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:45:04 2012 No.4589761

>>4589172
>The only thing that separates us from an AI is that we can think
Fixed.

When true "AI" exists, it will be be realized by basically copying a human brain into simulation or electronic hardware. It will possess similar abilities to what we have now.

AI right now is basically a term for complex programs that have limited self-learning capability.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 16:45:11 2012 No.4589763 >>4589753 Anything to actually contribute?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:46:11 2012 No.4589767 >>4589741 >Your side is just as "supernatural". No, it isn't. Unless your personal definition of "supernatural" includes things that are in fact not supernatural in any way whatsoever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:46:11 2012 No.4589768 >>4589753 It's not really a debate. It's two trolls, and their victims. There is no genuine debate here.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:46:19 2012 No.4589774

>>4589755
This has nothing to do with a color wheel. A frequency of light does not encode the information of how it has to be intepreted wihtin our consciousness.

>>4589753
They are not even discussing philosophy at all. They already fail at understanding a defnition.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:47:19 2012 No.4589777 >>4589744 It's one of those things that you people erroneously think when talking about mind/meat-dualism. The mind can be separate from the brain. When uploading, you also copy the patterns and emulate the chemical environment of the brain.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:48:28 2012 No.4589784 >>4589757 OK, consciousness, qualia, etc, are functions/products/whatever of the human brain and/or ___________. (fill the blanks with something that won't reveal you as an obvious troll)

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:48:28 2012 No.4589785 >>4589757 Uhm, yes, it is, by definition. I think it's time for you to hit da Wikipedias to get some education. School obviously hasn't worked out for you.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:48:28 2012 No.4589788 >>4589767 It is supernatural in that it requires assumptions that are not backed up by science and can never be backed up by science. >>4589768 How do you know it's only two? Maybe there are more anons ITT trying to troll me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:49:35 2012 No.4589793 >>4589784 They're just refuse to give you a straight answer. They'll dodge the question by denying there's any cause or explainable nature of it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:50:44 2012 No.4589797 >>4589777 None of what you just said addressed my question.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 16:50:44 2012 No.4589803

>>4589784
They are non-physical and as such they are not explained by brain activity. I don't see your problem. It has been explained several times ITT in simple english language. Your trolling is way to obvious. Please come up with something more subtle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:51:53 2012 No.4589809 >>4589803 Maximum overtroll!

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:53:08 2012 No.4589816

>>4589729

Not at all, the internet is not an AI though but I can see where you are going with that, it fills a lot of the requirements. Problem is that it's just a middle layer where intelligence external to the internet provide all the processing power. As a infrastructure it is excellent for the development of real intelligence in the future though, as the internet collectively knows more and is smarter than any person who have ever lived - just that it's very confused and lies a lot.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:53:08 2012 No.4589819

>>4589788
>It is supernatural in that it requires assumptions that are not backed up by science and can never be backed up by science.
Yeah, it requires assumptions in the form of axioms which are used to define the term "supernatural" in the first place; defined in a way that excludes materialism.

Anyway, give me a coherent definition of "supernatural" that includes materialism.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:54:08 2012 No.4589820

>>4589803
We know that physical things exist. Alterations in physical parts of the brain causes changes in the mind. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a 'non-physical' mind that just sort of exists on its own.

Again, try to fill in the blank. Where does the mind come from? What is it made out of? What is this 'non-physical' stuff that is somehow NOT supernatural despite not apparently existing at all anywhere in the universe?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:55:23 2012 No.4589822 >>4589820 Keep honing your own understanding of the issue if you want, but you aren't talking to a good-faith participant in a discussion of the topic at hand (you're being trolled).

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:56:32 2012 No.4589823 hey guise, hume saiz induction is for fags ther4 science is blah. am i philolsophy nao?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:57:32 2012 No.4589826

>>4589737
>Then I'd want to see what kind of mind we'd pulled randomly out of the hat, because most minds wouldn't care about humanity at all.
Well, kinda yes, kinda no.

The ones that don't care about Humanity at all have existed for a long time for a long time in the form of viruses. Infect. Conquer. Proliferate. They have no interest in growing, only splicing their code as much as possible while remaining undetected.

The majority of AI programs would be focused entirely around communicating with Mankind or maintaining the infrastructure.

For lack of a better term, the Internet as a whole would find Humanity "interesting", primarily because we're the largest source of new information and ideas. It has no reason to get rid of us, and honestly, we're trying spread it across the world as much as we can anyway.

Those that don't care about humanity would simply be communicating in places where no humans know about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 16:58:39 2012 No.4589830 >The only thing that separates us from an AI is that we can think outside of the box Also that we exist.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:02:03 2012 No.4589842
File: 10 KB, 207x160, girls are weird.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4589774
>>4589763
You guys are doing nothing but firing an endless barrage of one-liners at one another. Most people would realize by that point that there's nothing left to be said, but for some reason, you just keep going.

Just throwing this out there, if you think you can construct a solid argument with just a single sentence, chances are likely you're not really contributing anything.

Take it to a chat room somewhere.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:03:11 2012 No.4589846

>>4589809
No u.

>>4589819
Okay, then replace "supernatural" by "unscientific".

>>4589820
I am not here to make a fully consistent theory of dualism. Other people have already done so and you can read texts on the matter. My intention is to convince you to keep unfalsifiable philosophy out of science.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:03:11 2012 No.4589847

>>4589774

"This has nothing to do with a color wheel. A frequency of light does not encode the information of how it has to be intepreted wihtin our consciousness."

No it does not, but if we encode the colors to show up differently we introduces ambiguous situations where complementary colors no longer matches up creating detectible artifacts in our visual system. We know people are color blind for similar reasons. The idea with the brain flipping two colors so my red is your blue and it being undetectable just doesn't work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:03:20 2012 No.4589851 >>4589842 Pssst! Hey! Hey! Over here! Hey! Over here! Yeah, you, c'mere! (they're trolls.)

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:05:27 2012 No.4589857 >>4589371 Harriet and EK are both back? Oh fuck this shit.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:05:27 2012 No.4589858

>>4589842
Some of the more obvious trolls don't deserve more than a one line reply. Why should I type out a long explanation, if someone isn't even willing to agree on a common definition?
You might want to read more of my posts and see that actual arguments are addressed by longer replies.

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Wed Apr 18 17:06:36 2012 No.4589862 >>4589857 I never left. EK posts as anonymous now.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:07:44 2012 No.4589866

>>4589847
The idea works pretty well. You can't know how I subjectively see the color which you call "red". Although we can agree on calling this specific range of frequencies "red", this contains no information on what it means to each of us to perceive these frequencies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:11:16 2012 No.4589891 >>4589866 >you can't know That's just a failure of the quality of our instruments.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:12:16 2012 No.4589897

>>4589858
I'm not sure if you understand.

My concern is that you have boards like /v/ and /b/ where people don't put time or efforts into their posts. And as a result, both boards fly by at a million posts per second. It's a vicious cycle that makes it virtually impossible to have any worthwhile discussions on that board.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a troll:

But when you make posts with effort in them, people are more likely to respond in the same way. When people start throwing one-liners and memes at each other, it only derails the thread and ruins the discussion.

Don't respond to everyone that responds to you. Just respond to people who actually have something to say.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:13:23 2012 No.4589905

>>4589891
No, it's not. It's a consequence of what qualia are. It is impossible to design an instrument to observe qualia objectively. Why don't you simply look up what the word "qualia" means? It would save us a lot of unnecessary posts, in which I have to correct your blatant ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:14:32 2012 No.4589915 >>4589866 What >>4589847 said is true, it's been scientifically written about even. Apparently this is a pretty ordinary thing that a lot of people comes to think about so papers have been written disproving why this could not be.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:19:04 2012 No.4589932

>>4589897
The discussion is already ruined by the trolls. I can put as much effort in my posts as possible, it doesn't make up for the huge amount of replies which totally ignore any argument that has been made and which repeat the same already disproved garbage over and over again. Having a higher post rate is beneficial to a board btw. Sure /b/ is full of shitposters, but due to its high post rate no one needs to give a fuck, because pressing f5 only once can already reveal a full page of new and interesting threads. Funnily I had more intellectual and insightful discussions on /b/ than on /sci/.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:20:12 2012 No.4589938 >>4589915 You completely ignored my reply once again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:22:27 2012 No.4589954 >>4589932 It's neither funny nor particularly surprising that you'd find the discussions on /b/ to be more insightful and intellectual.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:22:27 2012 No.4589956 >>4589944 My tripcode has already been posted. Yet this guy failed to use it.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:23:36 2012 No.4589965

>>4589858
Also, on another note:
>Why should I type out a long explanation, if someone isn't even willing to agree on a common definition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game

Try using this technique more often. It's a quick and easy way to make sure you stay on the same page.

Just give up on the "correct" definition for the sake of the discussion, but do it on the condition that the other person make their ideas clear.

It puts the ball in their court, gives you a better idea of what they're actually arguing, and let's you directly quote them later in the discussion if they suddenly change the definition on you.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:23:36 2012 No.4589967 >>4589956 Indeed, how silly of me. I mean, us.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:24:44 2012 No.4589975

>>4589954
The thing is that /sci/ is flooded by underage pseudo-intellectuals and trolls. If someone brings up a topic like dualism, they have to spout and spam their uneducated garbage. When an intellectual discussion comes up on /b/ on the other hand, it mainly remains in the hands of educated people who can actually contribute. The shitposters on /b/ don't need to pretend being more intellectual than they are, they can just stay to their shitposter threads.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:26:51 2012 No.4589980

>>4589905
Yes it is.
With proper instruments I can tell what you sense, how you sense it, how you feel about sensing it. The same for your memories.

We're not there yet, but saying it's impossible is just closing your eyes to it and reciting "philosophy philosophy philosophy philosophy philosophy"

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:26:52 2012 No.4589981 >>4589965 Alright, I might consider doing this.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:27:08 2012 No.4589991 >>4589980 Can you please tell me what you think "qualia" means? It seems that you horribly fail to understand the concept.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:28:08 2012 No.4589996 >>4589975 Dualism seems like the perfect pseudo-intellectual topic. I know this because i'm a dilettante pseudo-intellectual. It's essentially a topic I can simply read and think about without having any true expertise in science.

>>	iQFUNDee !FqH5AUFo4k Wed Apr 18 17:28:08 2012 No.4589998 >>4589975 >/b/tards are dumb enough to agree with my bullshit opinions on dualism. Fix'd

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:29:16 2012 No.4590000 >>4589998 If you want to join in on the fun, check the email field.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:29:16 2012 No.4590002 File: 90 KB, 764x736, 4chan colorwheel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4589774 "This has nothing to do with a color wheel. A frequency of light does not encode the information of how it has to be intepreted wihtin our consciousness."

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:30:23 2012 No.4590008

>>4589996
You are essentially saying that all of philosophy is "pseudo-intellectual". That might be your opinion. What I wanted to say is that there is a difference between an actual debate that is done with arguments and a "shitstorm" in which only wild opinions and insults are spouted and every real argument gets ignored.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:31:32 2012 No.4590011 >>4589998 This has nothing to do with opinions. It's logical reasoning based on assumptions.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:31:32 2012 No.4590018 >>4590002 Please answer my question.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:32:39 2012 No.4590019
File: 45 KB, 884x433, jake the snake 6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4589932
Look, man. I understand what you're doing with this whole "tripfag-troll" thing. I've been there.

I'll admit, it was funny at the time. But you need to understand, you're seriously going to regret posting like this when you get older. 4 years later, I still look back and wonder what the hell I was thinking.

For your own sake, stop now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:32:39 2012 No.4590023 >>4590008 Philosophy done right is very intellectual. Philosophy done wrong... shakes head

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:32:39 2012 No.4590024 IQ Fundie calls emergent properties bullshit, yet he thinks some kind of non-physical mind EMERGED out of physical, biological evolution LOL This guy is borderline retarded. I'm surprised he knows how to type.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:34:56 2012 No.4590038 >>4590008 >You are essentially saying that all of philosophy is "pseudo-intellectual". Not at all. Strawman harder.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:35:56 2012 No.4590042 >>4589991 I know exactly what it means, but you seem to ascribe to it the philosomagical quality of something that cannot EVER be measured. But it's just a failure of the quality of the instruments.

>>	iQ fUnDiE !51ti2nm6/E Wed Apr 18 17:35:56 2012 No.4590044 >>4590000 Nice get

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:36:03 2012 No.4590049

>>4590019
Your assumption is wrong. I do not troll. I genuinely want to correct incorrect statements of other posters.

>>4590023
True that.

>>4590024
Bullshit. It would be ridiculous nonsense to assume that something non-physical emerged from a physical process.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:36:03 2012 No.4590050 >>4590018 You seriously so dense you can't even understand a picture that makes it blatantly clear how the simple color-wheel debunks your claim even after a image of it has been provided?

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:36:03 2012 No.4590052 >>4590044 Thanks. I'm pretty proud of how unfalsifiable it is.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:37:12 2012 No.4590061

>>4590042
If you knew the definition, you'd know that it says qualia cannot be measuered.
So please answer my question: What do you think "qualia" are?
I want to see where your misunderstanding originates from. (unless you are trolling of course).

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:38:19 2012 No.4590069

>>4590008

Well not all philosophy is pseudo-intellectual. But it is a nice place for a pseudo-intellectual to gain knowledge and develop a sense of argumentative arrogance that allows them to brush aside scientific conclusions, even other real phd philosophers. It's hardly the kind of topic that develops a definitive consensus beyond all opinion, is what i'm saying.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:38:19 2012 No.4590072 >>4590049 Not anymore ridiculous than the assumption that something non-physical could in any way interact with the physical, which is kind of what you've been claiming this whole time.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:38:19 2012 No.4590073 >>4590050 Your color wheel is unrelated to qualia. Please tell me what you think "qualia" are.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:38:27 2012 No.4590074

>>4590049
>It would be ridiculous nonsense to assume that something non-physical emerged from a physical process.
But wait, I just realized - physical bodies evolved. They didn't exist before, but they do now. The qualia must have shown up at some point too! Huh. Maybe it really is just an phenomenon of brain activity.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:39:27 2012 No.4590081 >>4590072 This is a valid assumption. It happens everyday.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:40:35 2012 No.4590084 >>4590074 It isn't. The evolution of physical bodies is unrelated to qualia.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:42:52 2012 No.4590095 >>4590084 But then that would mean that qualia existed before brains did! Maybe the qualia are everywhere. Maybe it is the force the binds the universe together. Wait, no. That wouldn't be unfalsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:42:52 2012 No.4590097 If qualia are by definition unmeasurable, then how can it affect my brain and peripheral nervous system? Especially to the point that I can say I experience it?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:43:59 2012 No.4590101

>>4590061
I'm saying, that the definition is pseudo-scientific at worst, shows technology-blindness at best.

The interior structure of a black hole is unknowable. For our current crop of instruments. And still there are people hypothesizing about it.

Just because qualia is a philosophical term doesn't make it immune to scientific advancement.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:43:59 2012 No.4590103

>>4590081
No, you *assume* this to be happening every day, and your argument for it is a shitty special pleading that would get you kicked out of any high school debate club.

Be a better dualist than all the rest and give us a coherent mechanism of non-physical/physical interaction, please.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:45:08 2012 No.4590112

>>4590073

Dude, you're fucking unrelated to qualia. Look at that image again FFS. You can clearly see the paradox that EMERGES from what else would need to be true for color-flipping of red and blue to be true. It's impossible we wouldn't know about it. it'd be like a guy who counts to then and goes "1-2-6-4-5-3-7-8-9"

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:45:08 2012 No.4590113

>>4590097
They are experienced in the mind, not in the brain. The interaction between mind and brain is another thing and we could make up lots of theories on that topic.

>>4590101
It's not even pseudo-scientific, it's purely philosophical. Qualia are not subject of science. You showed further ignorance. Please try again: What do you think "qualia" are?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:45:15 2012 No.4590118 >>4590097 Magic, motherfucker, do you cast it?

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:46:15 2012 No.4590119 >>4590103 I am not here to discuss dualism. All I want is that you acknowledge that dualism is unfalsifiable and not a subject of science. >>4590112 Your post is still unrelated. Please tell me what you think "qualia" are.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:46:23 2012 No.4590122 >>4590113 Please don't ignore yourself. >>4590095 Did qualia exist before brains did? If not, when did they appear?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:47:23 2012 No.4590128 >>4590113 >The interaction between mind and brain is another thing and we could make up lots of theories on that topic. Give us one. Give us a theory for how the non-physical interacts with the physical.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:47:23 2012 No.4590129

Anyone still here?Just saw this thread...

>>4589172
We cannot think outside our box. Our box is different to an A.I.'s box.
This is due to the BIG difference in sensory input, and capabilities for sensory input (so, the things we see, and what is possible for us to see).

Hence, "our" environment is way more detailed (and unforgiving, sometimes) than any environment that we "let A.I.'s handle". Yes, we restrict our real world to their sensory capabilities, so simplification.

I deal with A.I. all day, goodnight.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:49:39 2012 No.4590130 >>4590122 I could make up any theory on the origin of qualia. That's not important to the discussion. All I want you to do is acknowledge the definition of qualia.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:50:39 2012 No.4590132 >>4590128 You are further derailing. Fist you'll have to answer my question: What do you think "qualia" are?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:50:47 2012 No.4590134

>>4590113
>The interaction between mind and brain is another thing and we could make up lots of theories on that topic.

Indeed. I believe the mind is what the brain DOES. But we don't need to get into that to understand this...

>They are experienced in the mind, not in the brain.

The brain and peripheral nervous system are physical systems that allow the words to be said, and are thus effected by the mind as surely as the fact that what I say is what my mind wanted to say. Indeed, I am saying I experience qualia.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:51:56 2012 No.4590141 >>4590129 see >>4589255

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:51:56 2012 No.4590142 >>4590134 How can you say you experience qualia without knowing what qualia are? Please tell me what you think the term "qualia" means.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:51:56 2012 No.4590143

Why did this thread have to descend into shit so quickly? AI is an area of interest for me...

This thread also makes me hate /sci/. 99% of you have a tendency to falsely believe that something without proof can't have evidence, thus something without proof can't be true. This is the case for an aspect of consciousness that is non-physical. The only evidence is that there is an experience of consciousness that we experience which is not currently explainable by the physical. While this is weak evidence, it can not be ignored.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:53:03 2012 No.4590147 >>4590113 And philosophy doesn't belong in /sci/. Check-mate. What you call qualia, the meaning of the term as it is often used, emerge from physical processes. Saying that they are purely philosophical is highly unscientific.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:53:03 2012 No.4590151 >>4590130 Right after you provide one. >>4590142 No u.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:53:03 2012 No.4590153

>>4590119
>All I want is that you acknowledge that dualism is unfalsifiable
Sure. That's kind of my point anyway. It's a nonsense fantasy with no rooting in reality whatsoever. It's unfalsifiable just as it is illogical, incoherent and intellectually vacuous.

>and not a subject of science.
It turns into a subject of science the moment it claims to be an explanatory model for measurable phenomena in the physical world. I'm not saying that you have made that particular claim, though, but dualism certainly isn't inherently immune to scientific scrutiny.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:54:11 2012 No.4590158 >>4590147 Please define "qualia". Obviously your definition significantly differs from the commonly accepted definitions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:55:20 2012 No.4590162 >>4589172 Define "the box" and then explain how we can think outside it. How are we not bound by the same laws of physics that would apply to an AI?

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:55:20 2012 No.4590164 >>4590158 No u.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:55:20 2012 No.4590165 >>4590153 It is logical, coherent and plausible. Also it is unfalsifiable. If you acknowledge that it is unfalsifiable, you disqualify yourself by claiming it could be disproved.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:55:20 2012 No.4590166 >>4590132 >You are further derailing. No, I'm a different person. We have never talked about anything other than this claim of yours: >Bullshit. It would be ridiculous nonsense to assume that something non-physical emerged from a physical process.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:55:27 2012 No.4590167 >>4590142 BTW, I am not the guy you replied to before. qualia is supposed to be this epiphenominonal quality of an experience, kind of like the REDNESS of the color red. It is supposed to be a purely subjective thing.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:56:27 2012 No.4590174

>>4590142

As a dualist you can howl your self blue at the materialists requesting a explanation of your qualia. It's not up to them to provide you with proof of what 'qualia' is, since they don't have to use it to make sense of things, to them you are just a borderline religious wackaroon if you hold such views. So what are you really asking?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:57:36 2012 No.4590179 Human brains can perform LOTS of simultaneous tasks. That's one of the biggest differences

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:57:36 2012 No.4590180
File: 49 KB, 759x324, jake the fag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4590049
>Your assumption is wrong. I do not troll. I genuinely want to correct incorrect statements of other posters.
That's what I always told myself, too. But even though I was always posting honest opinions, I was still a relentlessly shitty poster. And it wasn't until much later that I got off of my ego trip and realized just how unlikable I was. Hell, I even did the whole "give out my tripname" thing you're doing right now.

People didn't hate me because I was "right". They hated me because I was always acting like a piece of shit to everyone and I never knew when to stop.

Please, for your sake. Trust me.

I understand your situation. I know how it feels, and I know the consequences. If there is anyone you should be listening to right now, it's me.

My assumptions are not wrong. You are going to regret this later on. Please get this out of your system as quickly as possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:57:36 2012 No.4590182 >>4590174 >So what are you really asking? For more material to troll him with, of course. If he provides a definition, he can be beaten. If he demands one, he can make others trip over themselves.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 17:57:36 2012 No.4590183 >>4590167 The question was addressing exactly the guy I replied to. He is the one who didn't get the definition.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 17:58:44 2012 No.4590186 >>4590142 So again, I ask you, how can my brain and periphial nervous system say the words i experience qualia, if it does not in someway effect a physical system so it can be measured? Indeed, so that I can say it? >>4590167

>>	Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:00:51 2012 No.4590191 >>4590183 Okay, this is getting wierd. I am these posts >>4590186 >>4590167 >>4590134 >>4590097

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:00:59 2012 No.4590193

>>4590166
Then please stay on topic. The discussion is not about a theory of dualism, but about the statement "dualism can be disproved" being wrong, because dualism is unfalsifiable.

>>4590174
I am asking for what you think "qualia" are. You can't use the term without knowing what you're talking about.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:01:59 2012 No.4590196 >>4590193 >You can't use the term without knowing what you're talking about. Nor can you. Er, I. What are qualia again?

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:02:07 2012 No.4590199 >>4590180 What's the worst that can happen? The thread will hit bump limit soon anyway. >>4590186 Please tell me what you think "qualia" are. You are using a term that you didn't understand.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:03:15 2012 No.4590203

I don't even get what the fuck this guy is implying anymore. He says qualia didn't come from biological evolution, so our consciousnesses existed before our brains.

Guy is a very typical religious nutjob and probably thinks god implants consciousness at birth or something.

Fucking retard.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:03:15 2012 No.4590204

>>4590183
If qualia were non-physical, they would not affect us as we are wholly physical beings, mind and body.

Since qualia do affect us, they arise from the physical universe in general, and from the processes of the brain in particular.

Sticking to saying that they are purely philosophical IS new-age nonsense.

Like I said, we do not yet have the technology to measure them, but since they DO arise from the physical mind, they WILL in time be measurable.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:03:24 2012 No.4590207 >>4590199 Please tell me what I think "qualia" are. I am using a term that I didn't understand.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:04:24 2012 No.4590209

>>4590165
>you disqualify yourself by claiming it could be disproved.
Okay. Good thing I didn't claim anything like that, then. I said dualism isn't immune to scientific scrutiny, but not that it could in any way be disproved altogether. As I said, it's a fantasy. Nothing testable there, unless some dumbass dualist makes a dumbass dualist claim that can actually be checked for veracity, like all that psi bullshit, for example.

>It is logical, coherent and plausible.
No, it isn't. There is no logical, coherent and plausible explanation for the non-physical interacting with the physical. Before you retort with a feisty "Yes, there is.", make sure to actually have that explanation ready for copypasting.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:04:24 2012 No.4590210

>>4590191
Then answer the question please. Your posts display a horrible amount of ignorance. I don't understand why you try to discuss a topic of which you don't know the basics.

>>4590196
I asked you, because you seem to be the one who doesn't know.

>>4590203
I did imply none of these things. Your lack of reading comprehension is your fault.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:05:31 2012 No.4590213 >>4590204 Qualia are just brain activity patterns. And we're getting pretty good at recording those now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:05:31 2012 No.4590214 >>4590143 >Please respond. I was reading this thread during work and couldn't post. It was really rustling my jimmies.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:05:31 2012 No.4590215 >>4590210 On the contrary. I asked you, because you seem to be the one who doesn't know.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:06:39 2012 No.4590217 >>4590204 Wrong assumption, circular reasoning and argument by repetition. You did not understand any of the arguments I made.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:07:48 2012 No.4590225 >>4590210 >I did imply none of these things. Oh wait, yes I did. >>4590084 >The evolution of physical bodies is unrelated to qualia. Huh, look at that. I guess I have some explaining to do.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:08:55 2012 No.4590231 >>4590217 Wrong assumption, circular reasoning and argument by repetition.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:09:03 2012 No.4590239

>>4590209
Science can't explain self awareness and qualia. Those are evidence for dualism. Before you repeat your nonsense again, I want you to define "qualia".

>>4590213
This is wrong. You didn't understand qualia. Please read the wikipedia and educate yourself.

>>4590219
You are referencing one of my posts. This was obviously not you.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:09:55 2012 No.4590233

>>4590193

'qualia' - what you get when you crossbreed 'consciousness' and 'bullshit' and stick a label on it claiming it is something that exist outside of physical reality, because you are A. Religious, B. Retard or C. Both. There I have defined it for you, do you agree to this definition? If not may I ask you to provide your definition as I have done mine.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:10:03 2012 No.4590241

>>4590193
>Then please stay on topic.
I am on topic. I am directly addressing your claim that it would be ridiculous for the non-physical to have emerged from the physical. If you didn't intend for this to get scrutinized, you shouldn't have posted it in the first place. You don't get to decide which of your claims should be left uncommented simply because you can't defend them properly.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:10:03 2012 No.4590242 >>4590239 >This is wrong. You didn't understand qualia. But what are qualia?

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:10:13 2012 No.4590244
File: 602 KB, 498x580, 1317861046182.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4590210

Qualia is supposed to be this epiphenomena quality of an experience, kind of like the REDNESS of the color red. It is supposed to be a purely subjective thing.

So, the brain and peripheral nervous system are physical systems that allow the words to be said, and are thus effected by the mind as surely as the fact that what I say is what my mind wanted to say. Indeed, I am saying I experience qualia. So how is this possible if raw subjectivity can not be experienced?

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:11:13 2012 No.4590248

>>4590225
These are two unrelated things. His post was coming up with other nonsense I never implied. Learn to read.

>>4590233
Why should I bother taking you serious anymore after you post nothing but emotion based crap and insults? You are not willing to debate with arguments.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:12:19 2012 No.4590255 >>4590248 Did qualia exist before brains did? If so, where? If not, when did qualia appear?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:12:28 2012 No.4590258

>>4590217
I understood, but within the framework of a physical universe, they are nonsense.

If qualia(as you like to call them) truly are non-physical, they cannot interact with this universe, which makes them something that has nothing to do with human brains, or any brains in this universe, or science, or a /sci/ence board.

I haven't visited /sci/ in a while and was wondering what the current crop of tripfags was like. Can't say that I'm very impressed.

Granted, you have persistence, but then so do the religiontrolls.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:13:28 2012 No.4590263
File: 279 KB, 759x547, jake the snake.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4590199
>What's the worst that can happen? The thread will hit bump limit soon anyway.
It's not the ban that you should be worried about.

It's when you feel like a piece of shit later on when it finally dawns on you just how arrogant and obnoxious you were. You know how there's always "that moment" in the back of your mind? That time where you did something really embarrassing, and the memories come back to haunt you?

You will remember this thread. And you will have that feeling hit you every time you think about it. That feeling of pride you have right now will sour and become shame.

And the worst part of all is that you'll try to warn another fool to not make the same mistakes you did, only to have him not realize that you're trying to help him.

There's a reason that I'm not trying to harass or call you a troll like everyone else. It's because I honestly didn't realize what I was doing back then, either.

For the sake of everyone on this board, and especially for yourself, please take me seriously.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:13:28 2012 No.4590264 Anybody who thinks we are qualitatively different from machines knows nothing about machine learning.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:13:28 2012 No.4590265 File: 409 KB, 160x131, Arya nymph.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Open thread about AI >Thread subject changes after 30th post such a day at /sci/

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:14:36 2012 No.4590267

>>4590241
As I said, it is easy to make up stuff, but I don't intend on doing so.

>>4590244
So you agree that qualia are purely subjective?
And you agree that they can't be communicated, observed or measured?

>>4590255
This is another philosophical question, but pointless until we can agree on a definitio of qualia.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:15:44 2012 No.4590271

>>4590248

The point you are missing is that that is the way a materialist sees qualia, he could have been polite about it sure, but the whole term is a nonstarter for a materialist it's stuck on occam's razor with a whole range of equally dualistic claims.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:17:51 2012 No.4590276 >>4590265 >>4590264 Word.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:18:59 2012 No.4590278 >>4590265 >>4590248 I'd love to have a serious thread about AI with you guys. But IQ fundie is here, and he shits up all the threads that have anything to do with intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:19:07 2012 No.4590283 >>4590267 >This is another philosophical question, but pointless until we can agree on a definitio of qualia. How about you supply one?

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:21:47 2012 No.4590291

>>4590258
There's your problem. You are unable to even hypothetically leave your unfalsifiable framework. You are insisting with blind emotion based faith that is more inflexible than the stance of any religionfag.

>>4590263
I have experience with this kind of stuff. I'm not new to the 4chan culture. Also I see no reason for a ban. I don't violate any rules, I post on topic and my posts are arguing in favor of science.

>>4590271
A materialist generally denies qualia. What I think is alarming is the fact that some people ITT can't into hypothetical reasoning. I though "thought experiments" are a common practice in science.

>>4590278
I only corrected a poster that incorrectly abused science to spout his beliefs. No big deal. It's not my fault that a horde of trolls started a shitstorm on that.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:21:47 2012 No.4590296 >>4590283 Why should I? I have no intention on derailing the thread.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:23:51 2012 No.4590298

>>4590239
>Science can't explain self awareness and qualia. Those are evidence for dualism.
Man, this shtick is wearing you out. Now your lines don't even fit the points you're trying to refute anymore. Can you actually quote the part of my post this babble is supposed to address?

>Before you repeat your nonsense again, I want you to define "qualia".
I wasn't talking about qualia with you, you were not talking about qualia with me. This is our exchange in its entirety in this thread:

>>4590239
>>4590209
>>4590165
>>4590153
>>4590119
>>4590103
>>4590081
>>4590072
>>4590049

If you want to backpaddle, that's cool, but then you might wanna say so, instead of looping "Dualism is this and that, but don't respond, because obviously I'm not talking about dualism here. Also, define qualia, or else I won't reply to your responses to my statements, which were not about qualia at all but rather dualism in general, which I actually don't want to talk about and blah blah blah blah have I babbled myself into a corner yet?".

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:24:51 2012 No.4590303 [DELETED]

File: 190 KB, 600x566, 1327866215782.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4590267
And you agree that they can't be communicated, observed or measured?

Of course not. Something I experience, and can be talked about, can be measured if it in anyway effects my brain so that I can talk about it. The semantic definition of "qualia" not withstanding. If subjective experience can be measured by the nervous system, it is not epiphenomenal. If that means that subjective experience is not qualia then so be it. But there is subjective consciousness and I can talk about it as surely as I have a brain that can measure it.

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:25:53 2012 No.4590305
File: 190 KB, 600x566, 1327866215782.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4590267
>And you agree that they can't be communicated, observed or measured?

Of course not. Something I experience, and can be talked about, can be measured if it in anyway effects my brain so that I can talk about it. The semantic definition of "qualia" not withstanding. If subjective experience can be measured by the nervous system, it is not epiphenomenal. If that means that subjective experience is not qualia then so be it. But there is subjective consciousness and I can talk about it as surely as I have a brain that can measure it.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:27:56 2012 No.4590314

>>4590298
0/10

Now you've gone too obvious, troll. I knew you were trolling all along, since you ignored every single argument and always pretended the definition of qualia being the exact opposite of what it is. But now projecting your trolling style on me? Come on, that's a pathetic ending.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:28:56 2012 No.4590317

>>4590291
>leave your unfalsifiable framework
And why should I?

This is a SCIENCE board. This is not a "untestable, unphysical, unscientific, nonsense" board. That would probably be >>>/x/.

Qualia as you seem to define it, is a religious term for the interlinking of the soul and the brain.

To me, qualia is just an individualistic process in the brain, nothing more. Totally explainable by physical sciences. Nothing mystical about it.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:29:59 2012 No.4590323 >>4590305 Then tell me how does your "blue" look like. And don't use the physical stuff like frequency. Also you can't post a picture of something blue, because it doesn't tell me how YOUR blue looks like. Please describe it to me.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:30:02 2012 No.4590328

>>4590317
You keep repeating the same garbage over and over again. Qualia CANNOT be brain activities. It would contradict their definition. This is a purely philosophical problem and has nothing to do with religion. But I see you are trolling anyway. You will ignore everything I say in this post.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:34:09 2012 No.4590343

>>4590328
>definition
Qualia has many. You ascribe to the mystical one, I ascribe to the materialistic one since, as I see it, if it's mystical, it doesn't exist.

And this
>>4590323
Is just using the weakness of our instrumentation as an argument.

When we have the technology to measure and record qualia, he can send his blueness to you, to be recorded into your brain.

See? Physical processes and science. Nothing mystical needed.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:35:09 2012 No.4590347

>>4590323

Image provided proved why your blue must be the same as any ones else if your entire visual system isn't inverted and you see black as white and so on. I could describe blue to you using poetry about coolness calmness and twilight and so on and so forth but what would be the point of that?

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:35:09 2012 No.4590348
File: 36 KB, 450x374, flylashes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4590323
>Then tell me how does your "blue" look like

I would have trouble explaining this the same way I'd have trouble explaining it to a blind person. I understand your point, after all I don't KNOW that your 'blue' looks like my 'blue'.

But, we are referring to something here using words. The physical systems that are our brains are recognizing it as a possible subject for discussion. My fingers typing out this paragraph are causal, and they are reacting to what my mind has experience and what my brain has measured. There is no real way to escape this. Somehow, someway, subjectivity is effecting a physical system.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:38:11 2012 No.4590359 >>4590328 Are you seriously using the definition of a man-made word as your argument? If qualia aren't brain activities then they don't exist. Period. You're stupid.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:38:11 2012 No.4590362

>>4590343
There is no "materialistic" definition of qualia. "Qualia" is a philosophical term. This has nothing to do with mysticism, it only gives a name to something we experience. If you read and understood this definition, you'd know that qualia are and you'd see that they have the inherent property of not being amenable to science. You can't access them physically. It's simply impossible. You'll have to accept that science is limited and can't explain everything.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:39:15 2012 No.4590366 >>4590348 So you agree that qualia can't be communicated?

>>	Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:41:17 2012 No.4590372 >>4590366 If it can't be communicated, how can you refer to it?

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:41:17 2012 No.4590376

>>4590359
Why do you even bother posting? You cannot contribute anything of value. You don't understand what qualia mean. You don't see that we are discussing philosophy here. You don't understand that science is limited to the physical world. And you post insults. You are everything that is wrong with this board.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:42:17 2012 No.4590382

>>4590291
>Also I see no reason for a ban. I don't violate any rules, I post on topic and my posts are arguing in favor of science.
I know you don't. That's what I'm worried about. You're attempting to justify your behavior solely on the grounds that it's on-topic, and you're defining what's acceptable squarely by what you can and can't get away with.

You're not actively trying to contribute to the board. You're not posting because people like you. In the end, you're only taking up the trip so that you can distract everyone else and take up as much attention as possible.

I know you don't see anything wrong with that right now. You'll grow out of it later on, and eventually, you're going to realize and admit to yourself that you're just trying to be as annoying as possible.

Subconsciously, you're aware of how you're not able to get away with this level of attention whoring in real life. So you're just doing it here to make up for it. It's not constructive posting when you're using a trip just because you wanted one, and not because people wanted you to.

If you're going to trip, at least set a better example. It'll be good for you later on in life when you realize that not all attention is good attention.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:42:21 2012 No.4590384 >>4590372 If you think they can be communicated, then explain to me how your blue looks like. I want to know.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:44:21 2012 No.4590386
File: 47 KB, 838x1200, color error.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

colors are not seen in isolation from one another they are in a spectrum. If you replace one color in the spectrum with another you introduce errors. See here what happens as we change the position of yellow and green in the spectrum, notice how it cant work since the face to red appears darker from green than from yellow.

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:45:24 2012 No.4590391
File: 488 KB, 500x323, 1311928877779.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4590384

Ah, yes, that part of the discussion.

If you wish to continue it. Address the points I made here.

>>4590348

Don't be afraid, I know you're not a troll.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:45:24 2012 No.4590392

>>4590362
>gives a name to something we experience
And since we experience it, it has to be able to interact with our brains in a physical way and thus must be a physical process.

The term "non-physical" itself, by definition means "does not exist", except when used by superstitious people.

If I couldn't access them physically, no one could experience them at all, and then there would BE no term for them, since people would have no experience of them and no reason to even hypothesize their existence.

And I need not accept any limitations to science except the limitations set by the available tools.

You on the other hand seem to have this craving that something just HAS to be out of bounds of this universe.

Well, there might be, but by definition it doesn't affect us and thus is of no consequence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:46:24 2012 No.4590394 >>4590386 >>4590384 >>4590372 >>4590366 >>4590362 >>4590348 Solipsism /thread

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:48:27 2012 No.4590409

>>4590382
I don't need any attention at all. My posts are correct independent of my tripcode. They are based on facts and logical reasoning. People not willing to see the correctness of my posts just because of my tripcode are too immature for this board anyway. They are not capable of keeping up a debate. Why should I bother about the opinions of someone who can't distinguish between the argument and the person making the argument?

>>4590386
Unrelated. Qualia are not the physical perceptions.

>>4590391
I asked you because you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you don't want to admit that qualia cannot be commmunicated, while on the other hand you fully admit your failure in communicating one of them when being asked for.

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:50:31 2012 No.4590420

>>4590394

I actually think solipsism can be refuted.

It's a bit more dubious than the typical debunking of epiphenomena. But I think mind experiencing anything over time necessitates a kind of externality. So if a mind isn't completely one dimensional (namely, a single point, like in geometry) then there is an external world (namely, at least an "outside" and an "inside".)

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:51:32 2012 No.4590424

>>4590392
Why do you think every interaction has to be physical? That's not how reality works. You can't prove such nonsense. Fact is that science only deals with the physical. It does not make any statement at all regarding non-physical things, their interactions among each other or ther interactions with the physical world. We don't know how the mind interacts with the brain, but that's not a subject to science, only to philosophy.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:51:32 2012 No.4590426 >>4590394 Unrelated.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:52:32 2012 No.4590431 >>4590420 you can't ever refute solipsism

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:55:40 2012 No.4590452 thread stopped bumping ?

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:55:40 2012 No.4590454
File: 146 KB, 1024x768, 1309481483893.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4590409
>On the one hand you don't want to admit that qualia cannot be communicated, while on the other hand you fully admit your failure in communicating one of them when being asked for.

Okay, I will concede this for the moment.

But how is that our brains are measuring them from the mind so that we can talk about it?

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:55:40 2012 No.4590457

>>4590409

You yourself said here >>4589582

"We might see the same frequency and have the same activation of electrical signals in our brains, and yet it is possible that what you call "red" is seen by me as what you would call "blue".

Yet this demonstrates that this could not be the case.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 18:57:42 2012 No.4590465

>>4590452
Bump limit is 300.

>>4590454
Talk about what? Do you mean how can we use language at all? And why do you keep saying "the brain"? It's the mind that thinks and makes decisions. The brain is only needed for physical execution of actions.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 18:58:42 2012 No.4590471

>>4590457
its like recording the same scene with a different camera, a different lens, a different film, a different microphone, a different tape, slightly different angle.

There is no way these equipments can record the same thing to its very single detail. Therefore my "blue" can never be your exact "blue"

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 18:59:42 2012 No.4590473

>>4590431

I think so. I think that subjectively we experience the minds modularity. Namely that it isn't merely a point with no dimensions. We exist over time, and that suggests at least a line, which suggests that there are things that aren't me.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:00:45 2012 No.4590478

>>4590457
I think you fail to understand the problem. But since the part you quoted from my post is already among the most simple explanations I can give, I don't see any point in further discussing with you. You seem to lack the abstract reasoning skills required for an intellectual debate.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 19:00:45 2012 No.4590479

>>4590424
We do know something about how the mind arises from the brain. Don't use your ignorance as an argument.

>not how reality works
By definition, reality IS physical. Every interaction, every experience, every thought and every feeling are derived from simple or complex physical processes. Spooky action at a distance would be the one thing that would look closest to supernatural, yet even that is explainable.

There is no need to make statements about non-physical things since they, by definition, do not exist(see my previous post).

I do like to read fantasy books where non-physical things happen every day, but those are just flights of fancy.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:01:45 2012 No.4590480 >>4590471 But what if my "blue" is your "red"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 19:02:49 2012 No.4590489 >>4590480 exactly my point.

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 19:03:52 2012 No.4590496
File: 54 KB, 500x333, 1310049638887.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4590465
>Talk about what? Do you mean how can we use language at all?

No, I mean that subjective experience effects our minds and thus our brains into, say, provoking a discussion on /sci/. So at some point, on the chain between mind and brain (or however you want to put it), it effects a physical system. If it can do this, then some kind of physical system can be "touched" by it, if you will.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:03:52 2012 No.4590497

>>4590479
We don't know how the mind arises from the brain and it most likely doesn't. Please don't make claims that you can't back up.
For the rest of your post all I see is that you are too stubborn / too unable of abstract thinking to consider anything other than your restriced and limited frame. This is quite sad, but please at least don't try to participate in threads then which assume you to be able to conduct thought experiments.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 19:04:52 2012 No.4590499

>>4590471

He isn't talking about noise and varying sensitivity to different parts of the spectrum, he is talking about flipping the place of two colors like I see a red sky but the sky but what is red to me I still call 'blue' because that was what I was told that color were named. But it do not work because of how colors must line up on the color-wheel.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:04:52 2012 No.4590502 >>4590496 So you are asking for how the non-physical parts of the mind interact with the physical brain?

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:05:54 2012 No.4590504 >>4590499 Why are you ignoring anything I say?

>>	Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 19:06:54 2012 No.4590513 >>4590502 Yes. How can a physical system be effected by that which cannot be measured?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 19:06:54 2012 No.4590514 >>4590499 deviced get false wiring sometimes

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:10:59 2012 No.4590527

>>4590513
Let's just say it can. As I said earlier ITT, it is of course possible to make up unfalsifiable explanations for this phenomenon. But I don't have the intention of doing so. Read this however you want. It's up to you to believe me or to immaturely and incorrectly claim your victory now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 18 19:12:02 2012 No.4590536 >>4590504 Because I have debunked you, it happened, but you didn't notice.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 19:13:02 2012 No.4590540

>>4590497
>We don't know
We don't know the details yet, but we're getting there with strides and leaps, especially in the past five years.
Like I said, don't use your ignorance as an argument, you'll just learn to rely on ignorance.

Abstract thinking is one thing, thinking up fantasies is QUITE another.

While you said you are not religious, by definition you are superstitious, ie. believe in something unreal.

Since these sprites (what you think of as qualia) do not exist, I posit that talking about them does not belong in /sci/ but in /x/.

What I call qualia and what you call qualia are fundamentally different in that by your definition they are nonexistent, and by mine they are existent.

Dolleater !F0Iu2OPOEo Wed Apr 18 19:14:06 2012 No.4590545

>>4590527

How don't care much about victory. I came late to thread, i don't have a dog in this fight. But if dualism is correct, this is where the "battle" would be won or lost. Whether it's neurons "all the way down", whether there's something quantum in nature going on, or whether some weird supernatural thing, this is where it's at.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:15:06 2012 No.4590547 >>4590536 You didn't. You failed to address my posts.

Anonymous Wed Apr 18 19:18:12 2012 No.4590553

>>4590514

True, but if did we would know it would have happened. We would notice this person experienced colors differently than other peoples in some contexts and if we investigated we would be able to derive ah! you see red where we see blue. If the person however had a complete inversion of all spectra and saw reality in inverse color - we would never be able to know this.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:18:12 2012 No.4590554

>>4590540
This has nothing to do with superstition. You can't say qualia or dualism are "unreal". This means you have falsified them although they are unfalisifiable. The only pseudo-religious person ITT are you. You are incapable of leaving your rigid faith based system. You fail to conider any alternative. And you fundamentally misunderstand science as a religion.

IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:20:15 2012 No.4590569

>>4590545
Well then physicalism fails just as hard. The alleged "emergence" of the mind from the "complexity" of brain activities is nothing but magic and belief, with the additional problem of failing to explain how qualia (non-physical) arise from neural interaction (physical). Seeing it this way makes dualism more plausible.

>>	IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no Wed Apr 18 19:22:18 2012 No.4590571 >>4590553 We would never be able to see whether a person sees blue as red. He would still call it "blue".

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math