>Furthermore, because the universe is natural, its self-selection

>>1558354
That he can score 160+ on IQ scores. Good for him.
Natural selection and evolution are a machinistic version of design. Meaning that its simply a choice to forgo agency while design insists on agency.
In the same way humans can be given agency and treated as responsible for their actions or as products of their genes/enviornment.

>>1558354

I wrote a long reply but lost it due to refreshing the page by accident. I am going to type it again.

In order to convey what he's saying, let's dissect this dense paragraph. I want to also reference a new study to illuminate his idea.

Let's start with the first few sentences.

>Furthermore, because the universe is natural, its self-selection amounts to a cosmic form of natural selection. But by the nature of this selection process, it also bears description as intelligent self-design (the universe is “intelligent” because this is precisely what it must be in order to solve the problem of self-selection, the master-problem in terms of which all lesser problems are necessarily formulated).

He's basically arguing incremental adaptation is sufficient for a system to exhibit intelligent behaviour.

Recently, it has been shown that evolution can learn from experience, and thus improve its own ability to evolve over time:

"by evolving the organisation of development that controls variation, the organisation of ecological interactions that control selection or the structure of reproductive relationships that control inheritance - natural selection can change its own ability to evolve

if evolution can learn from experience, and thus improve its own ability to evolve over time, this can demystify the awesomeness of the designs that evolution produces

natural selection can accumulate knowledge that enables it to evolve smarter
that's exciting because it explains why biological design appears to be so intelligent ”

SOURCE (recommended reading): http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-12/uos-iem121815.php

CHECK NEXT POST

>>1559639
>This is unsurprising, for intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon that could never have emerged in humans and animals were it not already a latent property of the medium of emergence.

He is arguing since evolution has the sufficient requirements for intelligence, then what is produced by evolution is necessarily intelligent too. For example, cells and organs have self-correcting mechanisms that improves its efficiency from experience over time.

Consider, for example, the mechanisms for experience-dependent plasticity, such as "long-term potentiation".

OK. Now, I will give my criticisms.

>>1559647
No, he's not saying that, he's saying the intellect is isomorphic to reality because intelligence is a product of reality, not that cells are somehow self-aware and sentient

>>1559657
Are waterfalls isomorphic to reality?

>>1559639
You're essentially saying what he's saying you're getting lost in the ID terminology and thinking he's talking about an active designer

>>1559664
Intelligence is a property of certain organisms. These organisms exist in a system. Ergo, intelligence is a property, albeit a latent one, in this system. Where intelligence does arise, it is constant self-regulating feedback with its environment, and the intelligence in the most "isomorphic" or concordant relation with the objective world is the one that survives. That is all that's meant by isomorphism.

>>1559678
Are waterfalls isomorphic to reality? Yes or no?

>>1559657
He is saying intelligence is latent, and evolution is an intelligent process itself. His view is a panpsychist one.

>>1559687
The structure of cognition reflects the syntactical structure the universe. The structure of a waterfall reflects nothing except what allows a waterfall to be.

>>1559702
This is ridiculous Advaita crap covered in pseudoscientific language that rivals the continental faggotry.

>>1558354 (OP)
My main criticism is he is correct in finding what is "NECESSARY" for intelligence, that is incremental adaptation, but he makes the assumption this is "SUFFICIENT". Just because the incremental adaptation of ant colonies, evolution, and so forth show parallels with dynamic brain processes associated with learning or whatnot, this does not necessarily mean the former are intelligent.

It is true that the brain has incremental adaptation in order to exhibit intelligent behavior (e.g., it is highly plastic and can change its functional connectivity to compensate for structural damage), but to make the jump and say all systems that have incremental adaptation are intelligent is not backed by evidence. This is a metaphysical statement and doesn't need evidence, BUT it is unfalsifiable and, without evidence, is specious. It is pseudoscience to propose it as a scientific theory. It is true, panpsychism is becoming popular among a lot of philosophers, but to tout it as a scientific theory is retarded.

I am not going to give the same ethical consideration to an ant colony as I am to a human because the former does not have what is sufficient for intelligence (which is a functioning brain -- specific functional connectivity). In this sense, I am more of a pragmatist and dislike unfalsifiable metaphysical speculation. It is a waste of time.

Finally, here is what I have to say about this guy: Christopher Langan is very arrogant and demeaning. He is not as intelligent as you think. Just because one has a high IQ does not necessarily mean they will apply it well. This idea he proposes is nothing new, and it does not constitute science (it is more like a repeat of Advaita like philosophy which is numerous). I actually skimmed a journal article which said a lot of high IQ people tend to develop obsessions or autism, and as a consequence, they do not make any productive change to a field of research. One needs to be trained in order to apply his intelligence well.

>>1559709
If you don't grant your mind can reliably describe anything about the world then you're argument's dead too.

This thread is dumb and people don't seem to realize consciousness is not the same as intelligence.

>>1559730
In order to be intelligent, one needs some degree of experiential content, otherwise it's just a blind self-correcting mechanism. Also, I am taking his entire theory into account, which is panpyschist. He is a panpsychist.

Do you consider the swarm behavior of ants "intelligent"? To me, it's just a blind self-correcting mechanism -- it is not intelligent in the way we think.

>>1559727
I give a more nuanced opinion here: >>1559711

I read his theory to a large extent, so I am takin in the overall context.

Honestly, his view is not that different from David Bohm's implicate/explicate order. I read some of his paper, which is overly dense and littered with pseudoscientific language. He's worse than Deleuze even.

>>1559742
Can you prove it's blind? did you think intelligence at the level of ants would be contemplating the mysteries of the universe? what reason don't we have to attribute a dynamical intelligence to these systems?

>>1559762
>what reason don't we have to attribute a dynamical intelligence to these systems?

Check here:
>>1559711

Look at my necessary and sufficient distinction.

>>1559753
I would ask what needs to attributed to autopoietic systems for sufficient intelligence to be demonstrated

>Furthermore, because the universe is natural, its self-selection amounts to a cosmic form of natural selection.
>But BY THE NATURE OF THIS SELECTION PROCESS, it also bears description as intelligent self-design (the universe is “intelligent” because this is precisely what it must be in order to solve the problem of self-selection

But one of the virtues of natural selection as a theory of evolution is that it doesn't, despite the metaphors often employed to explain it, depend upon any "agency" "selecting for" or "selecting against". So even if it were appropriate to say that the universe exhibited a "cosmic form of natural selection", it would not follow that, because of this, the universe exhibits "intelligence" as a latent property, as "intelligence" is not latent in natural selection.

>>1559742
> otherwise it's just a blind self-correcting mechanism
Which can be considered intelligence.

>>1558354
>self-selection
What did he mean by this?

>>1559773
Yeah, I think the more we find out about the mesoscopic neural requirements for intelligence, then we can probably test whether the evolution's autopoiesis is sufficient for intelligence. I am saying we have a lack of evidence at the moment and we need to realize the limitations of such claims.

I will say that I dislike dogmatic reductive physicalists / eliminative materialists too though, but I am not entirely fond of jumping on the panpsychists, type-f monism, bandwagon yet.

>>1559774
Recent evidence shows that evolution has incremental adaptation and can improve its ability to evolve over time. Check here: >>1559639

>>1559787
>in·tel·li·gence
>inˈteləjəns/
>noun
>1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

'No'.

>>1559787
>Which can be considered intelligence.
No. I think there are more complex mechanisms underlying intelligence. Incremental adaptation is needed/necessary for intelligence, but I do not think it is sufficient for it. There is probably a more complex circuit of activation going on. For example, even GABAergic inhibition of hippocampal cells is important for learning, and has made many scientists reevaluate the weight they place on the LTP paradigm.

>>1559809
Thanks for the actually stimulating discussion. Do you have any sites or blogs or whatever that let's you keep up on dank current metaphysical shit like this?

>>1559787
If this kind of stuff interests you, I highly recommend you check out John O'Keefe's research on theta phase precession and Buzsaki's book Rhythms of the Brain. This is very complex stuff, and I recommend avoiding premature metaphysical claims and propounding it as science.

>>1559817
Yes. Where does it say it has to experience anything? A computer can do those things.

>>1559827
Now you're just making up additions to intelligence. No, it doesn't have human intelligence because it's not human.

AI is still intelligent, even if it's not human intelligence.

>>1558354
>>1558354

Yeah, that's reasonable

>>1558354
Why does this asshole look like a professional wrestler?

>>1559845
No one is even implying that it has intelligence like a human. Also you're part of the universe.

>>1559827
I don't understand why you draw a distinction between intelligence and a mechanistic reaction; they would be one and the same, but the mechanistic aspect is blurred in more sophisticated levels of intelligence

>>1559847
>AI is still intelligent,
Yeah, I mean, we're debating semantics. I've actually read Christopher Langan's stuff a bit, and I believe he's arguing the entire universe is sentient. He is arguing for a stronger more overt intelligence.

I mean, sure, given your definition, I agree with you the universe is intelligent. However, in the case of your definition, I do not agree that is satisfactory evidence for sentience*.

>>1559847

AI isn't "blind"; it takes in information from either an artificial environment or from user interfaces or both.

I disagree with the other anon about what qualifies as intelligence, but I also think describing intelligence as a "blind self-correcting mechanism" is reductionist and basically wrong.

>>1559809

>that article
>In an opinion paper, published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Professors Watson and Eörs Szathmáry, from the Parmenides Foundation in Munich, explain how formal analogies can be used to transfer specific models and results between the two theories to solve several important evolutionary puzzles.
>formal analogies can be used

This guy is definitely not making the kind of metaphysical claims you are misrepresenting him as making.

>>1559702
In what ways does the "feedback" caused by intellect differ from the "feedback" caused by waterfalls (erosion etc) from the perspective of reality? Why grant primacy to one but not the other?

>>1558354
>>Furthermore, because the universe is natural, its self-selection amounts to a cosmic form of natural selection.

The term 'self-selection" is obfuscatory. Also, saying that the universe is natural and therefore any behavior of the universe amounts to natural selection is a empty tautology.

Natural selection describes the phylogenesis of species. It isn't some skeleton key analogy that can be applied to any phenomenon while maintaining scientific validity.

Without knowing what he means by self-selection this entire paragraph is void of any meaningful interpretation.

>This is unsurprising, for intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon that could never have emerged in humans and animals were it not already a latent property of the medium of emergence.

Okay, besides using the completely uninformative and flashy phrase "medium of emergence" I have another problem with this statement. It essentially declares that there is a necessary relation between intelligence latent in the structure of the universe and the emergence of intelligence in humans.


This is an entirely unsupported statement. In fact, natural selection itself is touted as a way of explaining how intelligent life could appear by means of a wholly mechanistic and mindless algorithm.

If he believes selection processes must indicate the operation of intelligence, he appears to totally misunderstand the concept.

>>1559877
Okay, I'm skeptical if the universe is sentient. It's a fun idea, but all I'm saying is that it could be considered intelligent in a non-human way. Intelligence doesn't mean think like a human. By that definition, if you're a solipsist, you question if anyone else is "intelligent"

From the quote, it appears he's simply saying that there's no surprise that a universe that has a "memory" (the altered physical state), computational power (input output with laws of physics) and self-selection and propagation, created human intelligence which has these same features on a different scale. It's not a miracle. A universe that works on those principles on a cosmic scale that self-selects patterns that can replicate themselves will naturally evolve more sophisticated patterns that can replicate themselves, such as human intelligence.

>>1559920
Because one feedback is experiential and thus, self-configuring and the other is as deterministic as it gets.

>>1559893
And the universe takes it's own state as the input. I guess it's blind to anything outside the universe?

What does that make a brain in a vat? Is a brain in a vat not intelligent?

>>1559934
Yeah, I suppose I can agree with that, but in general, I do not think that necessarily means the universe is sentient, as you agreed. Furthermore, it also does not refute the commonly held scientific conception that the evolution is blind.

>>1559946

It's also reductionist to identify intelligence as a feedback loop, though intelligence does exhibit this property.

Category errors all over everywhere all the time and I don't know why.

>>1559925
>This is an entirely unsupported statement. In fact, natural selection itself is touted as a way of explaining how intelligent life could appear by means of a wholly mechanistic and mindless algorithm.

Don't be silly.

>he doesn't know about the evolutionary argument against naturalism

If the your mind is an arbitrary product of an arbitrary principle your argument collapses, too.

>>1559936
But your thought processes are deterministic.

>>1559936
In what ways do the electrical cascades of a neural network differ from the cascades of water in a system? Remember, the water cycle exists such that it can be self correcting (an abundance of flow causes erosion which causes sedimentation which causes a reduction in flow, whereas a lack of it causes an area of low deposition which will be preferrentially filled in the future, etc) across geologic time, similar to the way neurons self-correct and self-reinforce across a shorter timescale. Of course, this means duration causes them to be different, but why would duration imply how fundamental something is to the fabric of reality?

>>1559969
i dunno lol

http://news.stanford.edu/2015/06/08/computer-water-drops-060815/

File: 1468645345069.jpg (54KB, 589x590px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 589x590px

>>1559963

lol yeah what a silly dummy XD

>>1559964
>>1559969

There is nothing "determining" my behaviors outside of obvious biological factors, if consciousness is determined I am equivalent with its determiner; only I can choose to raise my hand at this moment, there is nothing "behind" me making this action, whatever arcane causality is operating behind this action I am one with it.

That consciousness is a part of the universe and that it nonetheless exhibits a capacity for self-regulatory feedback is exactly what Langan is saying: the universe's structure and development is a product of the mutual interaction between observer (experiantial, yin) and observed (mechanistic, yang)

>>1559963

>If the your mind is an arbitrary product of an arbitrary principle your argument collapses, too.

Do explain, please.

>>1559999
>outside of obvious biological factors
So you have no argument, okay.

>consciousness
You double have no argument.

>>1559999
>There is nothing "determining" my behaviors outside of obvious biological factors
Of course there are. All the un-obvious biological factors, which are much more significant than your casual dismissal would suggest. For example:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
Desicions are actually made before the "I" decides them. There is quite a bit occurring biologically "behind" you making an action, despite the I's illusion of total control.

The question then again becomes why the mind should be elevated over other items in existence when talking about the nature of the universe.

>>1560008
What biological factors are at play when I choose to raise my hand right this minute? At the level of human intelligence we're talking about a "blurred determinism" where the distinction between free will and determinism is functionally indistinguishable.

You're appealing to some magical deterministic blind man behind my actions. You're missing the point that Langan is saying we are deterministically embedded in the universe only insofar as that means we are part and parcel of its makeup. The universe is self-perceiving; the experiential cannot be reduced to the mechanistic, they are opposed by definition

>>1560022
>He found that the regions responsible for movement reacted a few hundred milliseconds before a conscious decision was made.

So? You receive the urge to press the button, then you make the conscious decision to press the button.

>>1560033
>The universe is self-perceiving; the experiential cannot be reduced to the mechanistic, they are opposed by definition

But perception is mechanistic, ergo "universal self-perception" (lol we are the universe getting to know itself :-DDDDD) is mechanistic.

>>1560033
>all this projection

>>1559963

This philosopher wrote an entire book basically backing up what I said, and so I'm not going to respond to your trivial reply but rather just link you to it so you can find out yourself.

https://www.amazon.com/DARWINS-DANGEROUS-IDEA-EVOLUTION-MEANINGS/dp/068482471X

>>1560045
The regions responsible for movement. In other words, the signal to be sent to the limbs was generated before the "concious desicion" to move was generated.

File: skycrane!.jpg (132KB, 699x540px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 699x540px

>>1560062

>>1560047
By the very fact you wouldn't call your thinking mechanistic proves that "mechanism" becomes increasingly obscure at higher levels of intelligence, and you must concede that to truly understand the mechanistic dimension of consciousness you would have to construct a causal ruleset that corresponds exactly to the internal experience of any given consciousness for it to be reliable. Calling consciousness mechanistic at this stage is practically meaningless.

>>1560062
>Dennett

lol

You know, bringing up evolution isn't automatically going to win you the prize.

If your mind is a random product of blind mechanism there is absolutely no reason to believe it can hold any reliable idea of reality and therefore all discourse is rendered meaningless.

You must grant the mind can rationally understand existence to the extent we are even engaging in a philosophical debate in the first place. Get outta here with this babby's first reductionism BS.

>>1560074
>By the very fact you wouldn't call your thinking mechanistic

But I would.

>>1560095

>If your mind is a random product of blind mechanism there is absolutely no reason to believe it can hold any reliable idea of reality and therefore all discourse is rendered meaningless.

How so? I can make two computers, that I built, "talk" to each other in Portuguese. Is there discourse "meaningless"? Maybe if you don't speak Portuguese, but otherwise no, it's quite sensible. Is their discourse mechanistic? Yes, absolutely.

>>1560097
Your automatic, habitual thinking, maybe, but you're thinking ABOUT your thinking is operating on a higher order and is more deterministically fuzzy, and as such, the recourse to le deterministic bogeyman completely loses any credence

>>1558354
lol intelligent design
whatever

>>1560095
>If your mind is a random product of blind mechanism there is absolutely no reason to believe it can hold any reliable idea of reality
Why? The very concepts of "blind" and "mechanism" are human constructs. The universe simply is. And the mind is incredibly easily fooled, but why would that imply knowledge is impossible?

>>1560106

>there/their

What the fuck brain-auto-correct.

>>1558354
So Langan is a Platonist?

>>1560108
Metacognition is by no means any less mechanistic than regular cognitions in brains that can support it.

>>1560106
But now if these computers want to talk about what it's like to be a computer, or speculate about the programmer, they're fucked because their literal wiring does not permit them any access to the origins of their "thoughts".

Thought is by and large deterministic, awareness of thought as deterministic is less so.

>blind
I don't understand how this word is being used. Patterns that can created patterns that displace other patterns are survive. It's not like there's no logic behind why these patterns are formed.

>>1560108
>Your automatic, habitual thinking, maybe, but you're thinking ABOUT your thinking is operating on a higher order

Reflexivity isn't a "higher order" of intelligence any more than my reaction to your reaction to my reaction to your reaction to my reaction to Lagrange's bullshit is an elevated form of intercourse.

>>1560121
>But now if these computers want to talk about what it's like to be a computer, or speculate about the programmer, they're fucked because their literal wiring does not permit them any access to the origins of their "thoughts".

Bitch, don't talk about what my computers can and cannot do. I tell them where their thoughts come from.

>>1560133
Are you god?

>>1560128
No. Awareness of habitual, automatic, psycho-physically determined thoughts is on a higher order, because if one say, successfully gains control of their emotions, their self has essentially become self-determining, and that is considerably less mechanistic than a purely conditioned response to the environment.

>>1560140

As far as these two dumb-dumbs are aware, yeah.

>>1560142
>and that is considerably less mechanistic than a purely conditioned response to the environment.

Explain why. You just keep repeating this same point without explaining anything, like it's a brute fact. It isn't. Justify it.

>>1560133
A blind, arbitrary system can of course create self-repeating patterns that successfully interact with one another in their own pre-determined mode of interaction but there's no reason to expect it would create intelligences that can create internal models of reality that correspond to the real thing, so either you must grant some isomorphism to cognition or your argument's dead right from the jump

>>1560149
>Hit traffic
>Awareness of my innter state allows me to nip the automatic anger response in the bud soon as it starts building

This decision was not on the same order of determination as the anger. The anger (especially if I've always had a problem with my anger) was the product of some biological cascade as the response to some conditioned psychological complex, and so is more akin to a psychological kneejerk reflex than an actual, deliberated action. It's not REALLY me, it's not "myself", insofar as I choose not to identify with it according to a self-concept that is dystonic with such a complex.

The awareness of said anger, however, proceeds from a more active and lucid consciousness. The felt experience of this consciousness is not on the order of random emotional outbursts. I believe life experience will suffice to demonstrate for this.

>>1558354
> This is unsurprising, for intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon that could never have emerged in humans and animals were it not already a latent property of the medium of emergence.
>[...] could never have emerged [...] were it not a latent property
Is this guy saying that you can't make original comments? Oh boy, /r9k/ is fucked.

Wow, none of this makes any sense.

>>1560155
>but there's no reason to expect it would create intelligences that can create internal models of reality that correspond to the real thing

They actually managed to cooperate in the construction of a game software, an FPS actually, kinda like Doom, which they play for hours at a time. I watch them on my monitor. They swear at each other a lot. In Portuguese.

>>1560173
>Is this guy saying that you can't make original comments? Oh boy, /r9k/ is fucked.
The universe constantly generates new patterns over time.

I hate how he is clearly flaunting his cool vocabulary to hide how mumbo jumbo it all sounds

>>1560168

You are just stating the same thing, as brute fact, with more words.

Beyond how it all "feels" to you, how does any of what you said necessarily entail non-determinism?

>>1560182
But nothing can emerge if it wasn't already there??????????
Does this guy even 1+1?

>>1560168
Your amygdala triggering "anger" was a biological cascade triggered by external stimuli. Your ACC triggering a mediation of the anger response was a biological cascade triggered by activation in the amygdala. It is all biological cascades.

>>1560121
What causes one to be aware of his thought? An emergent property (consciousness), or a set of brain states in a given instant? Its structure could give rise to the experience of being aware, maybe awareness is some configuration of the brain, not the experience itself, which is corelated with awareness.
Do you think the mental causes changes on the physical or is it an epiphenomena? Determinism could be compatible with the former I think.

>>1560187
Please actually read my posts. I'm not arguing non-determinism, I'm arguing whatever determinism there is in our atoms, our molecules, our cells, organs, and bodily systems, scales up into consciousness (which possesses its own gradient, mind you) all the way up to the consciousness-of-consciousness, which I have been describing. Your determinism gets harder and harder to call determinism. I am not denying I am operating on some principle when the self becomes "self-determining" in this way, but that the principle is considerably less mechanistic than the analogous "intelligence" in cells or molecules, and attempting to reduce the former to the latter is dumb and autistic.

Any deterministic model of person X's consciousness would be equivalent to that person X's consciousness itself. Person X can very well be making decisions based solely on qualia that cannot be reduced to mechanistic cascades; say, choosing to pursue a girl of a look because it reminds him of his ex. This was a decision made primarily in his consciousness, through his consciousness.

>>1560205
The mediation itself is a biological cascade, no doubt the dying down of anger is just as physiological as its arising. The decision to not engage with your anger was made by you and only you, only your experiential self, a decision not made by any biological directives but because of the subsequent qualitative effect on one's own consciousness (the sensation of actually being free of anger)

>>1560213
>but that the principle is considerably less mechanistic

You are not explaining HOW. I keep asking you explain HOW it is less mechanistic, and you just list off a whole bunch of OTHER MECHANISTIC PROCESSES that you think prove your point.

>Any deterministic model of person X's consciousness would be equivalent to that person X's consciousness itself. Person X can very well be making decisions based solely on qualia that cannot be reduced to mechanistic cascades; say, choosing to pursue a girl of a look because it reminds him of his ex. This was a decision made primarily in his consciousness, through his consciousness.

Round and round a fucking circle with you, my dude. It's like we're on the surface of a cyclically rotating object or something.

>>1560226
Except that, as per >>1560022, desicions would seem to be made before the "you" makes them. The "experimental self" is under the illusion that it is under control, but it is not in actuality.

>>1560213
Consciousness isn't the same as intelligence.

He's just saying that the universe can calculate self-selecting patterns, not that it consciously experiences anything.

>>1560229
Because it is experiential. Subject is opposed to object, consciousness is opposed to the lifelessness of matter. That's it. There's no secret causal formula, consciousness is self-determining by virtue of what it is. Whatever determinism at play in consciousness is expressed only through consciousness.

We are the total awareness of a deterministic system we call our bodies. Total awareness of ourselves AS the awareness of a deterministic system deconditions us, gradually. We become self-regulating in a true sense instead of passive receivers of stimuli data like plants and some animals. Evolution is a progressive, multi-branched development of greater and more expansive meta-awarenesses that culminate in the human awareness of self

>>1560213
But the mental interfering on the physical would be deterministic too.

>>1560245
I'm only arguing for how this process appears in the human realm, where it IS accompanied by experience and shit

>>1560258
>Because it is experiential. Subject is opposed to object, consciousness is opposed to the lifelessness of matter. That's it.

THESE ARE NOT BRUTE FACTS, YOU NEED TO PROVE THEM.

>>1560245
Even assuming that he is actually as innocent as you say, he's still wrong. Extremely isolated pockets of the universe are capable of what he is calling "self-selection" but that does not mean the universe as a coherent whole is capable of it. (Specific cells in your body are able to change their charge with a few molecules of ATP, but "you" are not capable of changing "your" charge with just a few molecules of ATP.)

>>1560267
I need to prove consciousness is different than inert, dead matter? lol. Sure m8.

>>1560243
I really don't think it's as an open-and-shut case as the article is making it out to be but in the interests of not spending the next hour doing research for a 4chan argument I'll let you have this one

>>1560258
>Subject is opposed to object, consciousness is opposed to the lifelessness of matter
Those arequirements very nice metaphysical assumptions but you have yet to provide any evidence for them. And "the lifelessness of matter" is completely meaningless. Life is a term for specific systems of interactions, and matter itself is a very outdated term.

>>1560274

Look at this fucking chuckle fuck, Jesus Christ.

Who said anything about matter? We're talking about physical, mechanistic processes. Yes, you have to prove that consciousness isn't a physical, mechanistic process.

>>1560274
Listen, Epin. You always use words like "inert' and "lifeless" to support your arguments, but you never actually justify them and posit that some fundimental properties of the universe must be responsible for them. For once, just try to justify your assumptions instead of restating them without evidence.

>>1560284
Regardless of the fact the spectrum between matter and "life" is continuous and difficult to parse, it's clear as day that the rational is different than the irrational, that self-perpetuating biological complexes we refer to life display emergent properties on the whole immediately distinguishes them from a rock.

>>1560282
Of course "you" don't. The idea that the "I" is not the determinant of all mental activity is both foreign to everyday experience and terrifying philosophically. But it is also true.

>>1560298
>Regardless of the fact the spectrum between matter and "life" is continuous and difficult to parse

THERE'S NO FUCKING SPECTRUM BECAUSE IT'S ONTOLOGICALLY VACUOUS TO SPEAK OF "MATTER" IN THE FIRST PLACE

"INTELLIGENCE" IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM "A ROCK" IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT "A TREE" IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM "A ROCK".

>>1560268
Evolution is self-selection you retard. Some projecting and redefining things so you can say it's wrong.

>>1560290
>>1560294
I've spent fucking 50 posts outlining my position in very clear detail and you retards still don't fucking get it. If you need proof that the subjective is different from the objective as such, regardless of whatever semantics games and hair-pulling you want to do about the exact definition of life, you're autistic. If you honestly think consciousness being reducible to strictly mechanistic descriptions is somehow the default position in philosophy of mind and that it's on me to prove something as self-evident as "life is less obviously deterministic than a fucking rock" you're autistic or trolling, probably both.

>>1560309
>nothing is anything, u cant kno nuffn

Nice talkin' to ya.

>>1560298
>it's clear as day that the rational is different than the irrational
Any optical illusion book will be a very quick reminder that the mind is not rational. "Rationality" is a hypothetical construct that human minds attempt to emulate and generally only do so as a swarm rather than as an individual.

The self-perpetuating complexes we refer to as life are not all that different, fundamentally speaking, as various rock cycles when examined over geologic time.

>>1560304
Oh please, I know my Hume and Buddhist philosophy of mind, your epin determinism stops short when trying to describe the actual, experiential self which is what I've been saying this whole fucking thread.

>>1560322
Oh come on don't be such a pomo fag, there is structure, there is stability, there are identifiable patterns of activity, give the construct shit a rest. If there's no rationality, if there are no supports for our models of the world (even contingently), then there's no reason you can trust your thought processes about anything, and once again, you've rendered your argument null and void.

>le optical illusion book

The perceptual apparatuses of the mind are not perfectly rational. The mind, the Self, is not equivalent to one's visual system and its flaws thereof.

>>1560315
>If you need proof that the subjective is different from the objective as such, regardless of whatever semantics games and hair-pulling you want to do about the exact definition of life, you're autistic.

DEMANDING PROOF IS AUTISTIC EVERYONE

>If you honestly think consciousness being reducible to strictly mechanistic descriptions is somehow the default position in philosophy of mind and that it's on me to prove something as self-evident as "life is less obviously deterministic than a fucking rock" you're autistic or trolling, probably both.

>Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?

>Accept or lean toward: physicalism 526 / 931 (56.5%)
>Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 252 / 931 (27.1%)
>Other 153 / 931 (16.4%)

??????????????????????????????????????????LOL

>>1560325
No, it really doesn't. The amydala is tuned to external stimuli that causes anger. The ACC is tuned to stimuli from other portions of the brain. It is all cascades that feed into the concious portions of the brain at the very end.

>>1560334
>/his/ polls

lol

>what is non-reductive physicalism
>he actually thinks science has solved the hard problem

Nigga you gotta be 18+ to post here

>>1560312
Why is the self-selection of life fundamentally different from that of a stream "self selecting" where to empty due to differing erosion patterns?

The universe can calculate patterns that self-select.

Some of these self-selected create patterns react differently to different inputs like a basic calculation, and are well suited for self-selection. Like chemical reactions.

Some of these self-selected patterns create more complex patterns, which can react to more complex stimuli in more complex ways, like basic life, which is suited to self-selection.

Some of these patterns again generate patterns made of patterns which create an internal model of the local universe with brains, to perform more advanced calculation, which are better suited to being selected.

Then again, it generates a pattern that calculates itself into the model of the local universe.

Then again, those patterns calculate to generate patterns that are better suited to be selected.

Then those patterns calculate to created a better calculator.

Etc.

He's saying it's not all just random chance up until evolution, and then and only then does self-selection and evolution happen. The fundamental unit of evolution is the self-selecting pattern, of which DNA is only a single example.

>>1560334
>>1560339

>/his/ polls

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

"Professional" philosophers, actually.

>IT'S ALL JUST EMERGENT PROPERTIES, BRO, DON'T U GET IT??????

Prove it.

>>1560332
The "self" is a very specific portion of the brain that has ultimately very poor information regarding the mechanics of other parts of the brain (or, seen another way, it had exactly as much information as was required to surevive tens of thousands of years ago. ) "Rationality" as understood by humans is a construct of their everyday existence, which is very different from the actual mechanics of the universe. This is most evident in Aquinas fanboys who have such difficulty lething go of Aristotle in a post-quantum physics world.

>>1560341
It's not, that's his point. The universe has self-selecting patterns that generate more complex patterns. Patterns being self-selecting and creating more complex patterns isn't unique to life. The argument is that DNA/life didn't spring from nothing and randomness like some creationists say. It came from a process of self-selecting patterns generating patterns. On top of that, it's not surprising that if the universe uses self-selection to calculate, it's not surprising if a pattern becomes able to calculate, in order to do better in terms of self selection.

>>1560336
So there's some correlate of brain activity that corresponds to the self that made the decision, well, great, thanks for clinching my argument for me, which was the mind is self-configuring and self-determining. Did you think I was arguing substance dualism?

>>1560350
Brain activity is only the physical correlate to an irreducible subjective experience. No mechanistic description can account for the "redness" of red, but you're welcome to try. There is also no model of the brain that can account for why neuron activity SHOULD be accompanied by inner experiencer of said data processing

>>1560355
Humans figured out the water cycle back during Greek times. Rationality is perfectly capable of describing the human frame of reference, in accordance with the laws that operate in this frame, the same laws that operate at all scales. That humans are not privvy to the exact details of quantum mechanics or the nature of dark energy or whatever does not invalidate the isomorphism of cognition to the syntax of reality as it is perceivable to the human mind. Your argument would actually be something if I was arguing for human omniscience.

>>1560359

Who here is saying consciousness is reducible to "brain activity"?

>He hasn't heard of extended mind theory

lol fucking amateur hour in here

>>1560357
If his argument is that waterfalls are exactly as fundamental to reality as intellect, then he should really learn to phrase his arguments better.

File: stolencanofrusto.jpg (95KB, 600x646px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x646px

>>1560359

>Ask him to prove a statement
>He just restates his position instead

>>1560374
I said like 6 different times that the determinism operating on the level of rocks is the same one operating in life, it's just harder to make out. I'm either assuming too much familiarity with the material or idk, I don't like gassing myself up so shamelessly, but I'm seriously starting to think I'm too smart for /his/ (though this thread has been very good)

>>1560377
>Brain activity is only the physical correlate to an irreducible subjective experience. No mechanistic description can account for the "redness" of red, but you're welcome to try. There is also no model of the brain that can account for why neuron activity SHOULD be accompanied by inner experiencer of said data processing

This is the argument. An argument echoed exactly here:

>We have good reason to believe that consciousness arises from physical systems such as
brains, but we have little idea how it so arises, or why it exists at all. How could a physical
system such as a brain also be an experiencer? Why should there be something it is like to
be such a system? Currently, we do not know how to answer these questions. Present-day
scientific theories hardly touch the really difficult questions about consciousness. In the farreaching
explanatory structure that connects physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and
higher-level phenomena, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb by its absence.

You're literally so fucking stupid you don't even know when what you're reading is refuting your position, lmfao

>>1560370
>Humans figured out the water cycle back during Greek times
The cycles of deposition were figured out fairly recently in terms of human thought.

>Rationality is perfectly capable of describing the human frame of reference
Yes, because it evolved to deal with the human frame of reference, not the universe's actual mechanics.

>does not invalidate the isomorphism of cognition to the syntax of reality
Again, there is no reason to elevate intellect to a fundamental element of reality any more than any other item. Within this very thread it has already been shown that it is not removed from the mechanics that underly every single phenomena.

>>1560386

Arguments move from premises to a conclusion. You've stated a bunch of conclusions. All you've done this entire thread is state conclusions and pretend you presenting an argument. You're literally so fucking stupid that you DON'T EVEN REALIZE THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

>>1560392
Why do you think intelligence being isomorphic grants it some special, mystical privilege? A tree is fundamental to reality by being a tree, intelligence is fundamental to reality by being intelligence, ie a rational, ordered process by which reality is known, that's it. Intelligence is isomorphic because it is fundamental, it is fundamental because it exists.

>>1560393
>waahh wahhh wahahhh i want pretty little syllogisms with a cherry on top.

Mate. Here's what you do.

you read the sentence: "There is also no model of the brain that can account for why neuron activity SHOULD be accompanied by inner experiencer of said data processing"

You read this sentence again, maybe a third time. You comprehend it. You try to think of a model that does in fact explain why brain activity should be accompanied by subjective experience of said activity, you post it. Or you contest the claim any other way you can think of. That's it. Do you agree, or disagree with this statement? If the latter, why? What assumptions does it make? Literally anything's more productive than shrieking BASELESS ASSERTIONS like a hysterical faggot

>>1560374
The universe acts like a basic intelligence. Input is before. Output is after. The laws of physics are the calculations. Memory are the patterns in the end state. This happens over and over, and the complexity of the patterns increases as those patterns are better suited for the selection process. Since the universe itself uses this basic calculation process to determine selection, it's not a surprise that eventually one of the developing patterns gains the ability to calculate in order to survive the selection process better.

He's arguing about "intelligent design" and about the assertion that to develop a world complex as it is, you need an intelligent designer and it could not just be because of random chance. Some people literally use the flow of water as proof of god, because the grand canyon is so vast. He's saying the universe has an inherently intelligent nature because of pattern self-selection similar to the process we understand as intelligence.

>>1560411

The statement assumes that a descriptive theory must also contain a modal-imperative explanation of what is described. Why should this be necessary? Because you want it? Because you really really really want it really really bad and if you don't get it you're just gonna be so god damned mad?

You dumb fucking cunt.

>>1560399
It doesn't, necessarily. All you need to do is acknowledge that waterfalls and intellect are exactly as fundamental to the nature of reality as each other. Ideally you would also make threads about how the universe was designed to create waterfalls because waterfalls exist but I am not picky.

>>1560423
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidics
Yes.

>>1560411
>"There is also no model of the brain that can account for why neuron activity SHOULD be accompanied by inner experiencer of said data processing"
Either the inner experience of neuronal activity is adaptive in terms of self-preservation or it is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex brain.

There. Was that so hard?

>>1560420
A satisfactory account of consciousness must bridge the explanatory gap

>>1560423
Yeah, but intelligence is not another object like a waterfall or a rock. That's why we're talking about it. Because it's intelligence. It's not an object. It doesn't need to be metaphysically privileged; it privileges itself. I don't get this argument. Waterfalls exist in the universe, as does intelligence. Both are latent to the universe, but intelligence is interesting because intelligence could not arise in an otherwise absolutely (as opposed to apparently) chaotic, lifeless system. That's why we're talking about it.

Jesus fucking Christ Lord give me strength.

>>1560423
Waterfall computer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo85u9mnp9k

>>1560433
Lol, what? No shit it's a property that emerges in the brain, and there's literally nothing that would necessarily link adaptation to conscious experience. Not to mention, once again, for the millionth fucking time, the question is not HOW conscious experience arises, but THAT it does.

How do I reach these auteeeeeeeeeeeests

>>1560436
>A satisfactory account of consciousness must bridge the explanatory gap

There isn't an explanatory gap. Your turn.

>>1560443

He was restating your "argument" into a disjunctive premise to an actual argument, you fucking MORON.

>>1560443
>Not to mention, once again, for the millionth fucking time, the question is not HOW conscious experience arises, but THAT it does.
The question is about intelligence, not consciousness.

>>1560445
>nuh-uh

Okay chief.

>>1560446
>le disjunctive premise, le epic logicul debates on 4chan Xppp

>>1560428
>>1560437
So if you two would take it up with the following poster, that would be useful.

>>1560436
>Yeah, but intelligence is not another object like a waterfall or a rock.
It is a property, like the angularity of the clasts in a sedimentary rock.

>It doesn't need to be metaphysically privileged; it privileges itself.
So it is a completely egocentric glorification that has nothing to do with external reality. Wish we had gotten to this part sooner.
>but intelligence is interesting because intelligence could not arise in an otherwise absolutely (as opposed to apparently) chaotic, lifeless system.
Epin, why do you use the word emergent property in other contexts when you clearly have no idea what it means with statements like this*

File: andsowebeaton.jpg (173KB, 887x900px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 887x900px

>>1560455

A troll? On 4chin? Gedouttahea!

/HIS/ I NEED HELP

Does any of you know about times in past history where politicians would alternate power while pretending to not be allies to the people?
Maybe in Ancient Greece or Rome?

>>1560463
Why would you ask this here?

>>1560459
>So it is a completely egocentric glorification that has nothing to do with external reality. Wish we had gotten to this part sooner.

Holy fucking shit I've tried and tried to convey to you talking about intelligence and consciousness and everything that distinguishes life from the mechanism you faggots have such a boner for and I'm still getting this redditard "le anthropic bias" bullshit argument.

You're all fucking retards

File: 1467587738126.gif (305KB, 184x219px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 184x219px

>>1560462
>restate his argument
>no one actually reply to his points except "nuh-uh" and "muh proper format"

lel /his/ is a joke, I mean there was some good discussion for a bit there then it turned into brainlet motherfucking central with the autists who can't into the hard problem

>>1560470
You can't prove consciousness in anyone but yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

>>1560470
>Holy fucking shit I've tried and tried
Not really, Epin. Mostly you just restate your assumptions over and over.

If you could in any way formally distinguish "life" from "the mechanism" we would likely be having a very different conversation, but you mostly just say "come on!"

>>1559893
>This guy is definitely not making the kind of metaphysical claims you are misrepresenting him as making.
I never said he's making a metaphysical claim. Obviously, you don't understand what the paper is arguing. Let me quote the article:

"By unifying the theory of evolution (which shows how random variation and selection is sufficient to provide incremental adaptation) with learning theories (which show how incremental adaptation is sufficient for a system to exhibit intelligent behaviour), this research shows that it is possible for evolution to exhibit some of the same intelligent behaviours as learning systems (including neural networks)."

"by evolving the organisation of development that controls variation, the organisation of ecological interactions that control selection or the structure of reproductive relationships that control inheritance - natural selection can change its own ability to evolve

if evolution can learn from experience, and thus improve its own ability to evolve over time, this can demystify the awesomeness of the designs that evolution produces

natural selection can accumulate knowledge that enables it to evolve smarter
that's exciting because it explains why biological design appears to be so intelligent ”

File: 1467159194710.jpg (52KB, 499x700px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 499x700px

>>1560483
>linking the wikipedia article to solipsism like I'm about to get my mind blown

lmao'ing @ ur life

>>1560492
Yet you think you can prove life by virtue of other people's consciousness.

/his/ needs user ids. It is very confusing to read the arguments without user ids. Who agrees with me?

>>1560492
Is that Terrence Malick on the cup?

>>1560498
No, ids are cancer, see /pol/. You are literally from /pol/ if you think ids are a good idea.

>>1560498
Or you could use a tripfag

>>1560486
mechanism is irreducible to mechanism, life less so, higher order consciousness is practically irreducible to mechanism.

I can't believe you want me to prove this instead of not being an autist and engaging with the argument from there. Jesus Christ.

How about this:

You can model how a bunch of rocks are going to fall with just some classical physics and a supercomputer, you can't model the same thing on where a bunch of people in downtown are going to go based on mechanical laws alone, because they are operating according to their consciousness, therefore they are subject (or rather, equivalent to) a higher-order determinism that is looking less and less like mechanism

there, fuck you

>>1560505
mechanism is REDUCIBLE to mechanism*

>>1560505
Consciousness is simply a complex mechanism. The computer does a better job because it has a better internal model of the universe. It has nothing to do with consciousness.

>>1560479

>stephanmolyneux'ssmugfuckingfacelololololol.jpg

Could great men thunder
As Jove himself does, Jove would ne'er be quiet,
For every pelting, petty officer
Would use his heaven for thunder;
Nothing but thunder! Merciful Heaven,
Thou rather with thy sharp and sulphurous bolt
Split'st the unwedgeable and gnarled oak
Than the soft myrtle: but man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,
Would all themselves laugh mortal.

>>1560515
Are you literally so fucking retarded you can't see that's what I'm saying, but a mechanism that is self-configuring and opaque to how we normally understand mechanism, so at that point we should engage with it on its own terms and not as something that can (and should be) reduced to mechanistic cascades? Lord almighty.

>>1560505
>mechanism is reducible to mechanism, life less so
So a project that accurately emulates life would be completely impossible under your definitions?
http://www.openworm.org/
>You can model how a bunch of rocks are going to fall with just some classical physics and a supercomputer
But modeling the flow dynamics that would cause a specific distribution of radioactive nuclei that themselves cause a specific pattern of radioactivity would be much harder. But hardness does not entail impossibility.

>you can't model the same thing on where a bunch of people in downtown are going to go based on mechanical laws alone,
Yet. The flatworm project is a single step. But rat cortical columns have been emulated also. That emulations of brains are currently not feasible does not in any way mean they are impossible.

>>1560524

There he goes again.

>>1560524
>opaque
Why does that matter? Does me not understanding quantum physics or dark matter mean they're not mechanisms? If I choose to be willfully ignorant about machines, does that mean they don't operate because of mechanisms? Are you saying mechanisms don't exist as long as no one understands the mechanisms?

It's interesting how this thread got 15 times more popularity than when it was posted on /sci/ yesterday.

>>1560530
Emulation =/= comprehension

You can emulate neuron networks, but that does not explain why there is a correspondent consciousness that arises in tandem with the data processing of biological neurons

This isn't an argument from impossibility, it's an argument that consciousness obviously follows its own ruleset by virtue of being consciousness.

>>1560546
Because it's advantageous to the pattern to be somewhat self-aware. The ruleset is based on more fundamental rulesets which it does not violate.

>>1560505
>mechanism is reducible to mechanism, life less so
So a project that accurately emulates life would be completely impossible under your definitions?
http://www.openworm.org/
>You can model how a bunch of rocks are going to fall with just some classical physics and a supercomputer
But modeling the flow dynamics that would cause a specific distribution of radioactive nuclei that themselves cause a specific pattern of radioactivity would be much harder. But hardness does not entail impossibility.

>you can't model the same thing on where a bunch of people in downtown are going to go based on mechanical laws alone,
Yet. The flatworm project is a single step. But rat cortical columns have been emulated also. That emulations of brains are currently not feasible does not in any way mean they are impossible. >>1560546
>it's an argument that consciousness obviously follows its own ruleset by virtue of being consciousness
In other words, conciousness is impossible to understand because you have decided it is too important and thus must obviously follow an obscure ruleset?

>>1560537
No, no, Jesus Christ no, I've said like TEN FUCKING TIMES in this thread I'm NOT fucking arguing for consciousness or intelligence or whatever somehow being acausal.

I literally said in the FUCKING ARGUMENT YOU WERE RESPONDING TO that life operates according to a higher-order determinism, which might be a mechanism, but is a mechanism that is virtually useless to talk of as we normally understand mechanism because it cannot explain subjectivity in any satisfactory way. READ THE FUCKING POSTS

>>1560532
Cause you're retards who need something repeated ten fucking times to get

>>1560546
Why does comprehension matter?

>>1560551
there is nothing NECESSARILY linking survival benefit =/= consciousness

ONCE AGAIN, it's not HOW consciousness arises, but THAT it does, THAT consciousness and intelligence should even be a factor in the first place. Holy shit.

>In other words, conciousness is impossible to understand because you have decided it is too important and thus must obviously follow an obscure ruleset?

No you fucking dipshit I'm saying it can't be understood in the same way we understand less complex, less TRIGGER WARNING: alive systems. Oh my god

>>1560555
Why do you keep bringing up consciousness? Why does it matter if you understand the mechanism when you're debating whether or not it is a mechanism? What does the word mechanism even mean to you? You seem to be arguing using an arsenal of red herrings and strawmen.

>>1560557
Because the question isn't how these systems function but that these system's functions are accompanied by a self-awareness of those functions, and modeling these systems doesn't say shit about shit if we don't know the underlying process by which mechanistic reactions are converted to qualia

>>1560555
So this thread is all about the hard problem, make a new thread about it then or you will have a stroke.

>>1560555

It's helpful to repeat things, especially when you keep changing what you're supposedly saying every three or four posts.

>>1560575
No, it's not about the hard problem, it's to demontrate life is not just rudimentary mechanism and as such is something special and as such it means something to say intelligence is a latent property of the universe

>>1560562

"arguing"

>>1560565
Why do you keep bringing up self-awareness? What are you even arguing against? All you seem to be arguing is that there exists a higher level of understanding.

Does my understanding of Newtonian physics not mean shit because I don't understand quantum physics? Models only need to be able to calculate the desired end result. You don't need a complete understanding. You need enough of an understanding to achieve your desired result. Understanding is simply a means of creating a better model.

My favorite book relating to these questions was Christof Koch's "Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist". He was friends with Francis Crick, and together they ventured to find the "neural correlates of consciousness" (NCC). I enjoyed Christof Koch's book because it is a nice blend of science, philosophical questions, and memoir. It's not a perfect book, by far, but it does get you interested in these questions and prepares you for more scholarly texts or journal articles.

Christof Koch helped Giuli Toninino developed "Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness", but Koch tends to be more of a panpsychist for existential reasons.

I don't Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness though because it ignores how dynamic functional connectivity changes in relation to structural plasticity of the brain.

I tend to be a pragmatist that veers towards New Mysterianism now though, but I think Neuroscience should not weigh itself down with these questions which is more philosophical domain.

I will say, I really dislike logical positivists that dismiss these questions and tend to adopt eliminative materialism.

>>1560582
>it's to demontrate life is not just rudimentary mechanism
>>1560555
>life operates according to a higher-order determinism, which might be a mechanism, but is a mechanism

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????LOL

>>1560589

Higher order humor right here.

>>1560586
The initial point was there is nothing stopping us from attributing a (very) rudimentary intelligence to cells and shit despite how "mechanical" these self-regulating processes might appear to be. There is nothing inherently opposing intelligence and mechanism because intelligence IS mechanism (of a sort), and so it would be prudent to call mechanism something else because the same substance is giving us to very different sides to reality (quantitative and qualitative).

This might seem like I'm contradicting myself but you first you have to establish an apparent difference between intelligence and lifeless matter so that, by subsequently reconciling them, the reductive explanation of these self-regulating processes as just being "blind, irrational" doesn't hold any water.

>>1560592
"Life is not JUST rudimentary mechanism" (notice the just, retard) is not contradicted by "life operates according to a higher-order determinism, which might be a mechanism, but is a mechanism that is virtually useless to talk of as we normally understand mechanism because it cannot explain subjectivity in any satisfactory way"

learn to read faggot

>>1560589
>I don't Integrated Information T
I made a typo:
>I don't like***

>>1560597
>Higher order humor right here.
I do think higher-order thought is necessary for consciousness, and there are specific patterns of neural activity necessary for its existence. I think IIT tends to ignore how some pathways of neural activation are more important. For example, it ignores how some components are necessary, such as the oscillatory neural activity between thalamus and various cortical regions for binding disparate elements of experience into a coherent whole (i.e., thalamocortical resonance).

>>1560622
>it ignores how some components are necessary
They have more importance/weight than just viewing the phi (Integration)

>>1560603
>The initial point was there is nothing stopping us from attributing a (very) rudimentary intelligence to cells and shit despite how "mechanical" these self-regulating processes might appear to be. There is nothing inherently opposing intelligence and mechanism because intelligence IS mechanism (of a sort), and so it would be prudent to call mechanism something else because the same substance is giving us to very different sides to reality (quantitative and qualitative).
Okay, and what does consciousness have to do with that?

>This might seem like I'm contradicting myself but you first you have to establish an apparent difference between intelligence and lifeless matter
Why do I have to?

>so that, by subsequently reconciling them, the reductive explanation of these self-regulating processes as just being "blind, irrational" doesn't hold any water.
Based on the premise that I "have" to define them as different. The point is that the processes are more similar than you realize.

>>1560612
>which might be a mechanism, but is a mechanism that is virtually useless to talk of as we normally understand mechanism
What is this assertion based on? Why do you deny it is mechanism? How do you even define mechanism? If you don't understand physics, is a machine suddenly not a mechanism but a mechanism that is virtually useless to talk of?

>>1560582
And if your conclusion is true, what does that imply? Could two elemental particles interacting with each other give rise to some primitive consciousness? What do you mean by intelligence?

>>1560629
>Could two elemental particles interacting with each other give rise to some primitive consciousness?
Seriously, what the fuck is your obsession with consciousness? No you retarded dumbfuck, they give rise to the a molecule pattern. DNA is made of molecule patterns. DNA is a pattern that generates cell patterns. Patterns of cells create you and your brain. Your brain has consciousness.

It means that the universe operates on a very simple and rudimentary logic system that involves calculation and adaptation. Intelligence is a higher order pattern that performs higher order calculation and adaptation using the rudimentary forms of calculation and adaptation.

>>1560628
The argument in a nutshell is life and the dead stuff are made of the same thing, or rather life is just the dead stuff arranged in a certain way, so reducing the experiential dimension of life to dead stuff as per a way of illuminating explanation answers nothing, resolves nothing, clears up nothing. there is no reason why I cannot ascribe a very dim intelligence to cells if they are self-processing, self-configuring systems just like my own body and the intelligence it supports is.

>What is this assertion based on? Why do you deny it is mechanism? How do you even define mechanism? If you don't understand physics, is a machine suddenly not a mechanism but a mechanism that is virtually useless to talk of?

Once again, this isn't a God of the Gaps, it's a very clear and self-evident distinction between a machine that is very obviously composed of parts designed to act in a specific and pre-determined way, and the actual presence of a human being in front of us that is acting according to an internal, experiential self-concept. The parts of an engine and my own, no-shit inner experience of the world cannot be made equivalent except by simply accepting they are operating according to some principle, even if it is obscure in consciousness.

>>1560629
An intelligent correspondent to two particles interacting with each other? Sure, why the fuck not, it's barely anything but if there is a self-contained system anywhere there is an intelligence or active, maintaining "force" present in the system that constitutes and regulates it

Hey guys, I have this very sophisticated argument I made for an interactionist dualist view of consciousness in the past -- based off Henri Bergson. I don't believe it anymore, but I thought it was better than both reductive physicalism and panpsychism. If you want, I can give the argument. I felt illuminated the explanatory gap perfectly and showed. If you want, I can hear your opinions on it.

>>1560642
Why would I reply to my own post you dumb fucking faggot?

>>1560645
Go for it

>>1560646
>my own posy
>checks the namefield
>yes
>same fucking name
>its yours
Fuck off to /pol/ if you want IDs

>>1560651
>It means that the universe operates on a very simple and rudimentary logic system that involves calculation and adaptation. Intelligence is a higher order pattern that performs higher order calculation and adaptation using the rudimentary forms of calculation and adaptation.

I think you're legitimately slow in the head if you think I've been arguing something all that different from this. Kill yourself.

>>1560643
The original quote is response to intelligent design you retard. It's arguing that the universe does not need an external intelligence, because it possesses a rudimentary function that acts as primitive adaptive intelligence upon which more advanced intelligence is built. It's saying the universe is inherently "intelligent" enough not to need an intelligent creator, yet end up with a result that appears as if it was created by a form of intelligence.

>>1560657
I think you're anonymous

File: 1471233392329.jpg (11KB, 288x175px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 288x175px

>>1560668
>he thinks I've been arguing an external intelligence all this whole time

hahahahahaha fucking kill yourselves every single one of you

>>1560677
That's what the quote that is being discussed is about. I have no idea what the fuck you're arguing about because you're rambling, incoherent, and seem to go completely off topic and reinterpret things as it suits your argument, whatever it may be.

>>1560642
You would only observe its behavior, not experiencing by yourself. Does a cat have consciousness, a worm, a protein, an atom, where do you draw the line for consciousness emerging from structure? Only human brains? Why?
I am not the guy you are mad at by the way.

>>1560697
>substances are numerically identical
substances are NOT numerically identically

File: 1470913696401.jpg (35KB, 445x604px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 445x604px

>>1560688
>le rambling, le incoherent

First argument posted was there was no reason to ascribe intelligence to cells and evolution and whatever because they're "just" blindly following laws, and then the question was on what grounds we can distinguish cellular "intelligence" and just blind, meaningless mechanism, and then the rest of the thread was trying to establish a connection between the two and just different expressions of the same principle

a point which I made clear like 10 posts ago

go alphabetize your manga collection already you autistic cunt baby, it's un-fucking-believable the bullshit you faggots will accept a priori while forcing the other guy to first prove he's even typing on a keyboard. go fuck yourself

>>1560706
>>1560677

>SpongeBob-posting

Really scraping bikini bottom here, huh?

>>1560711
whatever helps you ignore what I actually posted so you can ask me to clear it up again in 5 posts, faggot

>>1560706

Still can't tell if you're just stringing everyone along. I want to believe there aren't such thick-headed dullards in the world, but the many years spent on this site has corroded my faith.

>>1560726
>le cynical meme man

come back when you have an argument

>>1560716

>My own, special, internal monologue AND my refusal to countenance any attempt to explain this phenomena because of the fortification of presuppositions I have built up around my fragile experience- machine-projection PROVES you can't explain it! LOL

>>1560734

Don't call me a man, man. I'll clean your clock, I fucking swear it, mate.

>>1560739
This nigga still thinks I'm saying consciousness can't be explained or that it isn't physical

Stupid fuck

>>1560693
Because they don't need consciousness. Higher order calculation, which I hope people can agree is what consciousness is, not feefees about experience, is an increased specialization of a trait, doesn't mean better adapted for every niche, basic evolutionary theory.

I can't prove animal consciousness because I can't prove human consciousness other than my own. I can only conjecture that other humans seem similar enough and behave similar enough to me that I can assume they have consciousness.

I don't even see why it matters in this context, which is about intelligence, not consciousness. Consciousness is just one of those patterns and a result of the brain that helps with self selection. If you want to know why you experience, first of all, you have no point of comparison. You can't experience what anyone or anything else is. If we assume consciousness is a product of the human mind, it appears to be a pattern that is the result of a previous pattern, and survives the pattern selection process, for the time being.

>>1560746

This blithe spirit says he has a beetle in his box, yet every time I ask him to show me he refuses. Scoundrel!

>>1560746

Calling consciousness an 'emergent property' again and again and again and again isn't an explanation; it's hand- waving. A loose fist, rocking at the wrist, up and down.

File: 1470460228346.png (477KB, 523x523px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 523x523px

>>1560764

>>1560746
>This nigga
Well at least we can agree niggers don't have any consciousness. Let's put this to rest already.

>>1560697
>To believe explicit memory is reducible would mean every single possible/probable formation of explicit memory, even with its fine gradations, is already a latent possibility within the brain, which can be kind of dubious

Why is that dubious? There's 2^1073741824 discrete different ways to arrange 1GB of data. That is a very huge number of possibilities. 1073741824 itself is a very large number, and that is only 2^30. 2^1073741824 is pretty much incomprehensible.

If you still don't understand the ramifications, a TV show video file is ~1GB. Most memories are considerably more vague than a TV show. If you watch a TV show, you would not be able to replicate every pixel and sound from memory. Yet that 1GB basically contains the potential for every possible variation of TV show episode of normal length.

So if a .mp4 or whatever can express a gradient and greater detail than your memory can, and digital data is a form of memory, why can't your brain too, contain the potential for an unfathomable number of variations with less precision than a video?

>>1560706
>a point which I made clear like 10 posts ago
You literally have not made anything clear.

>First argument posted was there was no reason to ascribe intelligence to cells and evolution and whatever because they're "just" blindly following laws, and then the question was on what grounds we can distinguish cellular "intelligence" and just blind, meaningless mechanism, and then the rest of the thread was trying to establish a connection between the two and just different expressions of the same principle
So why the fuck consciousness every time?

>go alphabetize your manga collection already you autistic cunt baby, it's un-fucking-believable the bullshit you faggots will accept a priori while forcing the other guy to first prove he's even typing on a keyboard. go fuck yourself
You hurt my feelings.

>>1560764
You're free to hand-wave it because it isn't relevant.

>>1560771

All quitters are faggots, faggot.

>>1560782

>crux of the whole 'argument'
>not relevant

I'm going to bed.

>>1560779
The brain is a machine and is sufficiently advanced that it is indistinguishable from magic. I'm sorry to disappoint you.

>>1560785
But you don't need consciousness for intelligence.

>>1560751
All right, imagine an universe where there is only you and a copy of you, facing each other through time. If both of you have the same physical properties, what property determines your consciousness to the body A instead of body B? Why are you experiencing reality through body A instead of B, if consciousness arises from complexity and both of you have exactly the same configuration?
I am just expanding the topic further, sorry for hijacking

>>1560789
>The brain is a machine and is sufficiently advanced that it is indistinguishable from magic. I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Are you a reductive physicalist that accept representational theory of mind? That's basically what it sounds like you're saying.

>>1560791

Which is why I've assigned my Portuguese-speaking computer-brothers to respond to all posts after this one with 100% original, context-pertinent responses to your asinine blathering. Diverta-se!

>>1560795

>thermometers don't represent the ambient temperature of whatever they are placed in

Hm.

>>1560795
You can't prove I have consciousness. How am I supposed to know what consciousness is? Someone tells me they are conscious, I can't verify it, nor do I know what they mean by it. They tell me it's that thing I'm experiencing. How do I know this thing I am experiencing is the same as the thing they are experiencing, or even the nature of experiencing?

It's interesting to think about, I'll entertain conjecture about it, but when it comes to belief, yes, I'm going to hand-wave it and just be a reductive physicalist. I am well aware this is a boring belief and appears nonintellectual.

>>1560811
No offense, but are you autistic? I don't mean this in a mean way. Also, how old are you?

>>1560792
Wouldn't A and B both have identical consciousnesses?

>>1560804
What? You're not making any sense.

>>1560814
>are you autistic
Everyone in this thread is autistic.

>>1560817

Simpleton.

>>1560819
Not really. I'm actually discussing philosophy of mind.
>>1560821
I mean, I think it's okay to be a bit of unorthodox in your philosophical approach, but when it comes to actually establishing what you're arguing for, it's best to just stick to a standard -ism. Practically anything you're trying to conclude has been said elsewhere, and I think it's better you just define your position ahead of time instead of sounding like an idiot.

I mean, I got my degree in Neuroscience, man. I am no simpleton.

>>1560816
I dont know, would "you" experience through both bodies? If something hits one of the bodies and break the simmetry, which body is you? I know that I am implying some unique property or substance to each body for determining consciousness, well...

>>1560828
Why would you get a degree in nueroscience if you're not autistic?

>>1560833
That could only be observed after the fact. If I experience getting hit, then I'm the body the got hit. If I experience seeing the other body get hit, then I'm the body that wasn't hit.

The two share an identity property and are indistinguishable, until they no longer have identical identities and become distinguishable.

>>1560828

You are trying to say gesturing at Wikipedia articles is basically the same thing as having a bona fide 'philosophical' conversation where considered thought goes into outlining a position, stating it clearly, demonstrating how it follows from acceptable premises, and fielding questions and criticisms with grace and patience--but you're not a total mouth-breathing troglodyte?

Huh.

>I have a degree in neuroscience

Guffawed.

>>1560860
I have read a philosophy of mind textbook. Nothing that is being discussed is new here. It's best to state your conclusion clearly.

Also, Neuroscience does not work the same way as philosophy. They're unrelated. Unlike most of my colleagues, I'm not a logical positivist, so I still see value in the input of philosophers when it's done in an orderly and academic way.

>>1560846
But the problem is you are experiencing both being hit and seeing yourself being hit, maybe at the same time. Even if not at the same instant, both will have different properties after the fact, what entails you to one rather than the other?

>>1560867
This is a history board, humanities is second, and philosophy is a subset of humanities. I doubt all the posters in this thread even know what their -isms are. Half of them don't even understand the points that other people are trying to make.

>>1560867

Okay bb have a good time here okiez??? xxxxoooo

>>1560874
>>1560867

Obvious same-fagging, to boot. God, what an IMPENETRABLE MIND you have.

>>1560870
Then apparently the universe operates in a fashion where I experience more than one body, so I guess I, meaning my consciousness, experience two distinct and separate bodies at once.

What's the proper name for the argument which states "the fact that the universe seems so perfectly suited to produce consciousness and intelligence is irrelevant because it weren't so there wouldn't be an observer to ponder that fact"?

>>1560878
Hmm, ok

>>1560880
Selectionbiasism

>>1560877
>Obvious same-fagging, to boot.
That was a different poster, you arrogant airhead.

>>1560895

Prove it.

>>1560880
Anthropic principle.

>>1560880
What a shitty argument.

>what is life and consciousness?
>if you weren't alive you wouldn't be ale to ask that question!!! glad to be of help :^)

autism

>>1561884
The real answer is a sophisticated arrangement of atoms. Glad to be of some help to you my lady c|=^]

>>1561910
You're autistic if you think that answers anything :^)