AI and Dualism

>>2707127

What a stupid argument. This Searle fellow sounds like a moron, I wouldn't waste any more of your time reading his """thoughts""" if I were you.

>>2707127
>if we take minds to be something like a complex program

If we did this we'd be fools, because that's not at all what the mind is like.

>we are committed to some form of dualism as thinking 'Minds = Programs' is independent of realization via artificial brains.

What? If you made an artificial brain that is capable of generating an artificial mind, then this is no different than how natural brains and minds work.

>>2707162
I think by "strong AI" he's referring to an artificial intelligence that could reproduce and physically accrue to its own intellectual capabilities, and this would make it qualitatively different than standard, organic human intelligence, hence "dualism." Not arguing for this, but this is what he seems to be saying.

>>2707162
I guess forgot to mention, but the question is whether it would be possible on a extremely sophisticated digital computer.

Searle does mention that a replica brain would likely operate the same as a normal brain.

>>2707162
>What? If you made an artificial brain that is capable of generating an artificial mind, then this is no different than how natural brains and minds work.

Except it won't have a soul

>20th century Anglo-American philosophy
>Worthwhile

>>2707180
You presuppose not only the truth of Cartesian dualism but also that the problem of other minds isn't a problem in a world where minds are easily identifiable to each other. Not only is Cartesian dualism false, but if it were true the problem of other minds would come into play.
t. philsophy 101

>>2707173
>>2707175

It doesn't matter if the brain is a physical mass of neurons, a mechanical mass of wires, or even a data construct that exists only in virtual reality, it's still a physical thing and the mind is generates is still likewise a physical thing.

Dualism is idiotic anyway, how could a non-physical mind interact with a physical brain anyway?

File: 1438573888063.jpg (71KB, 817x1000px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 817x1000px

>>2707207
>Dualism is idiotic anyway, how could a non-physical mind interact with a physical brain anyway?
What else would the pineal gland be fore, you retard?

>>2707180
>Except it won't have a soul

So just like a real brain then?

>>2707213

If you think the pineal gland is magic then it's pretty obviously you who are retarded.

>>2707180
Aristotelian anima theory says that plants and animals have souls, why can't robots?

>>2707207
I agree that there isn't a practical difference between an organic brain and a synthetic brain that function at the same level, but the "mind" is a spook that is essentially a modern approximation of the "soul."

File: 1458418107168.png (248KB, 1100x1400px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1100x1400px

>>2707225
OK, so you don't have an alternative explanation for what the pineal gland does?

>>2707229

Minds are what brains do, just as digestion is what digestive tracts do. Is digestion a spook? You can't point to it "in the world" any more than you can point to a mind, but it would be quite a claim to make to claim that means neither of them exist.

>>2707235
>HURR

>>2707127
Agree. Dualism hasn't been resolved. Material reductionists brushed it under the carpet, but it's still there. If anything, the only resolution that makes sense is the one that sees the physical realm as being an aspect of consciousness, rather than seeing consciousness as being an aspect of the material realm... not in some fruity "crystals and astrology" sense, but in a "hmm... we really don't know how consciousness works" sense.

Searle is right... if you could potentially get the exact same consciousness by arranging two different material substrates (assuming that consciousness can be generated in such a way at all, other than by the known "fuck and have a baby" route), then clearly there is something mysteriously transcendent about the consciousness-physical relationship.

>>2707241
Did you never dissect a frog in high school?

>>2707207
>>2707207
>Dualism is idiotic anyway, how could a non-physical mind interact with a physical brain anyway?

The brain exists as a means of imbuing the soul with energy in a self-reliant system, so that the soul can power itself using its own will power.

The brain is a representation of the soul, so that while it appears that it is only the brain interacting with itself, there still is a ghost in the machine.

File: 1436959813591.jpg (34KB, 452x572px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 452x572px

>>2707243
>"hmm... we really don't know how consciousness works" sense.
>He doesn't know about the guy who attained absolute knowledge

>>2707250
what the fuck am I reading?

>>2707245

You can see guts and the chemicals in them, you can't see "digestion" because it's a complex process that happens on a sub-visible scale. The mind is exactly the same, you can see brains and brain activity but you can't see "minds" because a mind is a whole complex system, at least partially hidden behind the barrier of subjectivity.

>>2707241
Shitty analogy: I can point to your digestive tract if I spill your guts on the floor, but no matter how delicately I untangle your neurons, I will never find anything that I can hold up and say "this is the mind."

>>2707243
>Dualism hasn't been resolved

Yes it has. Please posit the mechanism whereby a non-material "substance" can interact with a physical one.

>>2707260
So you can't see complex systems? Is that your point?

>>2707243
>then clearly there is something mysteriously transcendent about the consciousness-physical relationship.

Moronic. We can make artificial legs out of metal and plastic, does this mean there is something "mysteriously transcendent" about teh relationship between legs and walking?

>>2707260
Digestion can still be modeled materialistically.

>>2707268
Ah, well that's the whole problem with monism... there is no such mechanism known. And it seems ridiculous in principle that there would even be one.

>>2707274
What is mysterious isn't the relationship between brain and mind in the sense of cognition (which is understandable physically), it's the relationship between the physical and SUBJECTIVITY.

>>2707267

If you hold up my guts and say "this is digestion", then all you would demonstrate is that you're a moron.

>>2707296
That's just a language game, dickspittle: if you call the mind a "process," that absolves you of the need to physically describe it. As I said, digestion can be accounted for inductively, whereas the mind can't be accounted for either inductively or with reasonable deduction (deduction that starts from a physical point rather than an abstract assumption).

>>2707311
>As I said, digestion can be accounted for inductively, whereas the mind can't be accounted for either inductively or with reasonable deduction

Why would you say something so stupid? Did you have a stroke in mid post? OF COURSE the mind can be accounted for inductively and deductively, I have no clue why you would think otherwise.

>>2707235
The primary function of the pineal gland is to produce melatonin. Light sensitive nerve cells in the retina detect light and send this signal to the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), synchronizing the SCN to the day-night cycle. Nerve fibers then relay the daylight information from the SCN to the paraventricular nuclei (PVN), then to the spinal cord and via the sympathetic system to superior cervical ganglia (SCG), and from there into the pineal gland.

The compound pinoline is also claimed to be produced in the pineal gland; it is one of the beta-carbolines, though this claim is subject to some controversy.

Studies on rodents suggest that the pineal gland also influences the pituitary gland's secretion of the sex hormones, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing hormone.

>>2707317
I know you believe it can be accounted for deductively, that much is obvious (so it is with God and the rest), I am interested to know how you think it can be measured inductively.

>>2707259
The brain is a physical representation of the soul and it's mental activities, while being distinct.

If the brain is a complete analogue for the soul, then why does it need to act upon it?

For instance, your desire to read this is represented by neurons firing in a network, which leads to the state of potentially replying or not, also represented by neurons. Eventually you make a decision, also represented by neurons.


All of this exists because the soul in it's natural state has a nature of self-"propulsion". In order for the soul to propel itself, it must exist in a system in which the constituent phenomena all use their own power.

By eating/digesting/etc food you are building your own awareness with the aid of the body.

Check out the soul hypothesis book for more interesting ideas about dualism.

>>2707453
>the soul hypothesis book
This sounds like a whole lot of bullshit.