• Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪jorndoe
    It leaves out the fact Israel is a democratic respecter of women/LGBTQ rights and its neighbors are violators of them.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable? — Punshhh

    The population became expendable when they voted in Hamas. From that point on, it was just a matter of time before Hamas did something crazy. Israel showed remarkable restraint in waiting to take action all these years. Did the Palestinians think getting in bed with Hamas would end well? Now they know different.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    You could be all-powerful and/or all-knowing but unconsciously limiting yourself for some reason.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    My take is that, if brain states and mind states were the same thing - that is, if there was an exact, one-to-one mapping between the two - then you wouldn't have to know anything about brains, or that they existed at all. The ancient people could discuss and come to understand mind states in extreme detail. Then, as their knowledge of physical things grew, and they came to learn of the existence of the brain, all its functions, all its structures, etc., they would come to realize they already knew what they were looking at, because of their extensive understanding of the mind. They could interchangeability use words they had long used to refer to mind states with words they had more recently been using to refer to brain states, and the conversation would not change at all. — Patterner

    So they are exchanging information about brain states, but just aren't aware of it? And at a later date they realize they were talking about brains all along? I raised two objections to that a few posts ago.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    The claim changed from "talking coherently about mental states" to "talked about pain, suffering, loss", but no proof was given. I will call it for myself. — Lionino

    That's fine. I'm not interested in proving this part of the argument. Now, how can people who have no idea of what brains are talk coherently about brain states?
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    Or, we cut the chase and let you prove that
    Therefore, ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their mental states.
    — Lionino
    is not the case. If you don't, it is an open possibility and thus your OP's conclusion does not follow.     — Lionino

    Do you really need me to prove that ancient peoples talked about pain, suffering, loss, love, heartache, etc.? Have you ever read any of the plays or epics from back then?
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    That is absurd.
    — RogueAI

    Ok, prove it.     — Lionino

    How does one talk coherently about a brain state when one does not know what a brain is?
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    Always keep in mind, ChatGPT is trained to please, and praise, the user. — hypericin

    It's certainly not a professional philosopher, but it can be insightful sometimes.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    ↪Lionino
    I was thinking that perhaps you're claiming the two ignorant people talking about their mental states are also unknowingly talking about their brain states. An example would be two people passing notes back and forth in a foreign language that contain information about brain states. As they talk about their mental states, they pass the notes back and forth, which correspond to information about their brain states, but I see two objections to that:

    In the example of two people passing notes back and forth, can it be said they are engaged in meaningful conversation, as is the case with two people talking about their mental states? If we're passing meaningless (to us) notes back and forth can it really be said we're having a meaningful conversation? Don't we have to know something of what we're talking about in order for meaningful conversation to occur?

    And also, two people talking about their mental states know they are exchanging meaningful information about their mental states. They are aware of it. If mental states are identical to brain states, they would also have to know they are exchanging information about their brain states when they talk of their mental states, but for two people who don't even know what brains are, that is impossible.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    When I say the morning star has risen, am I talking about Venus or not? — Lionino

    I think this is more than just a naming issue. Whether one is talking about Venus or morning star, one is referring to a bright light in the sky that one knows exists. Your point would be valid if the ignorant people in my example knew about brains but called them "schmains" instead. But their ignorance goes far beyond names.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    am coherently talking about a brain state. I don't need to know anything else about the brain — where it sits, what it does, what its cells are like — to be coherent about that. — Lionino

    How can one coherently talk about an organ one is unaware even exists? That is absurd. Reductive materialism leads to an absurdity.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    ChatGPT's perspective:

    Reveal
    User:If mental states are identical to brain states, then when two people are talking about their mental states they must also necessarily be talking about their brain states. Is that correct?

    ChatGPT
    The statement you've made is consistent with the identity theory of mind, which posits that mental states are identical to brain states. According to this theory, mental states such as thoughts, emotions, and perceptions are nothing more than specific configurations or activities of the brain.

    If we accept the identity theory, then yes, when two people are talking about their mental states, they are indeed discussing their brain states, as the two are considered identical. In this view, mental processes are fundamentally grounded in the physical processes of the brain.

    However, it's important to note that not all theories of mind agree with the identity theory. Other theories, such as dualism or functionalism, propose different relationships between mental states and brain states. Dualism, for example, suggests that mental states are distinct from physical brain states, while functionalism argues that mental states are defined by their functional roles rather than by specific physical properties.

    So, while the statement holds true within the framework of the identity theory, it may not necessarily apply to other theories of mind.

    User
    So let's suppose we have two people who are entirely ignorant about anatomy and physiology. These two people are not even aware they have brains. One of the persons stubs their toe and they both start talking about how much toe stubbing hurts. Then they talk about how their kids are grown up and how sad they are that they have moved away. Would you agree these two people are talking about their mental states?
    ChatGPT
    Yes, in this scenario, even though the two individuals are unaware of the underlying anatomy and physiology of the brain, they are still indeed discussing their mental states. When they talk about the pain of stubbing their toe or the sadness they feel because their kids have moved away, they are describing subjective experiences and emotions, which are components of mental states.

    The fact that they lack knowledge about the brain does not change the nature of their conversation or the content of what they're discussing. They are expressing their thoughts, feelings, and perceptions, which are all aspects of their mental states, regardless of whether they are aware of the underlying neurological processes.

    User
    So, if mental states are brain states, and the two ignorant people in my example are talking about their mental states, must it be said that they are talking about their brain states as well?
    ChatGPT
    In the context of the identity theory of mind, if mental states are indeed identical to brain states, then yes, it follows that when individuals are talking about their mental states, they are inherently talking about their brain states as well. According to this perspective, there is no distinction between mental states and brain states—they are one and the same.

    Even if the individuals in your example are unaware of the connection between their mental experiences and the underlying neurological processes, from the standpoint of identity theory, their mental states are manifestations of specific configurations or activities within their brains.

    Therefore, while the individuals may not explicitly mention their brain states or be aware of them, if mental states are indeed identical to brain states, then their discussion of mental states implicitly involves discussions about their brain states.

    User
    Isn't there a contradiction or implausibility there? How can two people who don't even know they have brains be discussing their brain states?
    ChatGPT
    You raise a valid point. In the scenario you presented, where two individuals are unaware of their own brains or the connection between mental states and brain states, it does seem contradictory to claim that they are discussing their brain states.

    The identity theory of mind proposes that mental states are identical to brain states, but it doesn't require individuals to have explicit knowledge of this identity for it to be true. However, the scenario highlights a limitation of the identity theory when applied to individuals who lack awareness of the underlying neuroscience.

    In such cases, it might be more accurate to say that the individuals are discussing their mental states without explicitly acknowledging their brain states. From their perspective, their experiences, thoughts, and emotions are simply part of their subjective reality, regardless of the physical substrate on which they may ultimately depend.

    So while the identity theory asserts that mental states are indeed brain states, the scenario you presented suggests that individuals can discuss their mental experiences without necessarily engaging with the concept of brain states, especially if they lack knowledge or awareness of neuroscience. This discrepancy underscores the complexity and nuance of the relationship between mental states and brain states, especially in the context of human consciousness and subjective experience.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    Point 4 here is rejected directly in its semantics, to talk coherently about mental states IS to talk coherent about brain states. There is no extensional difference between "I am stressed" and "My hypophysis is ejecting adrenaline". — Lionino

    How does someone who thinks the brain's purpose is to cool the blood talk coherently about brain states? Or take a child who was raised with little education and doesn't even know he has a brain inside his skull. He thinks his head is just solid bone or something. When he says, "I am stressed" he can't possibly be coherently talking about his brain, which he doesn't even know exists.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    but my argument is not about mental states being reduced to physical states. It's attacking the notion that mental states are identical to brain states.
    — RogueAI

    I don't see the distinction     — flannel jesus

    Maybe there's not. But lets explore this a little bit. Do you think a definition of pain is complete if it doesn't talk about the fact that pain hurts? That is feels bad? Suppose aliens send us a completely exhaustive physical account of how pain works in their bodies. Would we be satisfied with that? Wouldn't we also want to know how their alien pain feels?
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    If "full", "know", and "about" mean what I think they do, which are their conventional meanings in English, you would have a solution for the problem of other minds, but you don't, right? — Lionino

    This is absurd. There's nothing about having to solve the problem of other minds asserting that ancient peoples talked meaningfully to each other about how they felt. Of course they did! What could be more obvious? I talk all the time to my wife about how she's feeling and vice-verse. Do you think that necessarily leads to the problem of other minds? I don't think we need to bother with that kind of radical skepticism to evaluate my argument.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    The argument makes it sound like you haven't taken into account ancient people's ignorance.

    Sound is waves of compressed air. Ancient people currently talked about sounds without talking about compressed air. Therefore sound isn't waves of compressed air?

    No, I don't think this holds.     — flannel jesus

    I think there's an equivocation here. Noises are compression waves in the air, sure. But words and conversations and spoken language are not the same thing as vibrations travelling through the air. Words and conversations convey meaning, which transcends their physical properties. Spoken language can possibly be physically reduced to sound waves, but my argument is not about mental states being reduced to physical states. It's attacking the notion that mental states are identical to brain states.

    Do you think conversations are identical to sound waves moving through the air? Or is there something more going on?
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    This is wrong. Ancient peoples talked incessantly (and coherently) about their mental states.
    — RogueAI

    Begging the question.     — Lionino

    Are you claiming that ancient peoples could not talk coherently about their mental states? Or that there's some doubt they were able to? I think I'm on pretty solid ground asserting that ancient peoples knew full well what a person was talking about when they said "I miss my dead wife" or "There's just been a battle with the Gauls, I'm worried about my son".

    You think that is question begging?
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    5. Therefore, ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their mental states. — Lionino

    This is wrong. Ancient peoples talked incessantly (and coherently) about their mental states. Just as people do today.
  • Ancient Peoples and Talk of Mental States
    1. There is no valid logical inference there. — wonderer1

    Mental states are not identical to brain states. If they were, ancient peoples would have been coherently talking about brain states when they talked about mental states, but ancient peoples had almost no idea what the brain did. The Greeks thought it cooled the blood. Yet they could intelligently converse about their mental states.

    2. It seems to me that if we want to speak accurately, it would be more realistic to talk about mental events and neurological events, rather than talking about states. — wonderer1

    The same problem arises: ancient peoples could converse intelligently about mental events, but the idea of them conversing intelligently about neurological events is absurd.

    3. Ancient people didn't have the opportunity, to become much better informed, that is available to us now. So what do ancient people have to do with the subject? — wonderer1

    It doesn't have to be ancient people. Picture two children stranded on a desert island with no education talking coherently about how they feel (i.e., their mental states). Are they talking coherently about brain states or neurological events? No.
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    You don't think computationalists think consciousness emerges from the brain? But isn't... isn't that where the majority of computationalists think mental computations *happen*? Computationalists seem like a perfect example of agreement, not disagreement. Except for, I suppose, the rare computationalist who thinks some of the mental calculations happens somewhere other than the brain. — flannel jesus

    They would object to consciousness emerging ONLY from brains, but Corvus might not be saying that, so I take your point. The implication I got from reading Corvu's responses was that only brains are conscious, but he might not be saying that.
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    Careful. That way lies crank magnetism or even worse, fractal wrongness. — wonderer1

    My point was that there are serious people who believe in non-brain consciousness, including the 4% of professional philosophers who are idealists. There are also a lot of computationalists out there, and they would object to Corvus's statement that I quoted.
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    No I don't accept it. I still believe that everyone (with common sense) knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain. — Corvus

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489624/

    "There is considerable debate over whether plants are conscious and this, indeed, is an important question. Here I look at developments in neuroscience, physics and mathematics that may impact on this question. Two major concomitants of consciousness in animals are microtubule function and electrical gamma wave synchrony. Both these factors may also play a role in plant consciousness. I show that plants possess aperiodic quasicrystal structures composed of ribosomes that may enable quantum computing, which has been suggested to lie at the core of animal consciousness. Finally I look at whether a microtubule fractal suggests that electric current plays a part in conventional neurocomputing processes in plants."
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    I'm not sure how you mean things. I guess humans evaluate each others' output and determine that thinking or reasoning has occurred. — Patterner

    I don't need someone to evaluate my output to know that I'm thinking. I don't need anyone external to me at all to know that I'm thinking. The denial of thinking is thinking. I can't be wrong that I'm a thinking thing. That's not the case with computers. Whether a computer is thinking or not depends on someone checking its output. If the output is gibberish, there's no thinking going on. If the output makes sense, there might be thinking going on. Either way, an observer is required to determine if thinking is present. Not so with a person. People just know they are thinking things.

    Computers are, essentially, collections of switches, right? Rational thinking, for a computer, means that certain switching operations happened in a certain order. A computer can determine for itself whether those switching operations represent rational thinking by comparing its output to already agreed upon rational outputs. For example, if switching operations xyz mean 2+2 = 4, then it "knows" it's behaving rationally, but what if it comes across a novel situation, and there is no already agreed upon rational output that it can use to check whether it's switching operations are rational or not? How could the computer know if it was thinking rationally or not?

    This is hard for me to put into words.
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    When we say computers think or reason, don't we mean there are patterns of electronic switching operations going on that we attach particular meaning to? It seems that a necessary condition for a computer to think or reason is the existence of an observer that evaluates the output of the computation and determines that thinking or reasoning has occurred. That makes computer intelligence much different than human intelligence.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Mikie
    And yet the vast majority of the top universities in the world are in the U.S. And I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
    https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    "A United Nations team has found “clear and convincing” information that hostages in Gaza were sexually abused, Pramila Patten, the UN special envoy on sexual violence in conflict told reporters on Monday. There are “reasonable grounds” to believe the sexual violence is ongoing, she added.

    According to Patten, the team also found “reasonable grounds to believe that conflict related sexual violence, including rape and gang rape occurred” during Hamas’ October 7 terror attack in Israel, in what is the most definitive finding by the global organization on sexual assault allegations in the aftermath of the attack."

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/europe/un-team-sexual-abuse-oct-7-hostages-intl/index.html

    Bunch of animals. Israel should redouble their efforts to remove them from the gene pool.
  • Does Consciousness Extend Beyond Brains? - The 2023 Holberg Debate
    A part of me leans a little more towards that side that plants have some type of consciousness, but not enough for me to say, "Definitely". — Philosophim

    I understand. Don't you think plant behaviors could be replicated by fairly simple machines (or a system of pretty simple machines)?
  • Does Consciousness Extend Beyond Brains? - The 2023 Holberg Debate
    The consciousness of a plant for example, would not be the consciousness of a human. — Philosophim

    What behavior is the plant doing that would lead you to think it might be conscious?
  • Does Consciousness Extend Beyond Brains? - The 2023 Holberg Debate
    By the fact it is not the same material as a brain. You can play the same melody on different instruments, but it will have its own sound and feel. — Philosophim

    Could a rock be conscious? A shifting sand dune? A car engine?
  • Is the work environment even ethical anymore?
    Here we have shortage of teachers too. Basically, most of the people don't want this job because it has a low income and the environment (as it is pointed out by the OP) is quite horrible. My generation has lost the basic sense of ethics and civism, and the classrooms are full of bullying, thugs, and stupid teenagers who think they are over of the teacher's authority.

    Honestly, I think the worst environments nowadays are high-schools and even universities.     — javi2541997

    That's not at all like where I teach at and I teach in a very rough area. Where are you at?
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    ↪Patterner
    It seems like you're making two points, one on pragmatism and the other epistemic. Pragmatically, I agree that we act like other people exist and are conscious, but that doesn't mean we should assume that's the way things are.
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    We did believe all those things. Until we had reasons to believe things weren't what they seemed. I suppose someone noticed something nobody else had. They dug into it, and found the real story. — Patterner

    Well, my point is: were those ancient people justified in believing in those things? Those are cases where it's wrong to assume things are as they appear. We could be making similar mistakes.

    Is there reason to believe other people aren't really other people? Or that the consciousness they seem to have is not? Has someone noticed something nobody else has that reveals the seeming to be false, and learned what's realty going on? — Patterner

    What if this is all a simulation and everyone you think is conscious are really NPC's? Is that any more farfetched than the idea that the sun doesn't really move across the sky? That you're just on a planet going really fast through space and you don't know it?
  • Is the work environment even ethical anymore?
    There's a shortage of teachers. It's rewarding work. In some states it pays really well.
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    Many things are not what they seem. But until we have reason to believe they are not, I would say the default is to assume they are. — Patterner

    Suppose there's a volcano that's always erupting around a primitive tribe. They sacrifice some virgins to the volcanic god, and the volcano goes dormant. Should they assume the human sacrifice was what did the trick? And, of course, the Earth seems still and the sun seems to move across the sky...
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    ↪180 Proof


    For the same reason we now take plant consciousness seriously. Machine consciousness would beg obvious questions, one of which being: are primitive machine conscious?
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    How would we know we developed sentient AI? I would think whatever criteria we used to determine that would be used to evaluate all computing devices. Entire classes of them would likely be ruled out, known to not have the required element. — Patterner

    Well, there's the rub. We don't even know if each other are conscious. But suppose we're in contact with superintelligent aliens, only they don't tell us a whole lot. But the stuff they do share with us is invariably correct. And one of the things they do tell us is that at least one of the machines we've developed is conscious. Would that entail considering digital watches, say, as being conscious?
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    As for me, I've yet to find any compelling arguments for why in principle a machine cannot be built (either by h. sapiens and/or machines) that functionally exceeds whatever biological kluge (e.g. primate brain) nature adaptively spawns by environmental trial & error, and also since the concept-prospect does not violate any (current) physical laws, I see no reason (yet) to assume, or suspect, that "sentient AI" is a physical/technological impossibility. — 180 Proof

    OK, let's suppose we develop sentient AI. Do we then have to reevaluate sentience for all the computing devices we didn't think were sentient?
  • Can a computer think? Artificial Intelligence and the mind-body problem
    If some computer becomes conscious, would that entail my old Commodore 64 was conscious? ENIAC? An abacus?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    "The former divorce attorney for Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade resumed testimony Tuesday afternoon at a hearing pertaining to the romantic relationship between Wade and District Attorney Fani Willis, and said he couldn't remember when their relationship began."
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/nathan-wades-former-divorce-attorney-set-testify-fulton-county-hearing-rcna140659

    Fani might skate by this after all.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Macron is talking about sending troops into Ukraine as we speak ... and you're arguing that NATO wouldn't send troops into NATO. — boethius

    I'm saying NATO is not going to pour troops into Finland as part of some invasion force that Russia will feel compelled to nuke. NATO will have a presence in Finland. That's it. NATO has no interest in invading Russia.

    And if France sends troops to Ukraine, Russia will not nuke them. Russia knows France has no plans to invade Russia.
Home » RogueAI