That dude in your profile pic... Did evolution result in that guy having instincts that naturally result in 'patriarchy'? (Regardless of whether he approves of evolution having had such a result.)

Why do men take them? I suppose it says something about men, which I took to be the question of the OP, but then you interjected to help the women cross the street because they needed a man to help them from my maybe bad words. — Hanover

:up:

rather than constantly de-railing. — Wayfarer

I will bow out.

Thanks for the thread. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Diverting the thread to AI research and neural networks as a kind of 'general argument for physicalism' is just changing the subject. — Wayfarer

No, that's just the conclusion your insufficiently trained neural nets jumped to. What it is, is providing food for thought (training inputs) that are relevant to forming more accurate intuitions about how our minds/brains work. Admittedly, it is a bit of a, "He who hath ears to hear, let him hear." sort of thing, as I was discussing with Srap.

It's okay if you don't get it. Developing and strengthening new intuitions, to the point that an epiphany/paradigm shift can occur, takes time. Be patient.

By the way, I don't think you responded to my question about your familiarity with shoshin or beginners mind. Does this ring any bells?

Shoshin (Japanese: 初心) is a concept from Zen Buddhism meaning beginner's mind. It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying, even at an advanced level, just as a beginner would. The term is especially used in the study of Zen Buddhism and Japanese martial arts,[1] and was popularized outside of Japan by Shunryū Suzuki's 1970 book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind.

The practice of shoshin acts as a counter to the hubris and closed-mindedness often associated with thinking of oneself as an expert.[2] This includes the Einstellung effect, where a person becomes so accustomed to a certain way of doing things that they do not consider or acknowledge new ideas or approaches.[3] The word shoshin is a combination of sho (Japanese: 初), meaning "beginner" or "initial", and shin (Japanese: 心), meaning "mind".[4]

Seems like something a few people here could use some practice at.

Since nothing travels faster than light the "pretend" observation of knowing what happens simultaneously lightyears away in a theoretical frame of reference is simply nonsense. — Benkei

But if it wasn't, at least we would have 2.5 million years to get the Milky Way defense fleet ready.

Robert Kowalski (early developer of Prolog) has been suggesting that instead of trying to get machines to think like us, we ought to consider learning to think more like machines. Wrote a book about it. — Srap Tasmaner

Thanks.

Can you recommend an introductory text? — Janus

I'm not really up to date on the books on the subject. One of the seminal texts, and the book I learned the basics from, is Parallel Distributed Processsing. It was written in 1987, but the first few Amazon reviews I read gave the impression that it is still considered an important introduction to the field. There may well be better introductory texts though, and Amazon's purchasers also read might be of some value.

However, I think that this 20 minute youtube video presents a quite good introduction to how trained neural nets work, and the same videographer has a part 2 video covering how learning in ANNs work. For the purposes of getting a sense of how the subject is relevant to our thinking, the first video might be sufficient.

If you are looking for a book on how research into ANNs can be applied to human thought, I don't know of any such books having been written yet. (Not to say I've looked for one.) I've learned by trial and error.

Right. Going with intuition is relying on the deep learning which has occurred in neural nets between our ears.
— wonderer1

I think that's right, but our intuitions can fool us, so we do need to examine the reasoning and its foundational presuppositions and our desires and aversions that underly our intuitions — Janus

Absolutely our intuitions can fool us. And logic is subject to GIGO, and can fool us as well. Since I have Feynman on the brain, another quote:

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”

I would add to what you said above, that we can learn from the study of applications of Artificial Neural Nets (ANNs), to improve the effectiveness with which we use our brains. A key consideration with ANNs is the training set, or the set of inputs that were involved in an ANN learning whatever it learned. Analogously, we can consider the size and scope of the training set that went into the deep learning underlying our intuitions, and consider whether our intuitions are likely to be trustworthy or untrustworthy under whatever the present circumstances are. In doing so we might recognize a benefit to increasing the size and/or scope of our training sets, and improve the training of our neural nets, resulting in an improvement to the reliability to our intuitions in the future.

From what, to what? — Wayfarer

From what seems to me a less accurate view to what seems to me a more accurate view.

Reading Surely You're Joking at I guess 16 or so was a formative experience for me. — Srap Tasmaner

I think it was late 20s for me, but it still played a significant role in my subsequent thinking. I'd like to reread it, but I've been buying books at twice the rate I'm reading them for years. So probably not going to happen.

But I insist the phenomenology of this is hard. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know much about the study of phenomenology in philosophy, so I can't really say anything about that. I suppose I've developed my own thoughts on phenomenology, but they would probably be "in Polish" from the perspective of most phenomenologists.

I have sometimes said that many people on this forum don't seem to believe in disagreement: "if you seem to disagree with me, it can only be because you didn't understand what I said, so I'll say it again." We do recognize that even correct arguments don't always land with an audience, do not compel them with the force of reason, so we try different wordings, different analogies and examples, hoping that one of them will finally do the trick. — Srap Tasmaner

Right. An aspect of my communication strategy, in venues like TPF, is an attempt to lay some subconscious groundwork in people's minds that might allow them to make a paradigm shift in their thinking somewhere down the line, but results are very scattershot.

My point here is only that we don't know what will work, why it will work, and what worked in our case. — Srap Tasmaner

I agree with this to a large extent. Although, in my experience, the more knowledge I have of how the person I am talking to thinks, the greater my ability to put thing in terms that connect for them. (Though that is something I can't really disentangle from my coping with being on the autism spectrum.)

If you grasp the meaning at all, logic is supposed to carry the day, but experience tells us this is not so, though we believe it of ourselves. — Srap Tasmaner

I know what you mean. Although with all the time I have put into thinking about this stuff, I think I am relatively conscious of the importance of catalyzing paradigm shifts (whether in myself or others) in the process of communicating.

To close, I have enjoyed this meeting of the minds immensely. I hope we will have occasion to discuss these sorts of things more in the future.

...If thoughts were produced and stored in the brain, shouldn't neurologists or other specialized scientists,ehen they open or scan the brain, be able to trace them and identify them? Yet, not only there has been the least trace of such an identification but they have not even explained the process of thought, at least not in a provable and undisputed way. As Leibniz would say, they will "never find anything to explain a thought". And think that "perception" that Leibniz talks about is much more concrete and near to physicality that thinking. — Alkis Piskas

Thoughts are more events than things. See the following link for information about scientists detecting thought events:

https://www.eedesignit.com/oh-no-ai-now-reads-minds/

So I still think Hume's horror is hard to shrug off. Our thinking is not what we thought it was. We learn some things about it that are reassuring and some that aren't, but the real problem is there is no transparency here; we're in the land of "for all we know..." — Srap Tasmaner

I can understand that. I started thinking along these lines 36 years ago, when I realized that "there is something weird about my brain" is the best explanation for a bunch of different aspects of my life experience. For me the horror faded away a long time ago.

You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things. But I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit; if I can't figure it out, then I go onto something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell -- possibly. It doesn't frighten me. [smiles]

Richard Feynman

:100:

I have to hope that what reason I have has done a good job filtering and weighing its inputs to reach a sound conclusion. If I try to justify my belief, I will surely succeed. It's one of my best things, as it is for everyone; rationalizing is our super power. Now I have to hope, as well, that my post-hoc justifications are everything they seem to be. — Srap Tasmaner

I'd suggest looking at logic/language as providing a quite valuable way of comparing different intuitons we have:

1. With each other. (In an internal dialogue.)
2. With the intuitions of other people.
3. With empirical evidence.

So, yes, I broadly agree with what you posted, Janus, but I reserve a bit of Humean horror that the foundations of my rationality are not themselves rational. — Srap Tasmaner

I wouldn't say that the foundations aren't rational, but that the foundations are intuitive, and intuition is a foundational aspect of human rationality. It's just that many philosophically minded people have tended to think simplistically of rationality as somewhat synonymous with logic.

Chess provides a clear example, as usual: there's a saying among masters that the move you want to play is the right move, even if it seems impossible. This is intuition, and the idea is that careful analysis will justify your inclination, so some part of your mind must have zipped through that analysis without bothering to keep you informed... — Srap Tasmaner

Right. Going with intuition is relying on the deep learning which has occurred in neural nets between our ears.

But in that case I'm having trouble making sense of "Then they can hark back to that chance encounter, and come to the conclusion that at that time, according to one of them, the decision lay in the uncertain future, while to the other, it lay in the certain past."

Isn't that saying that they can hark back to something that didn't happen?

I know I'm nitpicking on details somewhat irrelevant to answering the question, but I'll give others time to think about it before suggesting an answer.

Two people pass each other on the street; and according to one of the two people, an Andromedean space fleet has already set off on its journey, while to the other, the decision as to whether or not the journey will actually take place has not yet been made.

I'm not sure how "according to one of the people" is supposed to be interpreted. Are these two people supposed to have magical physics defying clairvoyance?

You are like Sam Elliot at the end of The Big Lebowski.

:up:

Very thoughtful post.

Yes. Note 'used by a speaker'. They are on that sense imbued with intentionality, namely, that of the speaker, to convey or represent something. — Wayfarer

What is this "imbuing"? Sounds kind of hand wavy.

What disqualifies ChatGPT from being a speaker imbuing it's output with intentionality, regardless of whether the information processing involved is different than what occurs in human brains?

...that kind of analysis is what is appropriate... — Wayfarer

Well, I'm autistic, and I have my own style that I find works for me.

Which states that:

In philosophy, intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. To say of an individual’s mental states that they have intentionality is to say that they are mental representations or that they have contents. — Wayfarer

By the way Wayfarer,

The sentence immediately following what you quoted there from the SEP says:

Furthermore, to the extent that a speaker utters words from some natural language or draws pictures or symbols from a formal language for the purpose of conveying to others the contents of her mental states, these artifacts used by a speaker too have contents or intentionality.

Do you agree with that statement?

Owned the first edition. Nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. — Wayfarer

I didn't asked if you owned the book. I asked, "Are you familiar with the Zen notion of beginners mind?"

...You've already suggested a couple of times that ChatGPT might possess intentionality, which in both cases, ChatGPT itself has rejected. — Wayfarer

Wayfarer, it seems unlikely that I'll be able to keep up with your rate of posting, but I do want to respond to this much for now.

As I've said, there are different ways of understanding intentionality. Furthermore, you haven't been paying close attention. What I asked was (going from memory) "Does the output of ChatGPT have intentionality?" and in response to the way you responded to that, I asked, "Do you interpret the output of ChatGPT as having intentionality?" (As being about something.) Which you haven't answered.

The reason I asked was to get you thinking about the question. I think that you do interpret the output of ChatGPT as being about something, after all, you've said that you have been making use of it a lot lately. Why would you do that, if you didn't think that the output is about something?

Besides, when you mention neural networks or artificial intelligence, you do so precisely because of what they represent: you are saying that they represent the way in which physical systems are able to embody intentionality. So again your argument is recursive - you are imputing intentionality to those systems on the basis of your rational ability to draw reasoned conclusions, which is the very faculty that is in question. — Wayfarer

You misunderstand, I'm not trying to make an argument in talking about neural nets. I am presenting a hypothesis for consideration. It would take effort on your part, that you haven't shown a willingness to make, for you to grasp the hypothesis, which is fine.

So I can't see how your proposed definition:

I think that only physical systems with outputs, that are about some aspect of their inputs have intentionality.
— wonderer1

squares with what is given in the SEP article. — Wayfarer

Yes, I know it would take a paradigm shift for you to get it. You would need to spend some time, studying stuff, that I suspect you would find boring, to reach the point of grasping what I am trying to communicate, about what is involved in understanding oneself.

You are interested in Buddhism, right? Are you familiar with the Zen notion of beginners mind?

Your teacup is full.

It was written – as our exchanges are written, Wayf – by deterministic nonlinear dynamic system-agents which reflexively confabulate ex post facto intentions-of-the-gaps. :sparkle: :eyes: — 180 Proof

:up:

:cool:

As I said, I am biased, because for me MWI is a useful tool for conceiving of aspects of the world. I know that I am not going to study QM to the point of being an expert, so a consequence of that is that I'm likely to remain biased. At least until some breakthrough comes along. OK?

I'm not convinced we know what is random versus that which is not random. We detect patterns, as far as human cognition allows and we ascribe characteristics to those patterns - again in human terms. But words like 'random' or 'accidental' seem to have emotional connotations and function as tips of icebergs. — Tom Storm

I'd say it takes some effort to find something in the world that looks like it might be truly random.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

You are correct that "random" has emotional connotations for many. In the Christian environment of my childhood, with the belief that there was a God that was going to make everything right, and the feeling of security that comes with that - it can be unnerving to consider the possibility that there is a random aspect of some sort, to the world. I, being very much a science nerd, realized fairly early on that it looks an awful lot like there is a random aspect to reality. It's a somewhat controversial topic in physics. The Multi Worlds Interpretation of QM is considered a deterministic interpretation. I'm kind of partial to the MWI, but not because I have anywhere near the expertise needed to judge between interpretations. I find it relatively easy to 'picture' an MWI world, as compared to the worlds of other interpretations of QM, and that undoubtedly biases my view.

Anyway, after that longer than intended digression, I was curious as to whether you found the following excerpt from that link to be emotional?

In computing, a hardware random number generator (HRNG) or true random number generator (TRNG) is a device that generates random numbers from a physical process, rather than by means of an algorithm. Such devices are often based on microscopic phenomena that generate low-level, statistically random "noise" signals, such as thermal noise, the photoelectric effect, involving a beam splitter, and other quantum phenomena. These stochastic processes are, in theory, completely unpredictable for as long as an equation governing such phenomena is unknown or uncomputable. This is in contrast to the paradigm of pseudo-random number generation commonly implemented in computer programs.

This TLS accelerator computer card uses a hardware random number generator to generate cryptographic keys to encrypt data sent over computer networks.
A hardware random number generator typically consists of a transducer to convert some aspect of the physical phenomena to an electrical signal, an amplifier and other electronic circuitry to increase the amplitude of the random fluctuations to a measurable level, and some type of analog-to-digital converter to convert the output into a digital number, often a simple binary digit 0 or 1. By repeatedly sampling the randomly varying signal, a series of random numbers is obtained.

Just because it's the only argument you're willing to consider doesn't mean it's the only argument or the main one. — T Clark

Indeed. Here's a scientific take.

No worries. I guess where I was heading is that if animals have rudimentary intentionality, what does this say about a more evolved human version? Is intentionality just a hallmark of complexity (an idea mocked by many). — Tom Storm

I would mock that idea as well. It's not simply a matter of degree of complexity. I think that only physical systems with outputs, that are about some aspect of their inputs have intentionality.

I strongly encourage watching this video (or otherwise look into the subject) in order to develop an intuitive recognition of how networks of neurons can be systems with outputs that are about some aspect of the system's input. For me, understanding this stuff has been of immense benefit in understanding intuition, when to trust and distrust my intuitions, and how to improve my intuitions. Understanding the fine details of what is discussed in the video isn't so important for the context of this thread, as developing a recognition of how intentionality can emerge in what is a relatively simple system.

Wayfarer argues that human rationality and intentionality is special. He's not the only one. Can we infer anything additional about this matter from understanding animal behaviour? — Tom Storm

Well, a substantial amount has been learned about human brains from studying animal brains, but if "this matter" is the human capacity for philosophical thought, then I'd think understanding of animal behavior would be of limited usefulness. (Now if "this matter" was the behavior of humans on a philosophy forum, much might be learned by watching a documentary on chimpanzees.)

Anyway, in response to your question I'm at an I don't know where to begin state, so I'll defer to Kurt Vonnegut:

Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why? '
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.

Delete

I think consideration of the role of networks of neurons, and disregarding the molecular details on which the neurons supervene, is an appropriate level of looking at things for the purpose of this discussion
— wonderer1

It might be, were this a computer science or neuroscience forum. — Wayfarer

It's disappointing to see such anti-intellectualism here. Especially in light of Fooloso4 having so recently posted this.

Philosophy has become in large part insular and self-referential. Written by philosophers for philosophers. With a specialized language designed only for the initiated, a cramped style of writing intended to ward off attack, overburdened by its own theory laden stranglehold on thinking and seeing, enamored by its linguistic prowess and the production of problems that only arise within this hermetically sealed sterile environment. It either laments the fact that it is regarded as irrelevant or takes this to be the sign of its superiority. — Fooloso4

:up:

The SEP entry would be a good starting point https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality — Wayfarer

You know I've already provided that link, right? Is your ego so bruised already that you need to try to put me down in the estimations of the rest of the forum?

We could talk about the evolutionary psychology of that.

OK then, give us a well-informed materialists' account of the significance of intentionality. — Wayfarer

The sort of low level intentionality I have been discussing provides the subconscious infrastructure for consciousness.

As for whether output - written text - has any kind of ‘intentionality’, I would say, clearly not. Written text means nothing without being interpreted.

And have you interpreted ChatGPT's output as being about something? (Like your conscious mind interpret's the outputs of your subconscious as being about something.)

Do animals have intentionality? They seem to from my perspective. What does this add to the discussion? — Tom Storm

In my experience, people have widely varying concepts in mind when using the word "intentionality" so many may disagree with what I am talking about being intentionality, but yes. I'd say animal with enough of a neural network to call a brain, likely have the low level intentionality I've been discussing. That's a different matter though, than having 'a big enough pile' of low level intentionality for consciousness to emerge.

Edit: I forgot to answer your last question. I don't have a clear idea of what you are asking with your question, but what I see it as adding to the discussion, is further consideration and clarification of the paradigm I'm presenting.

Question: In philosophy, 'intentionality' is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. Do AI systems such as ChatGPT possess this power?


ChatGPT: AI systems, including ChatGPT, do not possess intentionality in the same way that humans do. Intentionality is typically associated with consciousness and subjective experience, which are currently not attributes of AI systems.

That was funny, but note ChatGPT simply says ChatGPT does not have intentionality "in the same way that humans do." Which of course any well informed materialist would agree with. Then ChatGPT goes on producing output which doesn't directly respond to the question.

Whether ChatGPT has consciousness is not relevant. The point was to consider intentionality at low (subconscious) levels, on which intentionality at conscious levels could supervene.

Also, you didn't ask ChatGPT the question I proposed which was, "Do the outputs of ChatGPT have intentionality?" Since you posted an output of ChatGPT, do you think that output is about something?

That's was kind of my impression as well.

Perhaps someday we will figure out how cooperation strategies were encoded into the biology that underlies our moral sense. But I do not expect that to happen soon. — Mark S

It looks me like it is happening now, but in bits and pieces. Neuroscience is a toddler by comparison with more fundamental sciences, but it has come an enormous way from the abyssmal state I found it in when I first started looking into it seriously 36 years ago.

Which question, exactly? It starts with the presumption that we can arrive at true beliefs through reasoned inference, and then asks what must be the case in order for this to be so. — Wayfarer

I meant beg the question in the sense discussed here, assuming that would be the usage most common on the forum. In any case, what I meant by beg the question was assume the conclusion. I interpreted you saying, "...if such theories were true, our thoughts, and so also our reasoning, would be determined on the molecular level by neurochemistry, leaving no role for the free exercise of reason.", as suggesting that exercise of reason is assumed to be incompatible with the determinism of physics, when that is what your argument seeks to show.

Having looked at that sentence from your opening paragraph again, I'll also point out that my theory is that neurons supervene on the molecular level, but it is at the level of networks of neurons that our reasoning is determined in the most interesting regards. That's simplistic of course, since among other things, various organs dumping hormones into our bloodstreams and intake of a variety of substances also plays a deterministic role in how we reason. (Speaking of which... [reaches for a gummie]) However, I think consideration of the role of networks of neurons, and disregarding the molecular details on which the neurons supervene, is an appropriate level of looking at things for the purpose of this discussion. That's the level at which intentionality seems to emerge.