Is this something that is done already on hardware, or only on software to this day? — Shawn

At least to an extent, though likely not the extent that you have in mind, a math coprocessor to A CPU provides 'canned math optimization' to CPUs. Although often this is 'hidden' from a programmer, in that the compiler 'knows' how to make use of the coprocessor, and the programmer doesn't need to concern himself with it. (Aside from perhaps understanding that, for example, the combination of hardware and software will be able to produce 32 bit multiplication results in one clock cycle.)

Similar can be pairing a CPU with an FPGA. With such a hardware setup, a wide variety of processes can be designed into the logic fabric of the FPGA (for example a Fast Fourier Transform) so that what would otherwise require a lot of CPU clock cycles can be done much more quickly within the FPGA.

On the technological horizon, are hardware instantiations of artificial neural networks, which will allow memory and processor to be entertwined within each artifical neuron, in such a way that very powerful information processing can occur within the neural network as a whole, which can be faster and much more energy efficient than today's AIs like Chat-GPT.

Also, another reason why I am not an antinatalist is that I am open to the possibility of an afterlife. I am not sure how the possibility of the afterlife would influence the dilemma of antinatalism (I guess that it also depends on how the afterlife is, if there is one). — boundless

As someone on the autism spectrum, the question arises for me of whether in an afterlife I would be autistic.

If not, then it doesn't seem like it would be me in the afterlife.
If so, and for eternity, I expect I'd think the afterlife kind of sucks.

and, on occasion, mild insanity. — Ludwig V

:monkey:

But you said all the complex behaviours of neurons emerge from lower level physics which is quite wrong. They emerge from the information processing which entropically entrains the physical world in a way that brains and nervous systems can be a thing. — apokrisis

That's just backwards, and verging on magical thinking, not to mention overdetermination.

I don’t favour computer analogies but what do you think causes the state of a logic gate to flip. Is it the information being processed or the fluctuating voltage of the circuits? — apokrisis

I provided somewhat of an explanation of this on the forum beginning here.

A logic gate flipping is a physical process with emergent properties which allow us to treat it as if logic determines the results, by imposing additional constraints by only sampling the output of the logic gate on clock edges.

Logic gates don't flip, but they can 'slide' (or slew) pretty fast.

The physics of neurons is shaped by the top-down needs of Bayesian modelling. Bayesian modelling isn’t a bottom-up emergent product of fluctuating chemical potentials. — apokrisis

Bayesian brain theorizing is just another case of people looking for their keys under the street light, because that is where the light is. Sure neural nets behave in many regards as if they they are implementing a Bayesian process, but it would be thinking simplistically to think that is the whole story.

But I suppose humanity needs its simplisticators.

:zip:

I’m arguing that the full implications of the non-linearity of complex systems in living beings makes it impossible to derive them from physical models as they are currently understood. — Joshs

"Currently understood" is rather vague. Currently understood by whom? Certainly there are plenty of people who have a deeper understanding of the implications of the non-linearity of complex systems in living beings than do most philosophers or even psychologists. Just to give an example I am experienced with... In an EE curriculum, linear circuit analysis is typically covered in the first two EE classes, from that point on, it is all about non-linear systems.

It is not the non-linearity that is particularly problematic when trying to grasp minds/brains. It is the complexity, and lack of anything remotely approaching a detailed account of that complexity.

This story (myth) is not "salvation" because, in fact, one's "suffering" (i.e. frustrations, fears, pains, losses, traumas, dysfunctions) ceases only with one's death. The world's oldest confidence game ritually over-promises and under-delivers: false hope. Besides, most historical religions preach that every person has an 'eternal soul' – imo, there isn't any notion that's more of an ego-fetish than this. — 180 Proof

:up:

:up:

Brains in some sense synchronizing with other brains as well as other parts of the environments they navigate.
— Apustimelogist
H'm what does "in some sense" mean? — Ludwig V

I know @Apustimelogist already answered, but I want to add the following link to flesh out the very literal sense in which synchronization occurs:

https://drsarahmckay.com/brain-to-brain-synchrony-how-neuroscience-decodes-trust-rapport-and-attachment/

Surely someone has read this book here. — Lionino

[Godel, Escher, Bach]

I consider the book an intellectual masterpiece. I've known for a long time that Hofstadter was naive in some of his beliefs about the potential for computation as it was when the book was written. But regardless, Hofstadter provides a lot of valuable tools for thinking about thinking.

Especially valuable (as my 40 year old memory of the book recalls) are Hofstadter's discussion of the importance of being able to flip between reductive and holistic perspectives, and the way he conveys an understanding of emergence.

At present "emergent properties" seems to be pretty much a label for the undefined. — Ludwig V

I can understand why it would seem that way, but I'll try show emergence in a different light.

Suppose I design an electronic circuit that has the property of producing accurate measurements of something. I, in principle, could explain in an enormous amount of detail, why these specific components, interconnected with each other in this specific way, results in the emergent property of the design. For such an explanation to succeed, the person I am explaining this to, would need more than a four year degree in electrical engineering provides as background knowledge.

Neither of us probably wants to go through such an explanatory process. :wink:

So it seems reasonable to me, to see understanding of emergence as something particular experts have, and that non-experts for practical purposes, have to be left with the seemingly hand-wavey explanation, "The property emerges from the physical structure of the device."

This answers nought. Sometimes those choices appear Red to me. This also doesn't answer anything ;) — AmadeusD

It wasn't intended to answer anything. Just provide food for thought.

I suspect the lion’s share of those intuitions are formed by early adulthood , which may explain why philosophers like Heidegger, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were able to generate profound psychological insights while living essentially monastic lives. — Joshs

I wanted to revisit this, and ask about the reading habits of these three men, and whether there was a lot of similarity between the reading habits of these three and what you would expect of religious monastics?

Even someone who superficially appears socially isolated, may be interacting with diverse others via reading and writing. I'm not sure that comparing those three to monastics is very apples to apples, but you tell me.

I am not at all sure of what I think I know. — Athena

That can be a very good thing. It can be what leads to an epiphany.

I think you can know that many here wish you well.

:up: :up: Of course.
:grin:

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories. They just shouldn't take precedence. But, the "brain-as-receiver" theory is as old as time and has some explanatory power so I like that it's not being written off. — AmadeusD

Do you have the conscious experience of homunculusly controlling a meat puppet through some sort of communication channel? If so, what do the controls (that homunculus-you uses to control meat puppet-you) looks like?

Are they red?

It is a question that has been argued many times here on the forum. I've made my arguments so many times, it's hard to work up any enthusiasm to do it again. — T Clark

Same here. :wink:

You and I understand metaphysics differently. It's not that we haven't found proof that free will exists or doesn't exist, it's that it is not a question that can be answered empirically. — T Clark

This is a topic for a thread. A thread which I have no interest in starting. :razz:

I did not take the passage as a matter of intention. It was more a reporting of a gap. We do stuff and find out later what it brought about. Maybe. — Paine

:up:

Are you saying that free will doesn't exist - that it's somehow a alllusion to mysticism or the supernatural? — T Clark

Free will doesn't exist in the sense Peck thought it did. That doesn't mean it isn't reasonable to think about what would be a more realistic notion of free will - something along the lines of what Peter Tse is pointing towards with The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation

I don't see it that way. Sometimes it makes sense to act as if ours and others' behaviors are the result of outside influences and sometimes it makes sense to act as if we are in control. — T Clark

Sure it makes practical sense, to go with the simplistic modelling of things that our brains generate, including our models of other people. However, I would think it unfortunate, to not be able to see beyond the simplistic modeling, even if only a bit.

Free will vs. determinism is a metaphysical issue. Its not about facts - true or false. — T Clark

All the more reason to take consideration of free will out of the box of metaphysics.

The phrase "the road less travelled" is from a poem by Robert Frost - "The Road Not Taken." It is ironic that the Peck used this quote because Frost meant it ironically. It is not meant as a paean to a life of non-conformity but rather a wry comment on how we look back on our lives and try to show how we are masters of our fate. — T Clark

I liked this discussion of the poem:

The poem masquerades as a meditation about choice, but the critic William Pritchard suggests that the speaker is admitting that “choosing one rather than the other was a matter of impulse, impossible to speak about any more clearly than to say that the road taken had ‘perhaps the better claim.’” In many ways, the poem becomes about how—through retroactive narrative—the poet turns something as irrational as an “impulse” into a triumphant, intentional decision. Decisions are nobler than whims, and this reframing is comforting, too, for the way it suggests that a life unfolds through conscious design. However, as the poem reveals, that design arises out of constructed narratives, not dramatic actions.

To me the poem suggests recognition of determinism - that many little things make all the difference in the courses of our lives. I think Peck somewhat recognized determinism. And perhaps, that by writing TRLT, he would to some degree determine the course of other people's lives. However, he also had a woo based belief in free will, and yes, using the metaphor from the poem is pretty ironic.

Yea maybe my word choice wasn't the best. I guess I think emotions provide the motivation for thinking, but I suppose a thinking process can work just fine once it gets going without further emotional input. — Brendan Golledge

Well, I wouldn't go that far either, although I'd be hard put to give much of an account of the role of emotion when I'm deep into doing electronics design. It's not something I've thought much about, and I suspect that if I were to pay more attention to the role of emotions in such a case, I'd see that emotions were playing a subtle role all along. If nothing else, I think there is a background of desire to achieve a design I'm happy with.

I agree with this. I thought of consciousness as just being, "having a model of the self," and this can clearly occur in degrees. And as I said before, it seems to me that reason and emotion are inseparable in their operation. — Brendan Golledge

I largely agree as well, but I balk at saying "inseparable". I'd say having emotions is what drives the process which results in our developing models of selves in the larger world.

The Road Less Travelled by M. Scott Peck

This has not aged well. Absolutely horrible at times. — fdrake

That was an important book for me at one time, but yeah. I see books on psychology as having a shelf life of about 20 years.

Protestants do more splitting than an atom smasher, which, I think, keeps them strong and healthy — BC

:lol:

"Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" is a Christian hymn written by the pastor and hymnodist Robert Robinson, who penned the words in the year 1758 at the age of 22. It was set to a number of tunes, including shape-note tunes which were generally sung at a fast clip, a cappella. Here is a Primitive Baptist congregation a cappella performance to its most familiar tune. — BC

I also know that one well.

My parents both grew up in Evangelical United Brethren churches. Some interesting tidbits:

The United Brethren took a strong stand against slavery, beginning around 1820. After 1837, slave owners were no longer allowed to remain as members of the United Brethren Church. The Evangelical United Brethren churches sustained a strong fellowship with Nazarene (believing) Jews. In 1853, the Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary Society was organized. Expansion occurred into the western United States, but the church's stance against slavery limited expansion to the south.

By 1889, the United Brethren had grown to over 200,000 members with six bishops. In that same year they experienced a division. Denominational leaders desired to make three changes: to give local conferences proportional representation at the General Conference; to allow laymen to serve as delegates to General Conference; and to allow United Brethren members to hold membership in secret societies such as the Freemasons. The denominational leadership made these changes, but the minority felt the changes violated the constitution because they were not made by the majority vote of all United Brethren members. One of the bishops, Milton Wright (the father of aviation pioneers Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright), disagreed with the actions of the majority. Bishop Wright and other conference delegates left the meeting and resumed the session elsewhere. They believed that the other delegates had violated the constitution (and, in effect, withdrawn from the denomination), and deemed themselves to be the true United Brethren Church. Therefore, the body initially known as the United Brethren in Christ of the Old Constitution,[1] now called the Church of the United Brethren in Christ.

The denomination merged with the Evangelical Church in 1946 to form a new denomination known as the Evangelical United Brethren Church (EUB). This in turn merged in 1968 with The Methodist Church to form the United Methodist Church (UMC).

My father was ordained into, and began preaching in, the First Brethren church. (Not sure where First Brethren fits in.) However, when I was 10 he decided to try farming the family farm, and we began going to the United Methodist church which had been the EUB church that my father went to as a child.

...might be loathe to admit it... — Gnomon

Though I appreciate you trying to use a possibly archaic word I recently used on the forum, I have to call a language foul. There are two different words, "loath" and "loathe".

You might say, "might be loath to admit it"
or, "might loathe admitting it"
but "might be loathe to admit it" is right out.

I suspect the lion’s share of those intuitions are formed by early adulthood , which may explain why philosophers like Heidegger, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were able to generate profound psychological insights while living essentially monastic lives. — Joshs

Perhaps. I have only a superficial view of those three.

I tend to find both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard rather overwrought, and not to my taste. Still, I can see how both express things that I can understand others to find psychologically liberating, even if I don't much relate.

I found it pleasant enough, even compelling at times, for many years. — BC

A wonderful renditions of what was my favorite song when I was seven years old:

Egads. Mormons would constitute 0.61% of Christians and UU would constitute 1% of Mormons. You are talking about tiny outliers here. — Leontiskos

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the presence of UU churches in the US is strongly correlated with the location of academic institutions.

Now the only Church leader who will say, "Oh okay, I agree that you are already Christian and require no baptism or initiation before joining our community," would be a Mormon leader. So you can go on claiming that Mormons are Christians, so long as it is admitted that 99% of Christians disagree with you. — Leontiskos

I can't say I have spent a lot of time in Unitarian Universalist Churches, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of UU leaders would be untroubled by such a claim by a Mormon. It seems more a matter of a church leader's ability to see past a tribalistic mindset, to me.

But I do value his attempt to order the world in such a way, even if it is ultimately missing something or wrong. By seeing his logic of synthesis of various fields, it might provide some insights into other things along the way, even if simply thinking of contrary perspectives to its totalizing tendency. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. :up:

Just like the Multiverse, "Information" seems to be a "catchall" for the "ground of being". apokrisis for example, will have a grand Peircean version of this consisting of a triadic grouping that must always be in the equation... — schopenhauer1

:rofl:

I think "Procrustean" would fit as well as "Peircean" a lot of the time.

In another thread I recently had a similar discussion where I got all hard-ass and philosophical about what a belief really is. — T Clark

Are you sure it wasn't this thread? :cool:

"endless forms most beautiful" that Darwin saw in Nature, and attributed to an unspecified "creator"*3. — Gnomon

You seem to be promoting misinformation, given the title of the book being On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

At least the link you provided corrects the record:

In March, 1863, Darwin wrote about this inclusion of the three significant words ~ by the Creator ~ to his friend and scientific confidante Joseph Hooker:-

"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter."

This opens up a huge debate. Bringing up good citizens (let's suppose that this society is at least on some winding pathway towards civilization.) is a complicated and messy business. Formal education, as we understand it, is an important part of that. Don't think that I'm trying to disparage it. But play-time and parenting are important parts as well. Beyond that, I'm very confused. — Ludwig V

I just want to say, that I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

The suffering wouldn’t be from being isolated, but rather it would be discussed communally without being gaslit, distracted from it, or ignoring it, facing it and recognizing it communally. — schopenhauer1

Long ago I was fortunate to be part of a community along such lines, although these days I get such needs met through talking with individual friends. Anyway, I'll PM you, because a public forum isn't a very good place for discussing such things.

It is the extreme I am against. If someone believes they have an idea that can alter society 'at large' then they are peddling some form of ideology. I do not care how good the outcome they are hoping for is I just know it will not come to fruition how they expect.

No one is a prophet, they just play at being a prophet. Just because we remember those whose faulty predictions seem to have played out roughly as they said they would, this does not discount the hundreds of others who appeared to have had equally valid arguments but whose forecasts turned out to be completely wrong.

There is no 'Social Science' in anything but name. When people forget this horrific things happen. — I like sushi

I couldn't agree that there is no social science, although I'd likely agree that there is a 'fuzziness' to the 'objects' of social science, which is considerably different than the fuzziness of objects studied in physics. It seems to me that consideration of social science (or at least pseudo social science) plays a big role in philosophy. Of course social science on its own is a huge area of study, and we can't really expect anyone to have a complete understanding of all the subjects involved.

In any case it seems that you are opposed to is something I would think better labeled as social engineering.

The word used was "encourages" not demands or implores. Rather, if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way. — schopenhauer1

So what if participation in such a community results in someone no longer feeling isolated, lonely, and as being the only one suffering? Would that person still be able to contribute to the community or would they need to persist in seeing themselves as the only one suffering to be recognzed as a member of such a community?

Changing society at large ... Have you already managed to pull off one, single change to society, no matter how small?
— Tarskian

I warned against anyone trying to do so and am against anyone trying to do so. — I like sushi

This seems a bit extreme to me. I see education as something that changes society, but I'm not against education.