Are you arguing for dualism now? — Olivier5
What makes you think this? — Isaac
Then RogueAI's argument would be that this recognizes some sort of distinction between mental event and non-mental events. — Olivier5
this distinction between things "in our head" and things "outside our head" is culturally near-universal and I believe absolutely fundamental to art, justice, politics and zillions other things we humans do. — Olivier5
Still, some other people refuse to envisage this distinction, or try and deny its importance. — Olivier5
The next step is to realize that perceptions are not just different, or even "originating from" a non-mental event in a mechanical manner. Perceptions represent non-mental events, they interpret them in a symbolic manner. Our mental world is (among other things) modeling reality "out there".
In other words, there is an epistemic gap between the event perceived and the corresponding perception events. — Olivier5
What makes you think this? — Isaac
A thought bwahahaha — Kenosha Kid
I expect I'm not far off in thinking that a song "playing" in your head isn't just a representation of the real thing (which is true of hearing it for the first time), but an approximation (recall is imperfect) to a representation (memory) of an approximation (memorisation is imperfect) of a representation (what I heard) of a real thing (what was played). — Kenosha Kid
I'm not quite sure because he was so vague about it, but it seemed to me that bongo-fury was in the habit of denying everything mental. Just one example.Generally, I've found near universal agreement that the two kinds of experience have a distinguishable and meaningful difference. — Isaac
In other words, there is an epistemic gap between the event perceived and the corresponding perception events.
— Olivier5
Absolutely. A matter I've written about pretty extensively in my posts before so won't go into again here in the general sense. — Isaac
The cause of my thought can only be a thought
— Mww
What makes you think this? — Isaac
Modeling the cause of thought implies making better humans.
Modeling the content of thought implies making a human better.
— Mww
Woah - left-field, where did this spring from? — Isaac
Feel free to ignore this. — Isaac
Information is what the thought is about, not the cause of it. — Mww
Reminds me of Pattee's epistemic cut and how this is the basis for the subject-object distinction. — Olivier5
I don’t know the cause of my thought. That which cannot be known, can still be thought, hence, the cause of my thought can only be a thought, or, it is nothing. — Mww
I know I start with this (something), I know I end up with that (“basketball”), but whatever happens in between, is part of the system itself, and can never be examined except by the very system of which it is a part. — Mww
It is catastrophically erroneous to say the object in the relation is its cause, for the object is necessarily simultaneous with the thought of it***, which eliminates the time absolutely necessary for the principle of cause and effect. — Mww
Modeling the physical cause of thought can possibly lead to manipulation of its electrochemical constituents. Behavior modification is a real thing, right? More likely behavior modification manifests as beneficial to humanity in general, I would hope. Hence....better humans.
Me, modeling the content of my thoughts, meaning “this is what I think about that”, and providing I wish to benefit myself by rearranging what I think about that....hence making me a better human.
Where it springs from....damned if I know. Sounded profound at the time. Ego or superfluous bullshit....take your pick. — Mww
Still all good, but having to do with anthropology and sociology and such. Just because I’m trapped in some relative influences of them, doesn’t mandate a personal interest. — Mww
Yeah, I have some sympathy with that view, although there are some aspects I'm not so sure on...another thread though maybe. — Isaac
You're saying that you know you start at 1 and end up at 9, but you can't examine the boxes inbetween using the system itself. But how can you know that without having at least taken a glance at the diagram - you must have 'examined' the system to some extent to even be able to report as much as you have. — Isaac
"It has a box 1 and a box 9. Box one contains the initial thought and box nine the final one, but I don't know what goes on in between"
Is that not a description of the system despite being a partial one? What did you use to arrive at it? — Isaac
but you can't examine the boxes inbetween using the system itself. — Isaac
Are not 'start' and 'end up with' nodes in the system? — Isaac
I don't know what goes on in between"
Is that not a description of the system despite being a partial one? — Isaac
The object is a model itself — Isaac
a song "playing" in your head isn't just a representation of the real thing (which is true of hearing it for the first time), but an approximation (recall is imperfect) to a representation (memory) of an approximation (memorisation is imperfect) of a representation (what I heard) of a real thing (what was played). — Kenosha Kid
Ahhh....another closet Kantian. YEA!!!!! C’mon, admit it. Release yourself to the Force, padawan!!! — Mww
Noticed, and for which he owes you a cocktail of your choice. — Mww
Information is the cause of your thought.
— Pop
Not from this armchair. Information is what the thought is about, not the cause of it.
Information, if anything, is the affect on the brain from perception, which we call sensation. — Mww
↪Mww In any case, that was (I think) what Pop meant by:
Information is the cause of your thought.
— Pop
That'd be why sense-deprivation is a mode of torture.
3 hours ago — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.