Given that reason will not instruct the impossible as a moral judgement, and given that reason will not instruct beyond physical capacity, there should be no rational argument to support why you cannot do as reason instructs. — Mww
Such is the foundation of the deontological moral doctrine, in which respect for law in and of itself, regardless of the content of any law in particular, grounds moral dispositions. Herein we may disregard our feelings when it becomes possible we won’t like them, because we have acted out of respect for law, which inspires no feelings at all except having done right. In this respect, it is not reason that is the motor, but it is practical reason that says what form the law will assume, the categorical imperative, for which thereafter our actions respect.
As for the “motor of morality”, meaning that which drives the fundamental human condition, I think Kant would go with the transcendental conception of “freedom”, transcendental in order to distinguish from the conception of freedom associated with degrees of various and sundry empirical restrictions, but rather to denote and prescribe an unconditioned a priori causal principle, that is not itself an effect of any antecedent principle. Hence, moral reasoning is practical, for the determination of its laws, but at the same time absolutely pure, because of its transcendentalism, its source being pure thought alone, having no empirical predicates whatsoever.
What say you? — Mww
Harry, how does your mind work? How do you prove rigorously that you are conscious? What is consciousness? It's evident from philosophical debate that we don't exactly know these issues. Yet we make these astounding leaps of faith that we indeed are conscious.Computers do recognize patterns of on and off logical gates. What I see you doing is making a lot of claims about what humans can and what computers can't do, but no explanation as to why that is the case. How and why do you recognize patterns? How and why does your mind work? — Harry Hindu
The field was founded on the claim that human intelligence "can be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it".[19]
Psychology is the trap, here, and we need to avoid it. — tim wood
So I would argue that first morality is driven by passion — tim wood
I think just here we must take care to qualify the "causal" as a logical cause — tim wood
Exactly, so how can you make the leap to say that a robot with a computer brain isnt conscious?Harry, how does your mind work? How do you prove rigorously that you are conscious? What is consciousness? It's evident from philosophical debate that we don't exactly know these issues. Yet we make these astounding leaps of faith that we indeed are conscious. — ssu
What we know is how Turing Machines work: they have an exact definition of themselves and how they work. They follow algorithms... — ssu
Why do you think that computers have provided us our "best prospects yet for machines that emulate reasoning, decision-making, problem solving, perception, linguistic comprehension, and other characteristic mental processes"?Could a machine think? Could the mind itself be a thinking machine? The computer revolution transformed discussion of these questions, offering our best prospects yet for machines that emulate reasoning, decision-making, problem solving, perception, linguistic comprehension, and other characteristic mental processes. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Because we simply know how in the end a very mechanical device called a computer works. That's the answer. We surely can make that leap.Exactly, so how can you make the leap to say that a robot with a computer brain isnt conscious? — Harry Hindu
What does that mean that 'you are aware' and how is it philosophically different from the problem of consciousness?I am aware. — Harry Hindu
Complexity of an algorithm doesn't change the definition of an algorithm. Sorry, but this is mathematics. Definitions do matter. Look it up: algorithms have a quite clear definition.Algorithms can vary in complexity, and the mind could be using a very complex algorithm that we haven't been able to crack yet. — Harry Hindu
Because we live in our currently "most advanced state" of human knowledge. And the algorithm churning Turing Machines are at the present the thing we have. And before it was mechanical clock-work devices. People made similar comparisons then that everything was like mechanical clocks. Just very advanced ones. And we had idea of the Clockwork Universe. Sound familiar to the ideas today that the Universe is just one supercomputer?Why do you think that computers have provided us our "best prospects yet for machines that emulate reasoning, decision-making, problem solving, perception, linguistic comprehension, and other characteristic mental processes"? — Harry Hindu
This isn't what I was trying to get at. We also know many things about the brain and can make predictions about what you experience based on a your brain scan. Damage to a certain area as the result of a stroke can limit one's use of language or erase memories. My question is more about what is a computer really like "out there" - separate from our experience of it being a "physical" piece of hardware running software (which is basically hardware states). What is a brain really like "out there" - separate from our experience of it being a "physical" piece of hardware (the brain) running software (the mind - which is basically brain states)? Brains and computers are made of the same "physical" stuff. So how is it that we can say brains have consciousness, and computers don't?Because we simply know how in the end a very mechanical device called a computer works. That's the answer. We surely can make that leap. — ssu
I would say that awareness and consciousness are the same thing. "Consciousness" is a loaded term.What does that mean that 'you are aware' and how is it philosophically different from the problem of consciousness? — ssu
An algorithm is a set of steps to follow intended to solve a specific problem. Mathematical equations are algorithms; so are computer programs. Algorithms are closely related to logical thinking. They are like an applied version of deductive reasoning. Algorithms are for problem-solving. If you aren't trying to solve a problem, then are you using your intelligence? The Turing Test is a test for intelligence, not consciousness. Can you have one without the other?Complexity of an algorithm doesn't change the definition of an algorithm. Sorry, but this is mathematics. Definitions do matter. Look it up: algorithms have a quite clear definition. — ssu
But it is a physical machine that does run a program if it works. It doesn't abruptly change it's software and decide to do something other that the programmer programmed it to do. If a computer would do that, then we could perhaps assume it was 'aware' (and likely pissed off about it's programmer).My question is more about what is a computer really like "out there" - separate from our experience of it being a "physical" piece of hardware running software (which is basically hardware states). — Harry Hindu
We don't know these issues yet so well and that is a fact. Hence we can mean a lot of different things by AI, for example. This is the problem. As I said, we know our computers and how they work far more better.I would say that awareness and consciousness are the same thing. "Consciousness" is a loaded term. — Harry Hindu
Do you always use deduction? How about inductive reasoning? Never tried that? How about abductive reasoning?Algorithms are closely related to logical thinking. They are like an applied version of deductive reasoning. — Harry Hindu
Not all use of intelligence is problem solving. Of course one might argue everything to be a "problem" that we have to solve.If you aren't trying to solve a problem, then are you using your intelligence? The Turing Test is a test for intelligence, not consciousness. Can you have one without the other? — Harry Hindu
But what if the programmer programmed the computer to change its programming? People only change their programming when they learn something new.But it is a physical machine that does run a program if it works. It doesn't abruptly change it's software and decide to do something other that the programmer programmed it to do. If a computer would do that, then we could perhaps assume it was 'aware' (and likely pissed off about it's programmer). — ssu
Dont those types of reasoning require the information provided by the senses?Do you always use deduction? How about inductive reasoning? Never tried that? How about abductive reasoning? — ssu
That would be just what the present computer programs have done for ages. Ever heard of cybernetic systems? Something invented during WW2 was hailed to be the solution to everything... until it faded from the popular jargon. Yet this doesn't overcome this issue at all: the computer is exactly following the algorithm and hence is quite predictable in just what it will "learn".But what if the programmer programmed the computer to change its programming? — Harry Hindu
Do they? Anyway, the problem is that you have to somehow morph inductive and abductive reasoning into the deductive way as, again, Turing Machines just compute, follow algorithms.Dont those types of reasoning require the information provided by the senses? — Harry Hindu
Here's the thing. That there is natural selection doesn't mean a thing when the question is how will Harry Hindy reply this or that question. And one obvious way would be to say that even if we can seem to be choosing ourselves just what we do, there would be a metaprogram that we follow the we can't change or understand. Yet this argument makes it even worse: for the computer it is really a program, not a metaprogram, that the programmer has to tinker with.I'll add that humans have a programmer - natural selection. — Harry Hindu
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
I guess I'm saying SIMULATED FREE WILL = REAL FREE WILL. — TheMadFool
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.