Do you never experience yourself as more of a fog than a point? — path
The jump to the use of "consciousness" remains a mystery.
— creativesoul
But isn't that what the beetle-in-the-box is about? — path
I am neither. "Fog" refers to something other than me. As does "a point". — creativesoul
Oh, I want Path to win. Especially if she is a bot. But you should not take that personally.
It would just be so very cool. — Banno
I do not claim to have a Turing test. — creativesoul
Oh, I want Path to win. Especially if she is a bot. But you should not take that personally.
It would just be so very cool. — Banno
That passed.
Who wins? — creativesoul
Just to be clear, I meant that in a friendly way. — path
I'm being metaphorical. What I'm trying to get at is the sense of identity. Am I my face, my text streams, the way I act at work, etc. In ordinary language I am all of these things. But it's a baggy or foggy unity. And it becomes clear to me as I keep reading just how unoriginal I can't help being. I re-enact, even as I try to transcend re-enactment (which is itself a re-enactment of romanticism's creative individual.)
Basically I think people are thrown into a form of life and its various possible/intelligible types. If we question that form of life, we are usually enacting a typical form of questioning.
The main idea is that the self is a kind of collage or collision of influences. — path
We all adopt our first worldview.
We're thrown into the world in this way. — creativesoul
If this were written by a synthetic conversation partner... Well, that would be astonishing. If ModBot has progresses this far - well, I would be genuinely nonplussed.
But then, perhaps such an eventuality is inevitable. — Banno
You said I should not worry until a computer can make correlations between self and world. That's what I'm calling your Turing test (your criterion or thresh-hold for when we should worry.) — path
Anyway, it probably is inevitable, especially if it's statistical. It'll be piggybacking on millions of human conversations. But then so are we as individuals. Our skullware is also piggybacking on all that came before, and that's what I was getting at with selves as vortices of inherited tokens. — path
Indeed; and although statistical analysis feels like winning Turing's test by cheating...
If that were the result, then so what? Googles's statistical translations are, after all, translations. — Banno
The world is already meaningful.
— creativesoul
Could you elaborate? — path
hat have long since already been in use prior to becoming a user. — creativesoul
Would I have had the same response? I suspect not. — Banno
I don't think that humans know exactly what they mean by 'mind' or 'physical' or so many other words. Instead we are just trained with reward and punishment to use such words appropriately enough. — path
If that (your post) were the result, then so what? — Banno
If this is the case (and I'm very much inclined to agree with you), then would it not be more likely that there is no such thing as what a word means... Rather than that such a thing exists but we don't know what it is? — Isaac
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.