Sensory-motor embodied enactivist approaches to perception and consciousness are based on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception — Joshs
But you understood the point that the intellectual gap between a bat and a fly is as wide as the intellectual gap of a human and a bat right? The point is that us being a 'different kind' from other animals is simply the same pattern repeated in nature again and again. — Philosophim
The intellectual gap between any two species of animal may be a gap of degree along a spectrum. I don't know what differences of type they're might be. I suppose there could be differences of type between, for example, an animal that does not have neurons, and an animal that does. Although I guess it's possible that it's the same type of thinking, just done more efficiently. I just don't know enough about the subject.But you understood the point that the intellectual gap between a bat and a fly is as wide as the intellectual gap of a human and a bat right? The point is that us being a 'different kind' from other animals is simply the same pattern repeated in nature again and again. — Philosophim
That's not the point at issue, though. Obviously there is massive divergences between species, that is not at issue. I am protesting the tendency to overlook or deny what I see as an obvious fact about h. sapiens - language, reason, tool-making, and the implications of all of that. — Wayfarer
No, we're not 'an alien species', the biological descent of h. sapiens is abundantly obvious, but with the advent of those capacities, we crossed a threshold beyond what can be understood solely through the lens of biological science. — Wayfarer
I don't need to know much about the subject to know that the intellectual gap between humans and any other species may be of degree in some ways, but there is also a difference of type. — Patterner
No other species has the slightest clue about what stars are, ever wonders about it, or coyotes be educated aboutit. No other species wonders what fossils are, or would no matter how hard we tried to teach them. — Patterner
There is no end to the examples of things we do easily that no other species any condition of. no, we are not from a different planet. But we are different. We are unique. — Patterner
What threshold is this that is unique to human beings? — Philosophim
We are just another species — Philosophim
Your point sounds like mind is subjective in nature as well as objective in its capabilities, which I agree. But do you agree that mind can see things beyond what is visible?Based on overwhelmingly extant physical evidence, every mind(ing) is embodied in an ecologically situated, or conditioned, brain; other than subjective anecdotes (corroborated only in folk psychological / spiritual terms & customs), there is not any publicly demonstrable, contrary evidence of (e.g.) 'disembodied cognition' or 'nonphysical minds'. — 180 Proof
This thread is not exactly about mind-body duality or dualism.Also, assuming 'mind-body duality' is incoherent for some reasons discussed in this old post ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/636391 — 180 Proof
Why?Is this the end of physicalism?
No. — 180 Proof
So, what different material is mind of AI? In what sense is mind of AI different from human mind?By the fact it is not the same material as a brain. — Philosophim
I am not sure if this is a proper comparison. Mind has its own will, volition, intentions and desires as well as emotions, feelings, perceptions and reasonings. It is a totality of one's whole mental events and operations.You can play the same melody on different instruments, but it will have its own sound and feel. — Philosophim
The main problem with sensorimotor theory would be the fact that with the same input to the sense organs or sensibilities of different individuals, the behavioural and mental eventual output of the each individuals can be vastly different. And also the same behavioural output can be achieved by different sensorimotor inputs.Here is an argument for why your brain does not ‘hallucinate’ your conscious reality.
…to perceive the world isn’t to hallucinate and get things right. To perceive is to explore the world with your sensing and moving body. — Joshs
If meanings are something that we construct ourselves from the signifiers stored in memory. and truths are a product of a belief and mechanism of the fictional structures, then how do we come to the common agreement on these values and properties. You say the memory operates in accordance with an evolved set of Laws and Dynamics, but that doesn't seem to be a warrant for the solid consistent foundation for any sort of rational and consistent universal principles, which tends to suggest the strong hint of possibility of the meanings and truths committed into unreliable relativity.Perception, takes sensation and in imperceptible time displaces it with meaning. Not discovers Real meaning. Where does the meaning come from? We construct it out of available Signifiers stored in memory operating in accordance with an evolved set of Laws and Dynamics, following sometimes lightning speed dialectic, and settling at belief, also a mechanism of the Fictional structure seen by us as Truth. — ENOAH
Why is it Fabricated and Fictional? What is the evidence for "I am" is a fiction? Are you not you are?If Descarte's Real Self is an “I am,” a being within Being, unwittingly Fabricated and Fictional; and if—standing upon the shoulders of those, like Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger, recognizing the Fiction of a being within yhe being, and resolving it with not a being within, — ENOAH
The main problem with sensorimotor theory would be the fact that with the same input to the sense organs or sensibilities of different individuals, the behavioural and mental eventual output of the each individuals can be vastly different. And also the same behavioural output can be achieved by different sensorimotor inputs. — Corvus
“…intersubjective (social and cultural) factors already have an effect on our perception and understanding of the world, even in the immediacy of our embodied and instrumental copings with the environment.”(Shaun Gallagher)
” My friend Paul and I point out to each other certain details of the landscape; and Paul's finger, which is pointing out the church tower, is not a finger-for-me that I think of as orientated towards a church-tower-for-me, it is Paul's finger which itself shows me the tower that Paul sees, just as, conversely, when I make a movement towards some point in the landscape that I can see, I do not imagine that I am producing in Paul, in virtue of some pre-established harmony, inner visions merely analogous to mine: I believe, on the contrary, that my gestures invade Paul's world and guide his gaze. When I think of Paul, I do not think of a flow of private sensations indirectly related to mine through the medium of interposed signs, but of someone who has a living experience of the same world as mine, as well as the same history, and with whom I am in communication through that world and that history.
“ In the experience of dialogue, there is constituted between the other person and myself a common ground; my thought and his are inter-woven into a single fabric, my words and those of my interlocutor are called forth by the state of the discussion, and they are inserted into a shared operation of which neither of us is the creator. We have here a dual being, where the other is for me no longer a mere bit of behavior in my transcendental field, nor I in his; we are collaborators for each other in consummate reciprocity. Our perspectives merge into each other, and we co-exist through a common world. In the present dialogue, I am freed from myself, for the other person's thoughts are certainly his; they are not of my making, though I do grasp them the moment they come into being, or even anticipate them. And indeed, the objection which my interlocutor raises to what I say draws from me thoughts which I had no idea I possessed, so that at the same time that I lend him thoughts, he reciprocates by making me think too. It is only retrospectively, when I have withdrawn from the dialogue and am recalling it that I am able to reintegrate it into my life and make of it an episode in my private history”.
(Phenomenology of Perception, p.471).
Another difficulty of the sensorimotor theory of mind would be, that there are many different factors which affects the state of mind. And it cannot explain most subconscious or unconscious mental events. — Corvus
“From the point of view of a phenomenology of the lived body, the unconscious is not an intrapsychic reality residing in the depths "below consciousness". Rather, it surrounds and permeates conscious life, just as in picture puzzles the figure hidden in the background surrounds the foreground, and just as the lived body conceals itself while functioning. Unconscious fixations are like certain restrictions in a person's space of potentialities produced by an implicit but ever-present past which declines to take part in the continuing progress of life. (Thomas Fuchs)
As I said, I don't know anything about this. Would you know what type of intelligence a dolphin has that a fish doesn't? They certainly seem to have more personality.Both the degree and type of intelligence shift between a dolphin and a plain fish is monumental. — Philosophim
You said we're just part of the pattern. But we are unique in these ways. What pattern is uniqueness a part of? I don't know how you will answer about the dolphins and fish. However, since dolphins are not descended from fish, I guess it's possible that there is nothing unique about dolphins. Maybe there is a step-by-step explanation for the difference between the two animals.And nothing I've stated denies this.
Being the pinnacle of something does not mean you are not built upon the things that let you rise to the top. — Philosophim
Obviously, we are from there same planet. We're a result of a lot of the same materials and forces as every other animal and living thing. Our neo-cortex is not unique. All mammals have it. We share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees. So I'm not sure what my point is. :lol: — Patterner
What threshold is this that is unique to human beings?
— Philosophim
As I said - language, reason, technology, and so on. H. sapiens is able to interrogate the nature of meaning and being in a way that other species cannot. — Wayfarer
You're familiar with the term 'biological reductionism'? Definition here. — Wayfarer
By the fact it is not the same material as a brain.
— Philosophim
So, what different material is mind of AI? In what sense is mind of AI different from human mind? — Corvus
You can play the same melody on different instruments, but it will have its own sound and feel.
— Philosophim
I am not sure if this is a proper comparison. Mind has its own will, volition, intentions and desires as well as emotions, feelings, perceptions and reasonings. It is a totality of one's whole mental events and operations. — Corvus
We are more interested in finding out what is mind made of, if it is physical in its origin or something else in its origin? What is mind's scope and limitation? What is mind's capabilities? What can AI mind do where human minds cannot? and vice versa? Can mind see things beyond what is visible, hence extendable? — Corvus
Perception, therefore, isn’t online hallucination; it’s sensorimotor engagement with the world.
We aren’t dreaming machines but imaginative beings. We don’t hallucinate at the world; we imaginatively perceive it.
New muscle stimulates CNS growth in the brain as well. — Vaskane
I guess it's this:Ha ha! That's fair. I'm not sure where the disagreement was either. :D — Philosophim
Whatever the gap between fly and bat is, I don't think it approaches the gap between bat and human. I don't think the gap between ameba and chimpanzee approaches the gap between chimpanzee and human. I think the intelligence of everything other than us helps them operate in their ecological niche, so they can survive and reproduce. The intellectual approach some species take are more complex than others. Still, survival and reproduction are what their intelligence is about.But you understood the point that the intellectual gap between a bat and a fly is as wide as the intellectual gap of a human and a bat right? — Philosophim
You're familiar with the term 'biological reductionism'? Definition here.
— Wayfarer
No, and I'm not sure how it fits into the discussion. — Philosophim
Biological reductionism: A theoretical approach that aims to explain all social or cultural phenomena in biological terms, denying them any causal autonomy. Twentieth-century incarnations of biological reductionism have relied to varying degrees on Darwin's theory of evolution and principles of natural selection. Within the human sciences, there have been attempts to explain observed differences in group behaviour—such as performance on intelligence tests, rates of mental illness, intergenerational poverty, male dominance or patriarchy, and propensity for crime—as being biologically determined, by claiming that groups have different biological capacities or evolutionary trajectories. The theories of Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sociobiology often involve biological reductionism. A recognition of the importance of biological conditions and human nature need not involve biological reductionism.
Whatever the gap between fly and bat is, I don't think it approaches the gap between bat and human. — Patterner
Humans intelligence goes indescribably far beyond that of any other species. We think about things no other species thinks about. Things no other species can think about. — Patterner
Because it is what you're appealing to by declaring that humans are 'just another species' and that the differences between humans and other species is no more significant than the differences between species, generally. — Wayfarer
The definition I linked to was as follows — Wayfarer
then how do we come to the common agreement on these values and properties — Corvus
but that doesn't seem to be a warrant for the solid consistent foundation for any sort of rational and consistent universal principles, which tends to suggest the strong hint of possibility of the meanings and truths committed into unreliable relativity. — Corvus
What is the evidence for "I am" is a fiction? Are you not you are? — Corvus
The definition I linked to was as follows:
Biological reductionism: A theoretical approach that aims to explain all social or cultural phenomena in biological terms, denying them any causal autonomy. Twentieth-century incarnations of biological reductionism have relied to varying degrees on Darwin's theory of evolution and principles of natural selection. Within the human sciences, there have been attempts to explain observed differences in group behaviour—such as performance on intelligence tests, rates of mental illness, intergenerational poverty, male dominance or patriarchy, and propensity for crime—as being biologically determined, by claiming that groups have different biological capacities or evolutionary trajectories. The theories of Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sociobiology often involve biological reductionism. A recognition of the importance of biological conditions and human nature need not involve biological reductionism. — Wayfarer
I don't. I think it happened through natural processes. And I think we are subject to nature.So I'll ask you, why do you think being the most intelligent being keeps us separate from nature? — Philosophim
I don't. I just think the gap between us and any other species is greater than the gap between any other two species. By a huge amount. Because we don't just think better in the ways any other species thinks, but because we think in ways no other species thinks. And no other species thinks in ways no other species thinks.Why do you think it makes us anymore special then just "Being special in being the most intelligent being?" — Philosophim
Give me some example that makes humans magic — Philosophim
Give me some example that makes humans magic then
— Philosophim
Show me where said that human beings are magic. — Wayfarer
Humans are not some separate and magical species that exists apart from all of nature. — Philosophim
With the advent of language, reason and symbolic thinking, h. sapiens crosses a threshhold which marks it off from the rest of the animal kingdom. — Wayfarer
Some folks are solipsistic, and some are die-hard realists. Everyone is different. Some are left and some are right. Some are neutral. Some like poetry, some like mathematics, and some science, and some like them all.It can’t be vastly different, because individuals are not solipsisms. Embodied and phenomenological interpretations consider the embeddedness of the embodied subject in a world of linguistic cultural practices to be of fundamental importance to the understanding of behavior. — Joshs
Of course everyone is in their own body, and they think they are, or get told they are in an intersubjective world. But again everyone is different in the way they think, feel and behave in some sense.Sense always co-implies body, and subjectivity belongs to intersubjectivity. Being in the world for Merleau-Ponty is occupying a position within a shared gestalt (the same world for everyone). I am primordially situated in an intersubjective world. — Joshs
This is an interesting account on unconscious, which can be a topic of its own. Although it sounds like a contradictory at prima facie encounter. It sounds a categorical mistake to presume that unconscious can surround and permeates conscious life as if unconscious is some sort of physical blanket or cape which drapes around the conscious life. But it could have further elaboration and arguments with the real life cases which demonstrates that unconscious is not the hidden psychic reality deep in the mind.It explains them differently than a psychoanalytic model of the unconscious.
“From the point of view of a phenomenology of the lived body, the unconscious is not an intrapsychic reality residing in the depths "below consciousness". Rather, it surrounds and permeates conscious life, just as in picture puzzles the figure hidden in the background surrounds the foreground, and just as the lived body conceals itself while functioning. Unconscious fixations are like certain restrictions in a person's space of potentialities produced by an implicit but ever-present past which declines to take part in the continuing progress of life. (Thomas Fuchs) — Joshs
So how do you know AI which has binary codes in its core thinks? Is it not the case of AI operates according to the instruction of the binary code what to execute next after checking the conditions?For one its binary programming. It has different limitations and freedoms from neurological thinking. You can scale an AI to use far more energy than one human brain, as well as transfer information from one hardware station to another. — Philosophim
I am not sure if brain states of different individuals can be checked and verified as either exactly the same, or slightly different or totally different. In what sense would a brain different from the other brain?Right, that's its own sound and feel. Is your brain the same as your friend's brain? No. You're each different people playing your own version of music or 'mind'. — Philosophim
Neuroscience is definitely a good tool to describe mind in certain perspectives i.e. biological and neurological point of view, and telling how some visual perception works in biological and physical way. But it is not the whole story. There are parts of mind, to which neurology is not able to give coherent explanation. For example, what is concept? How does brain generate concepts? What are the nature of ideas people have in their minds in neurological terms? Why some people prefer ice cream to tomatoes?You may be confusing 'sight' by the way. Sight is always a construction of the brain. Did you know that when light enters your eyes the image is upside down? The brain corrects all of that. Again, do not study philosophy to learn about the mind. Study modern day neuroscience. Anyone who doesn't is going to be ignorant. — Philosophim
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.