Sure your body predates your thoughts and language, grammar, meanings and all the rest of it. But as your body grew up and matured, your thoughts, language, grammar, meanings, perceptions and emotions all grew and matured together with our body. Your body didn't just put together with the various electrical modules and parts like the AI. Or your body was not thrown into the world from the sky one Sunday afternoon from nowhere, I presume.What is the evidence of an "I" period? Let alone an I that is, and is a Being within the being. I only is in Language. My Body provides obvious evidence of its own Reality, without the need of a Fictional construction, a nevessary mechanism in Grammar and thus Mind. That,
i.e. the human animal, ought to have been the given; the pre-reflective, a priori, noumenal, etc. Truth. Not our ideas about it. If "I" isn't the so called being requiring evidence then why is it that "I" was the Subject of Descartes inquiry. And where did he locate the "I" ? In thinking. And what structures that thinking? Language including its laws and dynamics such as grammar/logic, meaning, difference, Dialectic, convention and belief. — ENOAH
Well the above discussion was an interesting point, and I am grateful for your interesting points and post. We all have limited time even in our daily routines and life, hence we tend to be in a position where we cannot spend more time to think and elaborate more detail for the topics which deserve the time and detail of the arguments and explanations. But how fortunate for us even to be able to have the brief moments to be able to read and think on these compelling points in philosophy, and exchange our opinions and keep on learning. :)Apology once again for the clearly simplistic reply to your complex points on a complex matter which should take up more mental preparation/organization and space than can justify in this communal context. — ENOAH
Agreed. Good point. The mystery of life still remains, so does mind as a property of life.Anil Seth says he's 'entirely comfortable' with 'the mind extending beyond the brain', holding up his iPhone to make the point, one I agree with. Overall, I liked Seth's presentation, although I would question his claim that 'the mystery of life' has been 'solved' due to our better understanding of organic biochemistry. — Wayfarer
Fair enough. I found Sheldrake's points interesting too, although they lack evidence in the arguments.Re Sheldrake, I have 'The Science Delusion' and 'Presence of the Past'. I'm probably more open to Sheldrake than many but I'm afraid most of what he has to say won't change any minds, I suspect. I will review a bit more of the Q&A later. — Wayfarer
Where can I find this ample evidence? I say nonsense. These can be tested easily and as frequently as anyone could want. For every time someone thought X would call, and X did, there are many thousands of times someone called without a premonition, and the feeling X would call but didn't. And just start staring at people's backs. Restaurants, movies theaters, whatever. See how many feel it and turn to find you.Sheldrake insists that there is ample empirical evidence for 'the sense of being stared at' and also people's sixth sense about who is going to call them. — Wayfarer
For the moment, yes. The question is whether or not it is possible for them to do more. Our physical brains operate under physical laws. If we can do anything beyond what those laws demand and limit us too, what reason is there that to think AI cannot do anything beyond what their laws demand and limit them to?AI can only perform and execute what had been programmed by humans. They are incapable of doing anything beyond that. — Corvus
Meaning that, we have a consensus view of the nature of reality, and that view is, at the end of the day, that the physical sciences are definitive, and that psychic phenomena and belief in higher planes of being can only be understood in subjective terms. — Wayfarer
Human consciousness has been formed via life long lived experience. It has the biological foundation of course, but also educational, societal and evolutional backgrounds.For the moment, yes. The question is whether or not it is possible for them to do more. Our physical brains operate under physical laws. If we can do anything beyond what those laws demand and limit us too, what reason is there that to think AI cannot do anything beyond what their laws demand and limit them to? — Patterner
Our physical brains operate under physical laws — Patterner
My previous post here should cover answering your question. If you could read it again, and find any problems, please let me know. Thanks.That does not address the possibility of a medium other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. if we are able to with our medium, what reason is there to believe it cannot be done within another medium? — Patterner
The medium was secondary consideration. The main consideration was human consciousness being property or character of lived life backed up by experience interacting with the other minds in the society and world, having gone through the educational system and also grounded on the millions of years of evolution.That post, as I said, makes it clear why AI will never be human. It does not touch on the topic of mediums other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. If our brains can do it, how do we know another medium can't. And if our brains can't, why even bring up that another medium, especially one that we are trying to use, can't? — Patterner
I can't read that, because I don't subscribe. But didn't John Travolta answer this in Phenomenon?Due, it is believed, to animals being able to detect changes in electromagnetic fields, although nobody actually knows - see this.) — Wayfarer
Indeed. Hence, the Hard Problem. But I don't know why this can only happen when the medium is a biological brain.Physical laws goven physical things, but language and reason operate by different principles, let alone many other of the subtle abilities of the mind, and not only the human mind. — Wayfarer
I don't really get why AI has become a topic in this thread, when it wasn't even discussed in the presentation that the thread refers to, and when it is the perennial topic of discussion in numerous other threads. — Wayfarer
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.