It depends on how you conceive of thinking and intelligence. — Janus

One property of Intelligence is the ability to respond to the environment and make new things. I would also call the evolution of the universe from the BigBang to now an intelligent process.

Consciousness is still mysterious, though, since there are no satisfying theories as to how it is possible that we should be conscious. — Janus

No more mysterious than that the universe exists.

You said "there is no ether" and since you were drawing an analogy between the ether and consciousness, it seemed reasonable to think you were suggesting that there is no consciousness. — Janus

Electromagnatic waves do not move through either, that is the analogy. I am saying that consciousness is no more mysterious than the fact we think, walk, and talk.

In reference to AI: A machine can think without what we call consciousness. That is, you do not need consciousness to think or have intelligence.

Whoops, forgot to read the fine print. Makes more sense — jgill

Still time to send in your revised paper!

there seems to be every reason to believe that consciousness is not a substance or substantive medium, but that it is a process. — Janus

Yes, that is what I am saying.

So, you seem to be saying there is no first person experience. — Janus

No. I don't know how you inferred that.

Interesting tidbit from Harvard: To apply for admittance to the PhD program in philosophy one must submit (roughly) fifteen pages of writing. No particular subject. Draw your own conclusion. — jgill

Writing Sample
A writing sample must be submitted with the online application.

Scope: The sample must address a substantial philosophical problem, whether it is an evaluation or presentation of an argument, or a serious attempt to interpret a difficult text.

https://gsas.harvard.edu/programs-of-study/all/philosophy

I sometimes think consciousness is like the old theory of ether. Consciousness is the ether through which thought takes place. Of course there is no ether.

Artificial intelligence is not even close to being the same sort of thing that human intelligence is. Not even close. The point here is that it is a misnomer that renders the term intelligence meaningless. — creativesoul

How is AI different from human intelligence?

We are part of nature, aren't we? — creativesoul

Exactly. So, "artificial" intelligence is just an extension of natural intelligence.

It's our intelligence that forms the basis of our understanding. We must get it right prior to attempting to attribute it or something like it to something else. Wouldn't you say? — creativesoul

No. I never really understood what Aristotle meant by "art imitates nature." But he considers nature to be a process so art imitates that process. So, nature exhibits intelligence. The modern preoccupation with subjectivity obscures this idea.

There are absolute truths that help to explain existence itself. — chiknsld

Could you name some?

If the term means anything at all, it must include biological machinery. — creativesoul

Why? There are lots of things in the universe. Why privilege the human biological mechanism?

It's not because consciousness is something that lies outside purely mechanical processes, but rather it's because consciousness is a muddled notion to begin with, Boolean logic consists of all true statements, inanimate objects have no emotion, emotion is part of thought and belief, and consciousness includes an ability to suspend one's judgment as well as change one's mind about things previously held true. That's just skimming the top of the problems involved with any claims of artificial 'intelligence'(scarequotes intentional). — creativesoul

Some think intelligence is a function of human biology. So, there is natural intelligence and artificial intelligence. But artificial intelligence does not merely mimic human intelligence or consciousness.
Turing's paper, COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE, shows that the question is what is intelligence regardless of it being natural or artificial.

I suppose philosopy was always tightly connectected to science of the day, at least up to and including Whiteheads strange metaphysics. I'm not exactly sure what happened after that. What's the role of philosophy today? To me it looks like it's a mere "metascience", tool for understanding basics of other science, analyzing its own history etc. — Olento

Many philosophers are interested in the philosophy of science. But if you look at statistics of jobs offers for philosophy professors, most are not in that area of specialty.

Varela — Joshs

Good. I was reading about enactivism in grad school and remember reading Varela and being interested. Had too many things to do to go further.

Both threads have explained the "why". — skyblack

Then nothing further to discuss.

An aesthetic contemplation which is free from the residues of “experience” (ironically) and “knowledge”? — skyblack

Why would anyone want that?

To sit and stare at paintings or sculptures or listen to music while in a recliner, in the long run seems boring. — jgill

Then you do not like paintings.

art experience is transient. — skyblack

All experience is transient.

But philosopher of science Joseph Rouse argues that science frequently does play the kind of role people tend to associate with philosophy. — Joshs

I've read things by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Sean Carroll that were philosophical and insightful. But most of science is as interesting as reading an accounting textbook.

But philosopher of science Joseph Rouse argues that science frequently does play the kind of role people tend to associate with philosophy. — Joshs

I've studied a lot of science in college and on my own. I can't really say there is anything from science that has helped me understand the world. A few things, maybe, but mostly not.

Science only describes. It doesn't make one truly understand. — Hillary

That seems right.

Can't help you with that. — dimosthenis9

I was not asking you for help.

And science is the only verified "human truth" we have. Science shows the road via knowledge. — dimosthenis9

I cannot think of a single thing from science that helps me understand the world. Not being contentious.

you're not interested in debating anymore — Skalidris

correct

Then it really shouldn't be too hard for you to find an example, right? Why don't you give one? — Skalidris

If you really have no idea what philosophers of science do then you need to find out. I mean, this is extremely elementary.

a concept in philosophy of science that is defined with scientific concepts? — Skalidris

The philosophy of science does nothing but discuss scientific concepts.

If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. — Thomas Szasz

If you talk to someone who cannot talk back you are talking to yourself.

Understand, I don't care what you believe, but you're presenting your view as some established facts - which they aren't. If you merely want to say these assumptions of yours are reasons to reject what I'm saying, that's fine. — Relativist

The argument presented is:

I like vanilla ice cream. Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream. Therefore, vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.

No, I can tell you scientists aren't interested in that. It's not the role of science to try to paint a bigger picture of the reality, that's philosophy.
For example, I came up to a biology professor who was "debating" the notion of an individual, then I tried to get a definition out of him, which he couldn't produce, because he said it's too "complex". And there isn't any research on how to define that term, why? Because it's useless for biologists to define an individual, the use of that term isn't really important in their work. Why do I care about defining what an individual is? Because I care about the bigger picture, the representation of the world, that is a philosophical essence to me. — Skalidris

Defining basic concepts is what the philosophy of science does. You seemed to reject this idea but I did not understand why.

You don't understand what metaphysics means. Here's an excerpt from the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy:

Metaphysics ... refers to the study of the most basic items or features of reality (ontology) or to the study of the most basic concepts used in an account of reality — Relativist

Aristotle defines metaphysics as first philosophy. The discussion of the basic principles one uses in philosophy.

It seems that you're interested in science and not philosophy. Hard to get much more than that from your explanation.

Always changing then? — Daniel

Yes. Since time and space are not absolutes only relations exist.

minds don't emerge from matter — RogueAI

That is what I think.

Wish I read more Leibnitz — Joshs

Leibniz: "I hold space to be something merely relative, as time is, that I hold it to be an order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions. (Third Paper, paragraph 4; G VII.363/Alexander 25–26)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-physics/

Wish I read more Leibnitz. — Joshs

Leibniz was the first critic of mechanistic science. He tore into Newton for saying there is absolute time and space.

Do objects occupy space or do they create it? — Joshs

Space is just things, for Leibniz.

What then is your critique on theism? You don't have it! — Hillary

The topic of the thread is the why proofs of God fail. I gave reasons. I did not talk about theism other than in terms of proofs.

Okay, I will make another thread because I don't think this is really relevant to the main question anymore. — Skalidris

I will read it.