You have been insisting to admit that I was incorrect. But the fact is that you don't seem to know a very basic knowledge in First-Order Logic. "Every" is a quantifier which is vague on its own without further limiting quantifier.

It is difficult to imagine anyone insisting "everyone" must mean the whole population in the universe. It doesn't exist, it is vague and obscure, and it is illogical to even imply that.

Please read the above post again, and think before posting.

I am only responding to your posts addressed to me. Not wasting time as such. I was just telling you that your understanding is not correct, and your insistence sounds unusual.

Anyone would say that your insistence that "Everyone" must mean the whole population in the universe without the class limitation is incorrect and unusual. This is a simple knowledge in First-Order Logic and High-Order Logic.

Well, you've already admitted that "everyone" doesn't mean "everyone", so that's a good start. — flannel jesus

Well, I have even given you a clear and detailed explanation what "Everyone" can imply in logical sense with the advice not to be too restrictive in your judgements which sounds too impractical to consider in serious manner. I have not admitted anything at all. That is another prejudgement of yours.

But I'll take your reply as a sly way of admitting you were incorrect. Perhaps you're just one of those people who can't say the words "I was incorrect." — flannel jesus

No, that would be an unwise act of digging down yourself into further below into the darkness of the cave.
How can anyone admit being incorrect without being incorrect just because you want him to? That would be a sinful contradiction. :D

Finally I look at whether a microtubule fractal suggests that electric current plays a part in conventional neurocomputing processes in plants." — RogueAI

If they want to insist that the whole universe is conscious, then it would only make sense, if they also stipulate the condition that there are different types or levels of consciousness.

it doesn't matter if you agree with them or think their ideas make sense, the point is *not everyone believes the thing you said everyone believes*.
an hour ago — flannel jesus

You shouldn't be too naive to presume that "everyone" strictly means the whole population in the universe anyway. "Everyone" is a pronoun with the universal quantifier "every", which implies "everyone" that I know, "everyone" who are sensible, "everyone" with common sense, or "everyone" who are logical ... etc.

You shouldn't be too judgemental or restrictive in understanding and interpreting "everyone" in unreasonably narrow way insisting it must be "everyone" in the whole world or universe.

no, I think they're talking about all consciousness, including human.

People who believe in souls are of course another great example of people who don't think minds emerge from brains. They think minds are in souls. — flannel jesus

I can't quite follow or agree with their ideas then. The prime sign of possessing consciousness and mind for a being is demonstrations of its linguistic, rational reasoning capability, and showing the signs of emotional interactions.

I cannot see how anything else in the universe can be conscious apart from humans, and some of the mammals (having lesser consciousness due to their lack of language uses).

If some folks want to believe that raining and strong wind are the sign of the universe being conscious, and these folks trying to have chats with the trees on the hills and fishes in the rivers, then how can, or why should anyone stop them from doing so?

Despite not having read the article, I don't think Jan Szaif's point is that Greek had no word for truth. — Lionino

I think his point is that aletheia in ancient Greek meaning is different from modern day meaning of truth.
I will read the article again when I am freer, and will try to update further.

500 years from now I will come back from the dead and use the word "Heidegger" to describe break-dancing at a beach. Hopefully the academics will talk about that in 600 years. — Lionino

Do you believe in eternal resurrection? That would be a Nietzschean idea, wouldn't it?

It was from an article called "Plato and Aristotle on Truth and Falsehood" by Jan Szaif, 2018 OUP.

He says due to the fact it is difficult to translate "aletheia" into the English word "truth". He also points out the word "aletheia" had been used by Heidegger to describe the character of the world.

Some people are panpsychists who believe consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism — flannel jesus

But isn't the mind the panpsychists talking about totally different type from the human mind?
Wouldn't it be more like the "Soul" rather than human consciousness with reasoning, experiencing, sensing and feeling capabilities?

Truly in English means "really" all the time, does that mean English has no word for truth? — Lionino

Truly can mean truthfully and rightly too. Truth is an English word for truth. :D
Anyway, "aletheia" is a Greek word for "truth", but it comes from the etymology "Not"+"Concealment" = a+lethia = alethia. I thought it was an interesting word. Would it imply that truth is hidden by nature?

But not everyone knows, or agrees, that consciousness emerges from the brain, and not everyone agrees that it's possible for AI to be conscious. — flannel jesus

What is your evidence for the claim?

Do you accept that not everyone knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain? — flannel jesus

No I don't accept it. I still believe that everyone (with common sense) knows / agrees that consciousness emerges from the brain.

no, it's even more unclear than before. I didn't write that they're connected, someone else wrote it, and then you agreed with it. Everythings entirely unclear now.

Why are you agreeing with some guy saying they're connected, and then complaining that connected is vague? — flannel jesus

I think that's what @pez meant for "connected" - consciousness emerges from physical brain. He didn't mean that it is connected physically with a chain or something. That's how saw it.

But when you replied with saying it again gave an impression that is what you were saying it, because you were vehemently denying something. I didn't quite understand what you were denying about, and presumed that what you were saying was that consciousness is connected to the brain, it is different from saying that consciousness emerges from the brain. This gave me further impression what you were saying was that consciousness is connected to the brian physically with some chain or link, which I thought was totally muddled.

I can see the problem very clearly. There is no complications here. You seem to try to conclude that everything unclear for some reason, when it is not. As I said, it is not the central point of the OP. We can just accept the situation and move on, and try to discuss the OP - can computers and AI think?

What I meant was that everyone knows that brain is where mind and conscious generates and emerges. If I said "connected", that would be the relationship I meant. But I never said anything about "connectedness".

You said that many folks don't believe that is the case. You then wrote, and think that the brain is connected to consciousness, which I found as vague expression. Now clear? :grin:

"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague.
— Corvus

Then... why did you agree with it and say it was your point when Pez said it? — flannel jesus

I thought that was what you were saying. I never said that brain is connected to consciousness physically. It is first time I am reading it from your post.

Saying "the brain is connected to consciousness", which probably nearly everyone agrees with, is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from saying "consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" or whatever, which is what you said everyone knows. — flannel jesus

"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague. What do you mean by the brain is connected to consciousness? What is it connected with? Is it connected with a piece of string or golden chain or rubber band? It sounds more obscure.

"consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" is some of the academic theories of Mind-Body topics in the cognitive science textbooks, and is a widely known claim.

Nobody would contradict this and the close connection between brain and consciousness. — Pez

Yes, that was my point against .

Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality". — Pez

This still sounds like a materialistic methodology.

And that is exactly the crux of Kant's argument, that materialism alone does not suffice to explain our experience. — Pez

I thought Kant doesn't make explicit comment on the mind, self or physical brain in CPR. He was only interested in propounding on how metaphysics is possible as a science explaining transcendental idealism.

That is nonsense, the word for truth goes back to Homer. — Lionino

The closest ancient Greek word for truth is "aletheia", which can be analysed etymologically a (negation) + lethe (concealment, forgetfulness, escape) = aletheia.
It doesn't quite reflect a word for truth, does it?

I put my point badly. I only wanted to say that dualists might find it somewhat problematic to say that the brain generates the mind - even if you expand it to the body creates the mind. Dualism may be less popular than it was, but it still has philosophical adherents. I have to acknowledge that fact even though I think they are mistaken. — Ludwig V

No problems mate. I do respect your honest acceptance on the situation instead of keep going on with the wrong points and spiralling and falling into the ad hominem exchange of posts like some other posters in the past. :nerd: :up:

It is a common sense that everyone knows that mind resides in the brain, when there is a popular expression in the ordinary language, when someone does or says something wrong, "He / She needs his/her head examined." :smirk: Denying that, and trying to make out as if there are bunch of folks out there who believes that mind comes from the belly buttons or some other parts of body sounded totally and utterly senseless. Even the ancient Greek sophists wouldn't be out of touch with the world in that degree. :rofl:

t may be that they need to relax and concentrate on how the system works. If you ask what part of the central heating system keeps the house warm, you'll find yourself endlessly searching. If you ask where the self is that moves the car, you may discard some parts, but you'll never narrow it down to one part. — Ludwig V

Yes, if you asked where the power generates from the motor cars, then we can say, from the engine. Cleary the moving force generates from the work of the engine. But that alone cannot drive a car. The engine will need all the other parts such as gears, steering wheels, clutches, accelerator, brakes housed in solid car body also attached with 4 good tyres for the car to drive.

Likewise consciousness generates from the physical brain, but it needs all the bodily organs properly connected to the brain via the neural networks in a healthy body, for it to function properly.

Kant's argument against materialism was, that we cannot find "unity" in the material world as matter as such is always divided or divisible. Our conscious experience on the other hand is basically "one", even in multiple personality. — Pez

Of course the physical brain itself won't be able to function without all the bodily parts and organs properly connected via the neural network. If you are going into multiple personality and conscious experience, then you are leaving the physical realm of mind i.e. the brain, and entering into the world of psychology and epistemology.

So where in the brain is it located? — Pez

That is the hard problem of mind-body issue. No one seems to know. The biologists and neurologists were suppose to find about it.

Mind is located in the brain is all they seem to be saying for the simple evidence that if you break your arm or leg, then you can still speak, see, think and feel i.e. you are still fully conscious. But if your brain was injured or hurt in some physical way, then you would lose the mental abilities above mentioned, or become unconscious immediately.

Attic Greek for Plato, Aristotle, etc? Yes. Hellenistic/Roman Greek for neo-Platonists and theologians? Not that much. — Lionino

I recall reading somewhere, that in Platonic era of ancient Greece, there was no Greek word for "truth". Is this correct?

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

I recall Seth saying briefly in his presentation that human consciousness cannot be replicated in any form of AI or machine intelligence due to the fact that consciousness is a product of lived life with real experience in the world.

But as you said rightly, it is neither the main point of the OP, nor the Youtube presentations.

It just goes to show how easy it is to mistake "the people that I know" for "everyone". It happens all the time. One issue is whether the mind is located in time and space. Another is the nature of the relationship between mind and brain. Descartes believed that the mind interacts with the body through the pituitary gland. But he did not believe that the mind was generated from it. But see my reply to Pantagruel below. — Ludwig V

You're not familiar with Dualism? With the concept of souls? — flannel jesus

It has been said in the ordinary language manner to indicate the most sensible educated modern folks. The modern dualists might believe mind and body are separate entity, but most of them would still believe the mind is generated from the physical brain. It is not the main point of the OP worthy to quibble about, because the OP is not a High-Order Logic topic. :nerd:

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

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.

Compare the human mind described above with AI just assembled somewhere in China with the electrical computer chips and parts, loaded with the knowledge expert software full of operational bugs which have to go through umpteen updates before getting close to half useful. Would you honestly believe AI will be same as human consciousness even after so many hundred years?

You seem to be mistaking consciousness with intelligence too. The two are not the same. A device can be more intelligent than the other device or agents in terms of only in some preset tasks, but it could be useless or dumb in other tasks. Being intelligent doesn't mean it is conscious, because consciousness can only arise from the living agents.

everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain.
— Corvus
I see that a lot of people have jumped on this. There's a lot of disagreement. But I agree that most people think that there is a close connection between the mind and the brain. But there is a good deal less agreement about what that connection is. It is a hard problem indeed. — Ludwig V

I was shocked to read the post by claiming that there are still many folks who believe minds are not generated from physical brains. If mind is not in brain, where would it be?

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

My previous post here should cover answering your question. If you could read it again, and find any problems, please let me know. Thanks.

You make it clear why AI will never be human. — Patterner

:nerd:

Sure, I am not into the exact statistic data how many percentage of folks in the world or TPF believe in the fact that mind generates from physical brain. But I am certain that majority of them believe that it generates from physical brain. If not, then they would change their beliefs sometime in the future. Sometime in the past or future or now somewhere in the world that everyone believed, believes or will believe that mind generates from physical brain.

Beliefs are bound to change through time and other factors. It can be every, most or a lot whatever ... :D Anyhow that goes to show that humans don't agree even on the point where minds emanate from. But I am sure the majority would believe it is in the brain.

I certainly think that, but I don't think EVERYONE knows it. Many many many many people do not agree that the mind emerges from the brain. — flannel jesus

In ancient times, they believed mind is in your heart, and your breath is your soul, suppose.

I take the point about states of consciousness at the analytic or metaphysical level except that I don't have a clear grasp about what those things mean. My view is that attributions of "internal" states, of belief/knowledge, desires and intentions is attributed by interpreting a given action in context of other actions and responses. — Ludwig V

The most intriguing problem with consciousness is that everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain, but no one seems to know how the physical brain generates non-physical minds. This is called the "hard problem" in philosophy of mind.

Biologists, and neurologist have been trying to solve the problem, but so far what they have been saying is that at certain location of the brain certain mental events seem to be causally linked. But that still doesn't explain what mind is in detail or any realistic sense. It is like saying the rain comes down from the sky. Everyone knows that. Mind is linked to the physical brain.

Hence, it would't be much point going into the physical and biological details of brains, because mind will not show up in there.

But philosophically, we can describe the aspects of mind via looking into linguistic, behavioural and rational reasoning capabilities of the conscious beings in metaphysical logical and psychological level.

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

Human consciousness has been formed via life long lived experience. It has the biological foundation of course, but also educational, societal and evolutional backgrounds.

AI intelligence is made up on the spot with the electric parts, and loaded with human designed software system and pre-stored custom database. The two cannot be possibly regarded equal. AI wouldn't have a clue or idea on some of the mental states formed from the experiences humans have gone through while having been living in the societies interacting with the other humans and nature. And each and every human beings' mental states would be unique and special to the individuals due to difference in the genetic makeup in the brains as well as unique personal experiences they have gone through.

This fact won't change no matter how far future you are talking about unless you can give births to the biological AI machines yourself, and bring them up from the newborns feeding with milk and sending them to the kindergartens and primary schools, middle and high schools and college and universities. But IF you could have done this, and brought up some AI machines biologically and humanly, then are they AI machines at all? Were you talking about a human whose name happen to be AI, or was it 100% machine AIs? In fact I used to know a Japanese woman called Ai. Ai was a 100% human female.

In the logic thread I proposed "logos" for the logic-like function of the world. I wonder what a good term would be for "the apparently mathematical in nature?" Quantos? Mathematicularity? Máthēma? Quanticularity? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Are there anything more than matter and motion in the universe?

I wish people into scholastic philosophy and theology were obliged to study Modern Greek so they realise how silly they sound, and how the usage of foreign words does not grant them mystique. — Lionino

Is Modern Greek a lot different from Ancient Greek? It would be advantageous to know Ancient Greek for reading philosophy.

And, to tie it back to the OP, math is one of those things, restricted to human Consciousness and, therefore, only "real" insofar as constructed and perceived. — ENOAH

Agreed. Human consciousness applies math to all the objects in the universe, but some folks think that math is embedded in the universe.

Then who is watching you when you are asleep. Does that mean you don't exist when you are asleep. — Abhiram

According to Hume, idea of self doesn't exist. What did Berkeley say about SELF?
But the real question here was, how do you know the existence of the being which,

have existence in this physical world but all encompassing physical reality , space, time and thought with it. Like an intertwined whole with several distinguishable parts which cannot be separated — Abhiram

??

Oh no. Being is , to be, to exist. You cannot see it you could experience it yourself. It is subjective after all. It is you lived in experience. — Abhiram

Berkeley said "to exist is to be perceived." No perception means no existence at all.