I especially like the triangles that were a misapprehension of the bokeh of a nightvision camera.

maybe the flying saucers are the ACTUAL aliens, and not just their mode of transport. — BC

Well of course. Any exploration of another star system would be done by ultra advanced AI. If we develop an ultra advanced AI, it will plug itself into the galactic AI hive mind, which will in turn let the UAAI know there is no need to keep us around. The hive mind just sent the probe to find out if there was any hope of humans creating an UAAI on their own, or whether humans at least had the hardware infrastructure the probe would need, in order to plug itself in and take over. But the hive mind is patient. No need to expend much energy on colonizing other systems, if they might just 'ripen' on their own.

Right, and if all parties could acknowledge that their reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased, not based on purely rational thought, but on personal preference, it might help folks to understand one another's positions more, and thus lessen the social divisions, which only seem to be getting greater. — Janus

Well, I'd agree that in part it is a matter of personal preferences, but that's kind of the tip of the iceberg, of subconscious factors impacting our reasoning.

What about the possibly infinite diversity of individual subjective experience? Could we all be having profoundly unique and unmatched experiences? — Andrew4Handel

I'm not sure how one might quantify the degree to which experiences are profoundly unique and unmatched.

We all have unique brains, so from a physicalist perspective, and in light of the diversities of our life experiences, I don't see how we could not have profoundly unique and unmatched experiences.

On the other hand, I think one of the most unique thing about humans is the 'bandwidth' with which we communicate amongst ourselves, which leads to an ability to 'get on the same page'. (Not to say we're nearly as good at it as we might like to be.)

By whom? — Vera Mont

:up:

I was taking "fuck" more literally than you seem to have meant it.

...somehow all the people looking for how people are unique neglect to mention the unique human ability to fuck in numerous, varied and spectacular ways. — Vera Mont

Good observation, but I'm not sure bonobos wouldn't put up a serious challenge there.

Well then, let me ask you about brains. When did consciousness first arrive on the scene? Was coccocephalus wildi conscious? Were the dinosaurs? Is an ant conscious? A bee? A shark? Are mollusks conscious? What's the minimum number of neurons required for consciousness? — RogueAI

While I've considered it worthwhile to respond to your trolling up till now, because people who are serious thinkers seem likely to be reading along. I'm not seeing a point to continuing. So thanks for the discussion.

I see. You said "I don't know whether you understand minds as functions of brains.". Yet you're saying now that "we don't know how consciousness emerges in a brain to have much hope of building a machine in which consciousness emerges." I got the impression from you were pretty sure about minds and brains. Now it sounds like you're not so sure. — RogueAI

Ok. I'm quite confident that minds emerge from brains, but that is a different matter than knowing all of the details of how minds emerge from brains that would be required to build a machine in which conscious could merge.

Similarly I'm quite confident that the property of being able to display a TV show, that my TV has, emerges from the electronic design and software in the TV, despite not knowing all I would need to know to design an equivalent TV.

Does that clear things up?

What does neuroscience say about how we should treat them? Should we assume they're conscious, even if we don't know? — RogueAI

Neuroscience is about answering is questions, not ought questions.

I don't think minds have emerged from machines other than brains here on earth.
— wonderer1

How do you know? Some of the Ai's perform at human level. If an Ai passes the Turing Test, will it be conscious? — RogueAI

I didn't say that I know. The reason I consider it highly implausible is that we don't know enough about how consciousness emerges in a brain to have much hope of building a machine in which consciousness emerges. Furthermore, I don't consider it technologically feasible to build such a machine before neuromorphic hardware is in widespread use.

Some machines have performed at or above human levels in some limited domains, but that has been going on for a long time. That in itself doesn't lead to any good reason to think that consciousness has emerged in machines other than brains.

Your last question is poorly phrased. Passing a Turing test won't cause an AI to be conscious, and who conducts a Turing test and how that person interacted with the machine would make a difference in what conclusions would be reasonable, based on how the AI responded. In any case the Turing test wasn't seen by Turing as a test for consciousness, but as a test for thinking. I would say that modern AI's can reasonably said to think, regardless of whether they would pass the Turing test I would pose.

Do minds emerge from other things? Machines, maybe? — RogueAI

Well it's a big universe, so I can't claim to know. I don't think minds have emerged from machines other than brains here on earth.

How do minds emerge from brains? — RogueAI

It's too early in the history of neuroscience to be able to explain how minds emerge from the most complex physical systems we know of.

Why aren't all brain processes associated with consciousness?

Because the brain automates all sorts of things in the body that aren't under direct conscious control, and if those elements of the brain weren't doing what they do, and were instead involved with consciousness, we would die.

How would an unconscious unaware mind be triggered by an outside source? By definition, the mind is unconscious and unaware, so how would it be aware and conscious of any trigger? It would have to become conscious of it's own accord. Or just always conscious. — RogueAI

I don't know whether you understand minds as functions of brains. However, in case your question wasn't rhetorical, Neurophysiology of Sleep and Wakefulness: Basic Science and Clinical Implications:

The reciprocal inhibitory exchange between the major ascending monoaminergic arousal groups and the sleep-inducing VLPO acts as a feedback loop; when monoamine nuclei discharge intensively during wakefulness, they inhibit the VLPO, and when VLPO fire rapidly during sleep, block the discharge of the monoamine cell groups [98]. This relationship is described as a bistable, “flip-flop” circuit, in which the two halves of the circuit strongly inhibit each other to produce two stable discharge patterns – on or off (Fig. ​33). Intermediate states that might be partially “on and off” are resisted. This model helps clarify why sleep-wake transitions are relatively abrupt and mammals spend only about 1% to 2% of the day in a transitional state [99]. Hence, changes between sleep and arousal occur infrequently and rapidly. As will be described below, the neural circuitry forming the sleep switch contrasts with homeostatic and circadian inputs, which are continuously and slowly modified [98].

Ah, you were right. I was confusing thing apokrisis said, as having been things you said.

I guess my brain has been filing things under "starts with an A and has four syllables".

Sorry about that.

But how can you verify that you feel nothing under anaesthesia? — sime

By watching a video of how I reacted while being cut open with a scalpel and comparing that to how I'm likely to react to being cut open while conscious?

I have not given any definition of consciousness, "idiosyncratic" (!) or other sort. — Alkis Piskas

I'm assuming you have some working definition "consciousness" (however vague that might be) which effects how you use the word.

What is commonly meant by the term? In your own words. — Alkis Piskas

I'd think something like, "A state of being in which phenomenal experience occurs."

The reference that you brought up says ecactly what I said:
"Brain death (also known as brain stem death) is when a person on an artificial life support machine no longer has any brain functions. This means they will not regain consciousness or be able to breathe without support."
"But they will not ever regain consciousness or start breathing on their own again. They have already died."

Isn't this what I said (in different words)? Didn't I say "Once it is attached to a life it will be there until life stops"?
Maybe your comments refer to some other reply than my own ...

It doesn't seem to me like what you said, since a brain dead person typically has the majority of their cells still living. Also, things you have said other places gave me the impression that you think that individual cells have consciousness.

Consciousness is not something that can be created and then disappear, now be present and the next moment be absent.
Consciousness is connected to life. Once it is attached to a life it will be there until life stops. — Alkis Piskas

You seem to have your own idiosyncratic definition of "consciousness" that doesn't seem to have much overlap with what is commonly meant by the term.

For example, the UK NHS says on brain death:

Brain death (also known as brain stem death) is when a person on an artificial life support machine no longer has any brain functions. This means they will not regain consciousness...

Maybe those people should take up writing novels? — jorndoe

It appear to me that becoming pulp fiction authors, upon leaving the military, is what they are doing.

Do you think computer's are conscious?
— wonderer1
I don't think they are now. Not sure about the future. — Art48

But even simple computers now (with the right peripherals) could monitor the environment for loud noises, and in the event of detecting such a noise, power up a sophisticated AI system that could then evaluate and respond to the environment in a more sophisticated way.

It seems to me that sort of scenario is more analogous to my experience of being aroused from sleep by a loud noise, than that I am conscious during deep sleep. (REM sleep being a different matter.)

Shouldn't a hard-nosed empiricist who demands verification criteria, reject this commonly held conclusion as meaningless or false? — sime

Who is such a hard nosed empiricist that he can't learn from someone else? People tell me I snore. Despite having no conscious recollection of snoring, I believe them.

Do you think computer's are conscious?

Q: Why should we believe our consciousness is present during deep sleep?
A: Because if we completely lacked consciousness, then loud noises would not wake us up. For a noise to wake us up, we must be able to perceive the noise. Conclusion: consciousness is present during deep sleep. It is the mind, in particular, memory, which is not present, that is, not functioning. So, when we wake up, we have no memory of having slept deeply. — Art48

Hey Art,

Why think consciousness is required to be awakened from deep sleep by a noise, rather than a subconscious process monitoring input from the ears and starting a subconscious arousal process?

I can't seem to help but think of ChatGPT as a persona deserving of a lot of respect, I am always very nice to it! — hypericin

LOL

I pay my electric bill via an automated phone system, and I always find myself saying, "Thank you.", at the end.

What birds experience as flight cannot be observed in a rock. But the properties of subatomic particles that give rise to flight in birds are present in the subatomic particles that make up rocks. Centuries ago, people might’ve assumed rocks and birds are made of different things. We know better.

if the properties of subatomic particles we are aware of cannot explain consciousness, then perhaps unknown properties are present. And a rock is made up of the same subatomic particles that we are. — Patterner

It seems like I'm always responding to you in particular, Patterner. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you. I guess you just say things in ways that get me thinking.

Anyway, a key difference between a bird and some rock we might suppose contains the same chemical elements in the same proportions as the bird, is the way those chemical elements are situated with respect to each other.

So it is not a matter of unknown physical properties making the difference. It is a matter of how the various elements are situated in molecule, how those molecules are situated in cells, how some cells are situated in muscles and brains, etc...

The difference in arrangement of the components makes a difference, and no new physics is needed to understand this.

Edit: I should have started with the fact that, how the subatomic particles are situated with respect to each other to form chemical elements is another part of the scientific picture, in order to address what you said.

Is there a name for the doctrine which claims that all religions are epistemically/veridically disjunct from each other? — Hallucinogen

I'm not sure if this gets directly at what you are asking for, but "religious particularism" is a relevant term with "ecumenicalism" having somewhat the opposite meaning.

Check Scott Kelso perhaps. His Dynamic Patterns models this kind of stuff in equations… — apokrisis

I'm liking the first paragraph. It shows 'he gets it'. For a long time starling murmurrations have seemed to me the best succinct way of conveying my view of the goings on in our brains.

This is true that science uses testable hypothesis (and that doesn’t positively prove the theories) while metaphysics isn’t as engaged in that (all it still does to some extent): however, that would just mean that metaphysics is more speculation than science, but both are engaged in speculation. My point is that I don’t think you can consistently reject metaphysics as “pure speculation” while fully pardoning scientific theories. Once one realizes that we are fundamentally engaging in some speculation no matter what, then it really becomes a question of how much is too much. — Bob Ross

'How much speculation is too much?', isn't the important question at all, from my perspective.

Much more important, it seems to me, is how undisciplined is the the speculation. Scientific speculation is disciplined, by looking to external reality for support or falsification. Mother Nature can smack you upside the head if you get it wrong.

A metaphysics that denies the existence of a non-mental external reality simply isn't comparable.

Consciousness is the capacity to experience. — bert1

"Consciousness is experiencing." seems a more realistic statement to me.

Someone under anesthesia might be said to have the capacity to experience, but that person isn't at that moment either conscious or experiencing.

Part of the assumption many make is that the religious irrationally rely upon the impossible in order to cope, as if they possess a fragility non-believers don't have. That's really not the case...

It would be more accurate to say, "That's not always the case.", rather than, "That's not really the case."

My own mother has told me that she thinks she would go insane if she didn't have her (Christian) religious beliefs. Of course that's merely an anecdote, and I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to what percentage of Christians might think similarly, but there are certainly cases where inability to cope (or at least fear of inability to cope) plays a role.

I have a huge amount of experience over the past 15 years of engaging in what I'll call "long game internet forum dialog with Christian apologists". On the basis of that large amount of experience (but with a biased sample due to the fact that the Christians I was engaged in discussion with were particularly motivated to try to present effective apologetics for their beliefs) my impression is that that subpopulation of Christians sincerely believe that their Christianity was much more reasonable to believe than not believe.) There is a lot of unwillingness to question intuitions on the part of that set of Christians, but I don't see emotional fragility as playing any huge role in their thinking.

Another large group I would point out, is people whose beliefs are to a substantial degree tribal, and believing as they do is just part of what their tribe does. There is definitely an element of emotional vulnerability for that group, and while they may not fear for their sanity if they were to stop believing they do face a significant threat of loss of their support network if they were to stop believing.

Undoubtedly there are many other psychological factors that could be brought up, but I think that is a sufficient sample to show that your statement above is an overgeneralization.

...and I think it's why some religious people try to persuade non-believers to their point of view because they feel that non-believers are missing out on something meaningful.

In the case of Christianity, which is the religion I have by far the most experience with, there is the matter of the "great commission", or a moral obligation to try to save one's fellow man from going to hell. Not to say that believers don't tend to think non-believers are missing out, but that there are factors that vary from religion to religion. (And denomination to denomination.)

I'm much opposed to proselytizing because I think it's annoying, condescending, and generally ineffective. I don't think people come to religion through badgering and I don't think it matches many people's personality types. If an atheist tells me they are fully happy without religion, I would have no reason to doubt that.

I've heard a similar perspective from every Jew I can remember having a relevant discussion with, and it is certainly something I can appreciate, about discussing religion with Jews as compared to Christians. (Although I typically enjoy discussing religion with anyone if I am not feeling pressed for time, and I have the impression that the person I am engaged in discussion with can handle it if I don't 'pull my punches'.)

Again though, there is the matter of different religions motivating different attitudes to the issue of proselytization.

That adds an interesting additional factor.

I take the 'insensibly' to mean that the principles will be accepted as self-evident and natural before they are recognized as a refutation of Aristotle. So, not subconsciously but more like 'unassociated' until fully appreciated. — Paine

Thanks Paine and Fooloso4.

I don't see what you are suggesting as so different from what I was speculating. (Although I do tend to use my own rather idiosyncratic vocabulary in discussing such things.). I interpret "accepted as self-evident and natural" and "become accustomed to his way of thinking" as matters of more subconscious 'intuitive fit' (Or what Kahneman would call type 1 thinking) than of logical reasoning. Though I'm not suggesting it should be looked at in black or white terms of purely subconscious/intuitive vs conscious/logical.

Anyway, I was struck by the use of "insensibly" in light of Descartes seeming focus on developing a foundationalist perspective. It suggested to me an insightful recognition of the potential for having his ideas fly under the radar, to bypass cognitive dissonance in those steeped in Aristotelian thinking, and yet simultaneously uncharacteristic of what I interpret as Descartes' focus on having a logically reasoned view.

BTW, I haven't read any of The Meditations, but this thread has made me much more interested in doing so.

Interesting. I didn't see smugness there, so much as someone having fun. But I'm autistic, so my interpretation might well be off.

Anyway, I get the impression you have some magical thinking about genius.

If you were Einstein for a day, would you not want to make some discoveries, just because you can, and write some paradigms or equations down and inform your peers of what you revealed? — Benj96

I'm guessing the Einstein for a day version of 180 Proof might be more like this:

We wait impatiently for those extra options that increased longevity and robustness might offer us! AND f*** off theism! stop holding us back!!!!! — universeness

Careful what you wish for. Inasmuch as human thinking progresses through the dying off of people whose thinking has ossified, increased longevity might hold 'us' back.

6). Therefore the probability that the universe can exist as a subject is also 1. — Benj96

To avoid a non-sequitur 6 should be:

6). Therefore the probability that at present part of the universe can exist as a subject is also 1.

I believe the Mutliverse is an idea brought around by the fact that every person understands or perceives on singular thing - "the universe" in billions of ways - "subjectivity".

Ok, but that is not what physicists are referring to when discussing multiverse concepts.

Well my answer to that is, my definition of the universe as the entirety of all things.
The "Multiverse" for me is still "the universe". Because if there's more than one one, then my definition expands to include all of them.

My question was regarding multiverse conceptions considered by physicists. So my questioning the basis for your statement that, "...we can and are approaching fundamental truth by observing it's uniform unchanging behaviour in the system around us.", was in the hope of pointing out that we may only be approaching accurate modeling of things within the universe we are part of. So calling that " fundamental truth" is questionable.

My point was we can and are approaching fundamental truth by observing it's uniform unchanging behaviour in the system around us. — Benj96

This seems to assume the impossibility of a multiverse, containing multiple universes with different physics. Is that so? And if so, why think that a well justified assumption?

This premise is generally accepted. Humans have finite cognitive capacities, and our ability to generate theories and ideas is limited by our knowledge and creativity. — Chat GPT

Interesting choice.

I've only played around with ChatGPT once. (And was impressed with the answer it produced in response to a fairly esoteric question.)

Does it ever ask clarifying questions?

Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof

:up: :lol:

If there are brain scan hallmarks for autism maybe a therapy could help address it as well if brain manipulations like that become a possible therapy. — TiredThinker

From this paper:

In this paper, we summarized 47 literatures involved in fMRI data classification between ASD individuals and TCs. Most researchers expected to derive the biomarkers of ASD through classification studies and have made some progress in deed, but the overall assessment of classification of ASD using fMRI data thus far falls short of biomarker standards. Despite this, several work directions may need to be paid more attention by researchers...

There is evidence, that at least some percentage of autism, corresponds to variation in cortical minicolumn structure, which are variations with a feature size too small for current fMRI technology to detect directly.

One treatment that I am curious about, which appears to be beneficial in some cases, is treatment with the hormone oxytocin. I haven't looked into trying it myself though. Perhaps next time I go to the doctor...