Swiss Mercenary on 16/4/2008 at 19:13
Quote:
Nowhere do I see here a proof that this machine posses self-awereness.
And what kind of proof would you require?
Epos Nix on 16/4/2008 at 20:31
Quote:
I know the eastern logic is fundementally different from the "or-or" dichotomian logic of the west and it has no problem with the answer "both".
Why is there a problem with the answer 'both'? It bends scientists brains, I know, but so did the discovery that light is a wave and particle at once.
And not to sound snide, but the rest of your post sounds like "looking for misunderstandings where there are none". I'm sure you still understand my point whereas I was merely refining mine. I do, however, think it foolish to label the human brain as anything but a physical machine, however complex it might be.
/edit:
Quote:
Nowhere do I see here a proof that this machine posses self-awereness. It may appear intelligent but it only "chooses" what to do from amongst pre-programmed branching paths, according to sets of conidtions and laws that had been put there by humans.
Think of all the thoughts and actions you take in a given day. Split those thoughts and actions into two groups: those you did consciously and those you did without thinking about it. Then tell me which group is overwhelmingly larger.
Humans follow pre-programmed paths throughout their entire lifetimes. To illustrate this, go through an entire day where every thought and action is consciously decided by
you, down to the smallest one. I think you'll note that its almost impossible unless you have a tremendously trained mind because we rely on our subconscious so much. Then note that living life in this fashion is exactly the path the Buddhist takes when he makes a vow to overcome the mundane life.
catbarf on 16/4/2008 at 21:18
Even the simplest of human tasks like picking up objects are driven almost completely subconsciously. You're not intentionally, willingly controlling the muscles in your arm to move, stop when tactile feedback is registered, then use a different set of muscles to grasp the object and pull it back to you. Even typing- I, for one, can type without looking at my keyboard. I'm not even thinking about where to move my hands, it's entirely instinctive. The human brain follows a remarkably pre-determined course.
Ben Gunn on 16/4/2008 at 22:58
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Why is there a problem with the answer 'both'? It bends scientists brains, I know, but so did the discovery that light is a wave and particle at once.
Did I say there was a problem? All I said is that traditionaly the western logic is an or-or kind of logic and probably thats why Im at fault for not understanding Buddhism. Ive much respect for eastern phiosophies and religions but to me, as a westerner, many of their statements seem paradoxical and Im not talking about that Zen practice to baffle the mind with paradoxical questions (quans?) as a mean to enlightement ("what's the sound of one hand clapping?" for example).
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I do, however, think it foolish to label the human brain as anything but a physical machine, however complex it might be.
I didn't mean to say there was something else but there is a problem here which you can't solve as easily as that. The brain is a physical machine, no doubt about it, so to say "the brain thinks" is as nonsensical as saying "my computer thinks"- tools does not think. The brain does not think,- the OWNER of the brain does. Comparing the brain to computer hardware and the mind to the software solves nothing- the software has meaning only to a human mind but that mind is what you were explaining in the first place. It's a circular logic and thats all I wanted to say.
For Buddhism that brain owner does not exist, it's just a product of the brain. That's a great answer. Really. But a. Im not sure if all materialists will embrace that answer. b. I know that some philosphers still think that the mind/matter ancient problem is still acute as it was 2000 years ago...
but I better stop here before everybody here kills me. :wot:
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
.
Humans follow pre-programmed paths throughout their entire lifetimes. To illustrate this, go through an entire day where every thought and action is consciously decided by
you, down to the smallest one. I think you'll note that its almost impossible unless you have a tremendously trained mind because we rely on our subconscious so much.
Errr... how does the subconcious disproves free will? Take my question again and just add the sunconcious as a passive agent along our cultural and biological conditioning. Do you deny that at least a small portion of our thoughts, actions, decisions are concious? Do they have an autonomous component- that's the question.
(Im not trying to haress you or to play with your mind- if you dont enjoy this discussion just say so or don't reply- I prefer that to those impatient vibes you were sending, subconciously or not)
Swiss Mercenary on 16/4/2008 at 23:16
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Think of all the thoughts and actions you take in a given day. Split those thoughts and actions into two groups: those you did consciously and those you did without thinking about it. Then tell me which group is overwhelmingly larger.
Humans follow pre-programmed paths throughout their entire lifetimes. To illustrate this, go through an entire day where every thought and action is consciously decided by
you, down to the smallest one. I think you'll note that its almost impossible unless you have a tremendously trained mind because we rely on our subconscious so much. Then note that living life in this fashion is exactly the path the Buddhist takes when he makes a vow to overcome the mundane life.
Unfortunately, the presence or absence of forethought for your actions, does not argue for, or against, determinism.
Epos Nix on 16/4/2008 at 23:22
Mind you Ben, this is the reasoning not purely of myself (though I do believe there is a good bit of credibility here) but of the Buddha who, like it or not, claimed to know pretty much everything. So, according to him, this is the way it
is and that's that. Pretty absurd when taken at face value, I know, but given some of the inherent truths in his many teachings its pretty hard to dismiss his claim outright... at least for me it is.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the presence or absence of forethought for your actions, does not argue for, or against, determinism.
Subconscious thought is more than forethought though. It contains within it instinct as well. And seeing as I was comparing the human brain to a computer and Ben disputed this, saying the computer follows human programming, I contend that the human brain follows genetic programming to a good degree. This was the only point I was trying to make there.
Tocky on 17/4/2008 at 04:03
Define self awareness. Now put it in a computer program. Now ask the computer to explain it to us because I've never seen an adequate explaination.
I understand that I am unique and that if there were an exact copy in every way it would still not be me. I would not suddenly awake in another incarnation. I once was not and one day will never be again. That very thing is what we mourn in the loss of another. Were another created exactly alike we would grow to care for them or even perhaps continue exactly our caring if we did not know the first was gone but would understand the first was gone never to be again if shown so. I understand being my singular perspective but trying to explain it is not circular logic because "I am because I am" or "I think therefore I am" bears little resemblance to logic. I'm at a loss as to how chaos theory or quantum mechanics can explain it either. Perhaps you can. I would be interested to hear it. How exactly does determinism cover that?
Epos Nix on 17/4/2008 at 05:18
It is my personal belief that we humans start life totally unaware of ourselves. We come into this world armed only with the instincts to feed and how to express discomfort, but these instincts as a newborn do not expressly depend on the idea of self, nor do they ever.
'Self' as a reinforced idea starts with such early stimuli as the interaction between one's mother and interacting with one's own hands. These stimuli by themselves don't account for much, but when taken as a whole (as the brain tends to do) paint a portrait of ideas that keep referencing how external influences interact with our existence.
For example: the child who smiles a lot and gets constant feedback on the effect of said smiling (by being smiled back at or other such positive reinforcement) is more than likely going to grow up to be a person who smiles a lot. Seems like a 'duh' but the fact that someone smiles a lot can be seen as a definitive trait of that person's being and as something that's intrinsically linked to that person's personality.
If you take enough of these traits that are built through positive and negative reinforcement you start coming up with a semi-definable 'self' to grasp on to. So in short, the 'self' is the tapestry of reinforced feedback stitched through interaction with external stimuli and our learned behavior in reaction towards them. So to say "you are unique" is to say that your memories of your existence are unique to your brain as nobody can live through the exact circumstances you did.
imho
Tocky on 17/4/2008 at 12:14
No. I say we start with self. Only self. No affectations or expressions of self except those most basic like crying. No memory even of self on a day to day basis, just the understanding of self in the moment and other comes later and that our explaination of self comes as well but not self. Every creature that slinks on the earth has self even without understanding of self or it would not defend itself. It can sacrifice itself without full knowledge of the meaning of that sacrifice for group but it has self.
Singular perspective. Call it instinct if you want or genetic coding but it is amazing and completly beyond our ability to currently produce. Take a hand ful of chemicals and produce that coding or computer coding and produce something that understands self (even without the ability to express it)and then you have something. You have life. It is both that simple and unfathomably difficult.
