Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Well, there's subconscous and there's unconscious processes. I don't think our subconscious is 'on' 24/7
You may be right. But how would we know one way or another?
Well, there's subconscous and there's unconscious processes. I don't think our subconscious is 'on' 24/7
They're entitled to their subjective opinions.kant (and others...) would disagree
But our "consciousness" includes both the conscious part and the subconscious and probably a lot more. Doesn't it? It's probably a plethora of 'threads' doing computations - only one or a couple of them (or whatever) being the ones "we see through". When we sleep, the conscious ones might be disrupted, but there's a lot more going on there than just that.
They're entitled to their subjective opinions.
well, uh, yea. it's also called philosophy.
I find the 'one neuron at a time' compelling
You cannot "get" another brain. You are your brain. When your brain dies, you die.
The problem is we have an archetype of a person's life: a person is born then lives for a certain amount of time then dies. We are very used to thinking that way, so used to that idea that we think it must be that way. Our idea about "me" is very strongly tied to that archetype. Really though that's not the way it must be.
Me too, but look how different that is from the usual and straightforward path to AI and robotics. When we design AI, we don't try to copy every feature of the human brain - only those which pay off in intelligent behavior. I suspect that the easier technological path to designing a human-like Data, is not to copy the brain. It's to develop a general purpose AI, then give it human-like goals and "personality" traits.
Don't say that. AFAIK, Narz is allergic to that term.
Philosophy is often at odds with what people call "common sense." People who claim to be prophets of the latter tend not to like or understand philosophy. I think it's simply down to their inability to think beyond what personal experience has taught them.
And a trolly afternoon to you too.Don't say that. AFAIK, Narz is allergic to that term.
Philosophy is often at odds with what people call "common sense." People who claim to be prophets of the latter tend not to like or understand philosophy. I think it's simply down to their inability to think beyond what personal experience has taught them.
The amount of time I could spend reading random rants & raves by eccentric Europeans who lived in scientific dark ages I could actually learn something real about the brain/human behavior, based on, you know, actual studies.Philosophy is certainly hard work, that's true. And the brain is very energy hungry, so maybe what you're witnessing when people say they don't like or understand philosophy is someone who isn't rich enough to afford the calories for it.
The idea that within our lifetimes we'll be able to recreate the human brain is absurdly optimistic. If we are even able to simulate the brain of a fruit fly or earthworm I'll be shocked.You're right. The reason is that evolution took billions of years to build our brains. When we look at them, it seems so chaotic.. So many neural connections, not many obvious patterns, and it all seems to somehow work? Order out of chaos is not easy to reproduce and make work. We can do it to an extent using things like neural nets, other AI methods, and evolutionary programming, but compared to the brain it's all very very rudimentary. You can't compare it.
It's far easier for us to design systems using ordered systems instead - data structures and algorithms - and to build up the system from the ground up not out of chaos but out of order. That's why most people stick to that approach, while for the most part only those experimenting with new techniques are using those other.. "stranger" approaches.
And a trolly afternoon to you too.
It's a bit ironic that you claim I cannot think for yourself yet are offended that I don't buy into your favorite philosopher. Chrip. Aelf want a cracker?
Assuming that because someone doesn't agree with you means they don't understand your argument is arrogant & dumb.
No rebuttal needed to a random barb with no substance.I'm not trolling at all. I think it's patently true, and though you may be offended, I note that you offer no real rebuttal.
If you carefully reread you can see I never said you were offended. Though clearly your feathers are ruffled otherwise why harp on not being offended?And disagreeing doesn't mean I'm offended either. That you seem to fail to see this solidifies what I said in my previous post
Do you babble meritless insults at people in real life too or just online?you simply aren't used to thinking about things abstractly and outside of your personal/immediate experience.
Maybe it's easier to think solely abstractly when you have no life whatsoever. Feel free to share.This isn't just you. A whole lot of people are like that too.
No rebuttal needed to a random barb with no substance.
If you carefully reread you can see I never said you were offended. Though clearly your feathers are ruffled otherwise why harp on not being offended?
It's a bit ironic that you claim I cannot think for yourself yet are offended that I don't buy into your favorite philosopher. Chrip. Aelf want a cracker?
Do you babble meritless insults at people in real life too or just online?
Maybe it's easier to think solely abstractly when you have no life whatsoever. Feel free to share.
Personally I think I judge reality based on a blend of personal experience, experiences of acquiantances & my reading. The fact that I don't share your library in particular speaks nothing as to my ablility to think abstractly. The fact that you'd just snottily accuse me of ignorance in a condesending manner is ironic & strange for a self proclaimed philosophy expert. Isn't one of the cardinal rules of philosophy to avoid ignorance? What you know about me is extremely limited so making sweeping generalizations about my character is pretty stupid, no?