Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[shunyadragon]

What you cited was irrelevant to the issue, which is what I accused you of. Why is it irrelevant? Because making a piece of DNA or whatever function as a logic gate is not sufficient for making a mind. If you want to make an actual brain, whose causal powers are sufficient - then have sex. You could conceivably build one in a lab, but given the complexity of an actual brain - good luck with that. Simulating one is insufficient.

A bit more advanced but representing some of the advancements in the A1 intelligence simulation of a brain. These are actually primitive beginnings, but very real. Some estimated that in 50 years we will have AI, but others are more pessimistic. Not only A1, but a rational computer.

Source: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-brain-inspired-closer-simulating-brain-neural.html

A new brain-inspired computer takes us one step closer to simulating brain neural networks in real-time

© Copyright Original Source

[carpedm9587]

I would say that the "I" is the whole of you. It isn't that the arm, when you say "my arm" is other than you, it is a part of you, part of the whole of you, which we signify as "I".

And yet - is that the actual internal experience? I find, for me, it's a bit different than that.

[Zara]

You are not up to date on AI in terms simulating the neurological nature of the brain. To simulate the neurological network of the brain does not involve DNA nor actual neurological organic network of the brain. It is a simulated neurological network using the same chemical electrical principles.

Understand this first then we may discuss this.

Did you read the argument? Because if you haven't this discussion is pretty much pointless. You equate so-called 'advancement' with overcoming the force of the argument - it doesn't.

This is from the first article "computing systems that are inspired by, but not necessarily identical to"

Searle's argument is that a computer is not sufficient.

The main questions is do these experiments replicate the causal power of the brain. Since you do not know what that causal power is, that answer is going to be no - by your standard.

Do you understand the problem? You keep posting articles that do not address the central issue.

A simulation of the brain is even further from solving the problem, because whatever it takes the neuron to be it will be simplified to logic gates and their operation - i.e., failing on the causal power argument and on the mind is not a program argument.

Neither of these 'advances' get you where you want to go. The problem is that you have a misconception that humans are just computers. It's because we made computers to act like us in part, however, ignorant people think that that part is the whole - so they assume we are equivalent or can be equivalent.

[JimL]

And yet - is that the actual internal experience? I find, for me, it's a bit different than that.

That goes back to my reply to Chrawnus, i.e. that what it feels like is not evidence of what it is. I think that perhaps part of the reason one may feel that way, i.e that they are something other than their material body, is because it's what their brain was taught to feel.

[shunyadragon]

Did you read the argument? Because if you haven't this discussion is pretty much pointless. You equate so-called 'advancement' with overcoming the force of the argument - it doesn't.

It is an advancement and at this point NOT meant to overcome the force of any argument. Beyond what you are posting, you are proposing an argument from ignorance.

You began your responses with the foolish notion that science is proposing an organic brain with DNA,

This is from the first article "computing systems that are inspired by, but not necessarily identical to"

Never claimed such. If science achieves AI it will not be identical to the brian, but it will have similar capabilities.

Searle's argument is that a computer is not sufficient.

so what? This is Searles view is also taking a skeptical 'argument from ignorance' and not the consensus of science. It is well accepted beyond any reasonable doubt that current computers are not sufficient. The current direction and advances in science is not with the current computer technology.

The main questions is do these experiments replicate the causal power of the brain. Since you do not know what that causal power is, that answer is going to be no - by your standard.

More arguing from ignorance. The present objective verifiable evidence indicates the causal power of the brain is natural. Never claimed at this point these research projects replicate the causal(?) power of the brain.

Do you understand the problem? You keep posting articles that do not address the central issue.

You used the shotgun approach to promote the view of what science cannot achieve, classic 'arguing from ignorance,' and I simply posed examples of the progress of science toward these goals.

A simulation of the brain is even further from solving the problem, because whatever it takes the neuron to be it will be simplified to logic gates and their operation - i.e., failing on the causal power argument and on the mind is not a program argument.

Science at present is capable of creating artificial neurons and a 'neuron network.'

Please define what you are calling 'causal power,'

Never said the the simulation of the brain was a program argument in current computer technology. What I cited addresses more the simulation and development of neural networks.

Neither of these 'advances' get you where you want to go. The problem is that you have a misconception that humans are just computers. It's because we made computers to act like us in part, however, ignorant people think that that part is the whole - so they assume we are equivalent or can be equivalent.

Never said these 'advances' GET you where anyone wants to go. That is probably 50 years down the road. Yes, humans are not computers, so what? That is not a question that is addressed here.

[Zara]

That goes back to my reply to Chrawnus, i.e. that what it feels like is not evidence of what it is. I think that perhaps part of the reason one may feel that way, i.e that they are something other than their material body, is because it's what their brain was taught to feel.

You're agnostic? Kant was troubled by the argument for a soul - since he realised that there could not be an emperical representation that fits the object we think ourselves to be in inner experience. He said some things:

However, for experience we must think of ourselves as such an object. If it is an illusion, it is, according to him, a necessary one. However, that necessity also does not disprove the possibility of its existence. An empirical representation would be sufficient to show that we have one, the lack of an empirical representation, isn't sufficient to show that we do not have one. Agnosticism is the safest bet.

[Zara]

It is an advancement and at this point NOT meant to overcome the force of any argument. Beyond what you are posting, you are proposing an argument from ignorance.

You began your responses with the foolish notion that science is proposing an organic brain with DNA,

huh?

Never claimed such. If science achieves AI it will not be identical to the brian, but it will have similar capabilities.

Similar to what? Is it sentient - that is what the issue is. A calculator already has similar capabilities, so what.

so what? This is Searles view is also taking a skeptical 'argument from ignorance' and not the consensus of science. It is well accepted beyond any reasonable doubt that current computers are not sufficient. The current direction and advances in science is not with the current computer technology.

Amazing, why not write an article, to a journal, in which you claim this - no seriously, if you're right, that would be really cool. But you aren't right, are you. This is no longer about arguments but your dislike for my approach and your extreme arrogance. That's cool, no worries.

More arguing from ignorance. The present objective verifiable evidence indicates the causal power of the brain is natural. Never claimed at this point these research projects replicate the causal(?) power of the brain.

How dumb are you? Searle is a biological naturalist - he doesn't believe in supernatural causes anymore than you do. So, I would stop believing in God Shunya, since you continue to make it impossible to hold both your views without looking like a fool.

You used the shotgun approach to promote the view of what science cannot achieve, classic 'arguing from ignorance,' and I simply posed examples of the progress of science toward these goals.

I did not say people cannot achieve this, I said that if they are to achieve what you think they can achieve then they will have to explain why x is equivalent to y. Rather than x looks like it is equivalent to y.

Science at present is capable of creating artificial neurons and a 'neuron network.'

Are they, really? And what is a neuron, down to its most basic fundamental particle, and is the artificial neuron identical?

Please define what you are calling 'causal power,'

Down to its most fundamental particle - just to be sure we aren't missing something.

Never said the the simulation of the brain was a program argument in current computer technology. What I cited addresses more the simulation and development of neural networks.

huh?

Never said these 'advances' GET you where anyone wants to go. That is probably 50 years down the road. Yes, humans are not computers, so what? That is not a question that is addressed here.

Sentience, does it get you sentience? If not, then who cares - people make robot that does stuff, cool.

[shunyadragon]

huh?



Similar to what? Is it sentient - that is what the issue is. A calculator already has similar capabilities, so what.



Amazing, why not write an article, to a journal, in which you claim this - no seriously, if you're right, that would be really cool. But you aren't right, are you. This is no longer about arguments but your dislike for my approach and your extreme arrogance. That's cool, no worries.



How dumb are you? Searle is a biological naturalist - he doesn't believe in supernatural causes anymore than you do. So, I would stop believing in God Shunya, since you continue to make it impossible to hold both your views without looking like a fool.



I did not say people cannot achieve this, I said that if they are to achieve what you think they can achieve then they will have to explain why x is equivalent to y. Rather than x looks like it is equivalent to y.



Are they, really? And what is a neuron, down to its most basic fundamental particle, and is the artificial neuron identical?



Down to its most fundamental particle - just to be sure we aren't missing something.



huh?



Sentience, does it get you sentience? If not, then who cares - people make robot that does stuff, cool.

Failure to respond coherently

[Zara]

Failure to respond coherently

Given the low-quality of your overall comments, why do you think I react to you like you're an imbecile - I don't believe you're capable of making that judgement, so, no worries.

Also, since there is no objective verifiable evidence of God, why do you believe in God? That, seems incoherent.

[MaxVel]

Only in your apparent lack of understanding of the English language. Nothing I have cited refutes my position.

You spoke too soon!

It's not even really funny, but rather painful, to watch you try to 'dialogue' with someone when you can't get past your own preconceptions to grasp what they're actually saying. Disagreeing is fine, but you mostly disagree with something others aren't even saying.

Or when they actually agree with you, but take it farther than you, and you bang on about them 'not admitting' whatever your point was... ... they're three steps farther down the road already. Sad.

[Adrift]

You spoke too soon!

It's not even really funny, but rather painful, to watch you try to 'dialogue' with someone when you can't get past your own preconceptions to grasp what they're actually saying. Disagreeing is fine, but you mostly disagree with something others aren't even saying.

Or when they actually agree with you, but take it farther than you, and you bang on about them 'not admitting' whatever your point was... ... they're three steps farther down the road already. Sad.

Failure to respond coherently!!

[shunyadragon]

You spoke too soon!

It's not even really funny, but rather painful, to watch you try to 'dialogue' with someone when you can't get past your own preconceptions to grasp what they're actually saying. Disagreeing is fine, but you mostly disagree with something others aren't even saying.

Or when they actually agree with you, but take it farther than you, and you bang on about them 'not admitting' whatever your point was... ... they're three steps farther down the road already. Sad.

Flatulence! Nothing responds to anything meaningful!

[Tassman]

How on earth can an experience be an assumption? You can make assumptions based on your experience, but the experience itself is still real, in the sense that you really are having the experience.

The subjective feelings themselves are the evidence. Or rather, the fact that we even experience ourselves to be subjects with thoughts and feelings is itself indicative that we are more than just fleshy automata with a fat clump of neurons as the control center.

Assuming the data used to draw the conclusion that they are self-aware and see themselves as individuals have been interpreted correctly, I guess they do have some sort of mind/soul?

[Zara]

At least you are honest enough to acknowledge that if mind/souls exist for humans they must also exist among other sentient creatures such as chimpanzees. But chimpanzees no more have a “mind/soul than we do (although heaven full of chimps conjures up an interesting picture) because, of the incoherency of a material entity such as a physical brain connecting with an immaterial entity such as an alleged soul. Where’s the nexus?

Where is 'the brain'? All we have is a representation of it, as sensibility ordered by conceptual representations - here within a science with certain definitions and agreements. Your belief that we have direct access to 'matter' is not substantiated. Matter itself is merely an agreement between us for a particular kind of empirical representation. The nexus is the synthesis of empirical appearances with concepts - which is experience. There is no 'soul' in this story, since it is just the 'I think', as noted at the top of this page. However, that 'physical brain' is also not in this story as anything other than an appearance of something unknown and unknowable to us directly and our form of being affected by appearances of that unknown.

Here is Kant:

"For all the difficulties that concern the combination of thinking nature with matter arise without exception solely from the surreptitious dualistic notion that matter as such is not an appearance, i.e., a mere representation of the mind, which corresponds to an unknown object, but is rather an object in itself, as it exists outside us and independently of all sensibility. Thus no dogmatic objection can be made against the physical influence that is commonly assumed. For if the opponent assumes that matter and its motion are mere appearances and thus themselves only representations, then he can place the difficulty only in the fact that the unknown object of our sensibility could not be the cause of representations in us; a claim, however, for which he has not the least justification, because no one can decide about an unknown object what it can or can-not do. But according to our proof above, he must necessarily admit this transcendental idealism, unless he wants to hypostatize what are obviously representations and displace them outside himself, as true things."A392

[Zara]

Funny you should say that. I had a parallel discussion with my son the other day. He's 20 and struggling with a number of things, anxiety being one of them. He has learning challenges that he's struggled with all his life, and it has left him "feeling stupid." I regret that I probably contributed to that, something I shared with him yesterday. When he was younger, we homeschooled him for a while. I would get frustrated when I could not seem to find the right combination of words, activities, or exercises to convey a point (telling time was a particularly difficult one for him. He couldn't read a clock until he was in sixth or seventh grade). My frustration would be largely about me - because I'm a teacher by profession and not being able to find a way to help someone "turn on the light" was hard for me. Professionally, it has always been something I excelled at - but not with Michael. Unfortunately, that frustration would sometimes (often?) show, and he ultimately internalized it as frustration with him.

I find myself wondering how much I made his struggles my failures.

without any connotations. You are very good at helping people.

--

Btw, I am sorry if my language has become too offensive - this extends to other too. I want to knock people out of their ivory tower of assumptions and certainties, not actually offend a group of people about which my comments are not even in the slightest. Brash is maybe not the best approach - but it's so incredibly frustrating to have 'not objectively verifiable evidence' leveled at everything, or 'science says' by authority arguments. Especially when half of these positions are by no means settled.

Anyway, I really should leave after the most recent outburst.

All the best with your situation - thank you for the brief discussion (and 15 years ago).