Author Topic: Sentient Life  (Read 17275 times)

Bill DeWitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
    • View Profile
Sentient Life
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2007, 11:20:03 pm »
quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
photos.  Secondly, the mind works on the principle that knowing a few things can create infinite things together with abstraction and conceptualization.  In other words, we use redundant memory and supplement it with incredible construction skills.  It's like asking your computer to actually open up photoshop and paint a new picture every time you call one up from memory -- and it will be similar based on some simple instructions and learned shortcuts and abilities, but it'll always be different, and progressively "fuzzier," and never will any individual painting be stored as such.

The part which we are normally able to access would be well enough described by what you say, but with the application of training, hypnotism or judiciously placed electrodes, we find that exact and detailed information becomes available.

For instance, I lost an essay I wrote when I was 15, 30 years later I asked a hypnotist to help me recreate it. When we were done it was, to my mind, not quite right. It seemed less developed and articulate than I remembered. But I brought it home with me anyway. Whereupon my wife said that she had read it before. Turns out I had it tucked in some old book.

It was word for word correct. Even spelling errors.

Every detail is remembered. Sight, sound, taste - everything. I'm willing to stipulate without evidence that magnitudes of compression/re-rendering may be applied, but even with that, the brain would still fill up in a year.

Every time a synapse fires, it gets recorded somewhere. When we find that place, which is not the brain, we will find Mind.


Xodarap

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Sentient Life
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2007, 12:11:15 am »
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt

quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
photos.  Secondly, the mind works on the principle that knowing a few things can create infinite things together with abstraction and conceptualization.  In other words, we use redundant memory and supplement it with incredible construction skills.  It's like asking your computer to actually open up photoshop and paint a new picture every time you call one up from memory -- and it will be similar based on some simple instructions and learned shortcuts and abilities, but it'll always be different, and progressively "fuzzier," and never will any individual painting be stored as such.

The part which we are normally able to access would be well enough described by what you say, but with the application of training, hypnotism or judiciously placed electrodes, we find that exact and detailed information becomes available.

For instance, I lost an essay I wrote when I was 15, 30 years later I asked a hypnotist to help me recreate it. When we were done it was, to my mind, not quite right. It seemed less developed and articulate than I remembered. But I brought it home with me anyway. Whereupon my wife said that she had read it before. Turns out I had it tucked in some old book.

It was word for word correct. Even spelling errors.

Every detail is remembered. Sight, sound, taste - everything. I'm willing to stipulate without evidence that magnitudes of compression/re-rendering may be applied, but even with that, the brain would still fill up in a year.

Every time a synapse fires, it gets recorded somewhere. When we find that place, which is not the brain, we will find Mind.



You won't "find that place" -- ever.  You can't find a place that isn't a place; in fact you can't "find" anything that is immaterial.  It doesn't "exist on/in another plane" either -- that would just be something physical that was either phase-shifted or existed in either direction from our 3-space in a 4-space (or more).
Also, hypnosis has been SO thoroughly debunked OVER and OVER again in the most thorough and solid ways possible!  Hypnosis uses that same "construction" skill -- memories "found" via hypnosis are actually constructed, most of which are "fake" (in the sense that they are constructed via suggestion and ambience).  If you made the same essay, it's because you were in the same state of mind and you're the same person -- so OF COURSE you made the same essay!  It isn't MEMORY -- NOTHING under hypnosis is technically memory (though it becomes memory henceforth and can't be subjectively deciphered as anything else), it's suggestion.  What you SHOULD be marvelling at is the power of the mind to create, not the capacity of the mind to store.

Either way, I STILL agree with you that the MIND is NOT identical to the BRAIN!  ;)
The line below is true
The line above is false

Bill DeWitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
    • View Profile
Sentient Life
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2007, 07:35:34 am »
quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
You won't "find that place" -- ever.

And man will never fly.
 
quote:
Also, hypnosis has been SO thoroughly debunked OVER and OVER again in the most thorough and solid ways possible!

I see that you believe this very strongly. I respect that. But for it to be certainly true would require both proving a negative and solving an infinitely regressable series.

I will go by my experience and the decades of respected research. Even if hypnosis is totally bogus, there are many other more concrete facts which indicate that the mind can store more than the brain can hold.

 
quote:
What you SHOULD be marvelling at is the power of the mind to create, not the capacity of the mind to store.

I can't do both? Of course the mind is creative (read my posts about "pattern recognition") but adding data to a stream does not mean the stream doesn't exist without the addition. If some debunker finds a subject who recalls invented data under hypnosis, that does not mean the actual data was not there. You can't prove the data is not there by finding something else - that would be proving a negative - you can't prove I don't have a nickle in my pocket by the fact that I also have a dime.

Perhaps they just did it wrong - there's your infinite regression starting up.
quote:

Either way, I STILL agree with you that the MIND is NOT identical to the BRAIN!  ;)


Good to see I haven't changed your mind. 8-) We both have to go on our subjective experience in the absence of factual evidence.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 07:39:59 am by Bill DeWitt »


markofkane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5260
  • Crazy Man
    • View Profile
    • http://www.soundspectrum.com
Sentient Life
« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2007, 07:58:46 am »
Brain and mind is like A human you can see or sense, and a buried live human no-one knows about. They do not exist if we never saw evidence of their existence.

Or, like that that guy in it's a wonderful life, although people saw him, they did not know who he was in that little example the angel set up for him. That guy did not exist to people. Until he was brought back to his dimension.

A mind may exist without a brain, but since we cannot prove it, it is assumed to be false.
Mark: I'll think about it
Laura: Don't think about it too long or I'll throw you out on your ***king a**.
"Political correctness is censorship"

daveleb55

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/daveleb55/Cybernetic_Nightmares.html
Sentient Life
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2007, 02:42:46 pm »
Bill Said:
"But I don't know, I'm not as sure as you seem to be. Could be all sorts of things, but two things are sure, the numbers don't add up - and we won't find the answer by pretending they do."


Hoo boy. Ok, you're assuming a one to one correlation between brain and computer. My brain is not a computer, my computer is not a brain. You say the numbers don't add up, what numbers? Apples plus Oranges equals what? A fruit smoothie? What does this have to do with anything?
If I seem to be sure, it's because I've seen nothing to support a different solution. I don't remember everything I've seen, heard, touched, thought, experienced, et al ad naseum. I remember that I had cereal for breakfast yesterday, because I have cereal for breakfast every day, except weekends, when I may have waffles or eggs, or both. Perhaps the brain only remembers patterns, and only ones that deviate from the norm; until we really understand how it works, this is all idle speculation. Gibabytes of pixels equates to what in the human brain? The brain doesn't see pixels, for one thing. The brain may be analog, it's probably not digital, why would it be? Maybe it's something else entirely. Because a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole, how is this proof of a mysterious non-physical receptacle for square pegs?
In the middle ages, the liver was thought to be the seat of conciousness, now of course, we  know better. Or do we? The nervous system is an all pervasive system that encompasses the entire body, not just the brain, some people speculate that memory is contained throughout the body, not just in one location in the brain. But until we have a better understanding of the brain and it's attendant systems, this is just speculation.
Sorry, Bill, but your "numbers" just don't "add up."

Xodarap said:
"...it sure seems like my thoughts, ideas, and emotions are not simple material concoctions. Whether or not they are CAUSED by material processes, I certainly wouldn't argue, but happiness doesn't FEEL much like chemicals and electricity sloshing around a skull cavity to me..."

Hee hee, happiness, a very subjective feeling, is definitely chemicals sloshing around in my skull, because I am on anti-depressants. If I don't take them, I feel desperate and helpless, I have huge mood swings, the meds help keep me on an even keel, so to speak.

Everything we know, everything we feel, everything we experience, is entirely subjective. We are alone in our thoughts. I can't get inside you, you can't get inside me. We communicate via these abstract symbols called language, with it's imprecision and arbitrary values. We choose to agree that a certain color is "red," and most people agree. Those who are colorblind see it differently. Are they wrong? What's right for me may not be right for everyone else. Does that make me wrong? compared to what?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Bill DeWitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
    • View Profile
Sentient Life
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2007, 03:39:51 pm »
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
 Ok, you're assuming a one to one correlation between brain and computer.

No, I'm not. I'm asserting that the brain, if it stores anything, must store it somehow, and I demonstrated that even using a higher density storage scheme than is likely, using a smaller data stream than is obvious, there is still not enough room.
quote:

If I seem to be sure, it's because I've seen nothing to support a different solution.

So if you personally don't have evidence for something it must not exist? Bishop Berkley was fun when I smoked pot but if a tree falls in the forest and kills you when no one is there to hear you scream, you are still dead.

I've seen nothing to support your solution (which is that there is nothing to solve), other than assertions that if you can't see something it must not exist.

If you don't know something it is unknown, not non-existant.
quote:
I don't remember everything I've seen, heard, touched, thought, experienced, et al ad naseum.

You don't recall it. Memory and recall are two different things. Just because you can't find your sock under the bed doesn't mean socks don't exist, you just can't find it. Your options include the following, empty the room and you will find the sock, ask someone else to help you look, get a different perspective, or, just pretend there are no socks.

Your goal seems to be to convince me that all there is in this world is what you already know. Have fun with that.


daveleb55

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/daveleb55/Cybernetic_Nightmares.html
Sentient Life
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2007, 04:58:08 pm »
Such dripping sarcasm. I thought better of you.

Let's try this again: I said that I've seen no evidence that the "mind" exists outside the "brain." If you have evidence of this, show it to us!!! We'd love to know all about it. Sadly, saying it's not possible with:
A. our current understanding of the brain
and,
B. our current understanding of the laws governing the physics of silicon based computer chips;
Is not evidence that it MUST therefore exist outside the brain.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm asking for clarification here. If you have evidence to prove your point, let's have it. The scientific method provides for reproducibility, if your experiments prove something, I should be able to reproduce it under the same circumstances.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that until evidence is presented, I am forced to conclude there is something else happening here. My conclusion is based on a lack of evidence, rather than speculation on what may or may not be true.
I can speculate that alien life forms exist in the universe, and that it is very likely. However, there is absolutely no physical evidence. none. So until a flying saucer lands on my front lawn, (or your front lawn,) I am forced to conclude by the EVIDENCE that flying saucers are a myth.





quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt

quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
 Ok, you're assuming a one to one correlation between brain and computer.

No, I'm not. I'm asserting that the brain, if it stores anything, must store it somehow, and I demonstrated that even using a higher density storage scheme than is likely, using a smaller data stream than is obvious, there is still not enough room.
quote:

If I seem to be sure, it's because I've seen nothing to support a different solution.

So if you personally don't have evidence for something it must not exist? Bishop Berkley was fun when I smoked pot but if a tree falls in the forest and kills you when no one is there to hear you scream, you are still dead.

I've seen nothing to support your solution (which is that there is nothing to solve), other than assertions that if you can't see something it must not exist.

If you don't know something it is unknown, not non-existant.
quote:
I don't remember everything I've seen, heard, touched, thought, experienced, et al ad naseum.

You don't recall it. Memory and recall are two different things. Just because you can't find your sock under the bed doesn't mean socks don't exist, you just can't find it. Your options include the following, empty the room and you will find the sock, ask someone else to help you look, get a different perspective, or, just pretend there are no socks.

Your goal seems to be to convince me that all there is in this world is what you already know. Have fun with that.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Maviarab

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
    • http://3d-fantasyportraits.co.uk
Sentient Life
« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2007, 05:34:29 pm »
quote:
But the Turing test is a deception, if that is all we have then we can never trust the results. We can never know if anything else has Consciousness, only that we can be convinced.

We must find the seat of our Consciousness to detect it in others. I contend that the brain is not large enough to contain simple memory much less Mind.


Then surely Bill, a new test needs to be looked into and developed as your are knocking the only recognised industry standard. Are you now saying that Mr Turing did not know what he was talking about? Are you even in fact saying you know more then he did? If the Turing test is so bad...so flawed in its concept..then come up with a better one. If you can't, then I'd possibly suggest not cussing it down and get on with achieving its benchmarks?

Secondly, and this one has interested me for a long time, if the brain as you put it is not large enough to containa  single memory let alone a mind, define a memory, define the mind and then define how that can be implemented in AI. What is a memory exactly? How is it formed? How is it structered? You gain a false memory after looking atba picture for too long. I have pictures of when I was a child, I do not 'remember' where or when the pictures were taken, yet I have evolved a false memory based on those pictures knowing they were a real event in my life.

For someone who does not seem to think the brain is large enough to hold a mind, you sure do have a strong one yourself [:)]
AIDreams...The new home of the Digital Girl

www.aidreams.co.uk

Bill DeWitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
    • View Profile
Sentient Life
« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2007, 06:10:37 pm »
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55

Such dripping sarcasm. I thought better of you.
Says the guy who starts his comments with "hoo boy"?

quote:
Let's try this again:

Let's not. You're saying what everyone has said for the last 100 years, I'm saying what you don't want to hear. We're done.


Maviarab

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
    • http://3d-fantasyportraits.co.uk
Sentient Life
« Reply #39 on: June 21, 2007, 06:12:28 pm »
Also...

 
quote:
No, I'm not. I'm asserting that the brain, if it stores anything, must store it somehow, and I demonstrated that even using a higher density storage scheme than is likely, using a smaller data stream than is obvious, there is still not enough room.



As you are 'adamant' that you remember 'everything' (as per your hypnosis illustration) then I fail to see how you can be so stupidly blind as to not admit that the brain 'very obviously' IS BIG ENOUGH and does HAVE ENOUGH ROOM.

You have said it yourself in not so many words. You skirt around the edges trying to sound intellectual and philosophical yet are too blinded by your own ignorance to see what you are typing ?

I'm quite frankly...amazed.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 06:15:02 pm by Maviarab »
AIDreams...The new home of the Digital Girl

www.aidreams.co.uk

Bill DeWitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
    • View Profile
Sentient Life
« Reply #40 on: June 21, 2007, 06:19:56 pm »
quote:
Originally posted by Maviarab
 Are you now saying that Mr Turing did not know what he was talking about?

No, I am saying what Turing said. If it acts like a human enough to fool us, we will be fooled. But that doesn't mean it is human, it means we were fooled.

But you would have to actually read Turing to know this.

quote:
Secondly, and this one has interested me for a long time, if the brain as you put it is not large enough to containa  single memory let alone a mind, define a memory, define the mind and then define how that can be implemented in AI.

No.

I said I don't know. You guys are the ones who are so sure of our limits. It must be the brain and only the brain because you can't think of what else it might be.

If you are so sure that it's nothing but chemicals show me how it is done. The neurologists are not as sure as you, but please, enlighten us.


Bill DeWitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
    • View Profile
Sentient Life
« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2007, 06:25:25 pm »
quote:
Originally posted by Maviarab
 you can be so stupidly blind

When logic fails, go right to the name calling. Obviously using capital letters means you win. That's what you want isn't it? You don't care what's right, just who wins?

Fine, you win. I won't argue with you ever again. Are you self-satisfied now?


Maviarab

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
    • http://3d-fantasyportraits.co.uk
Sentient Life
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2007, 06:25:52 pm »
Hmm...yeah maybe your right. Maybe we store all this information our brains cant handle in our 'missing socks' perhaps??

Please tell me Bill when I said anything about being sure about anything, especially to do with chemicals? You seem to be making things up now in an attempt to flit away from answering me.

I said...by your own analogy, the brain is very obviously big enough and has more than enough room to contain all the data we collect through our lives. You are saying the brain isnt big enough. By your very own statement you contradict yourself and your argument falls down, yet you seem to be the only one here who fails to see or understand that.

Your same neurologists are the very same one ones who state that we dont even 'use' the large majority of what our brains are capable...yet here you are, apparently with more knowledge on the human brain than them saying it cant store all the data which we have already proven 'by your own comments' that it can.
AIDreams...The new home of the Digital Girl

www.aidreams.co.uk

Maviarab

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
    • http://3d-fantasyportraits.co.uk
Sentient Life
« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2007, 06:30:09 pm »
Bill, before starting a conversation with me about 'logic' I strongly suggest you learn fully what logic actually is.

Again, I shall restate my point. By your own commented 'logic' your are hypocritical. You state one thing in one post and then in the very next post state something completly illogical to what you have already stated?

Now even I have a hard time working that one out.

And believe me, if I was calling you names I would have. I was stating a fact, nothing else and nothing more. if you took offence to that then so be it.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 06:30:58 pm by Maviarab »
AIDreams...The new home of the Digital Girl

www.aidreams.co.uk

daveleb55

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/daveleb55/Cybernetic_Nightmares.html
Sentient Life
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2007, 06:42:51 pm »
I'm disappointed in you, Bill. I didn't mean to upset you, or launch a personal attack.

But you still didn't answer my question. Show me the money, Bill.




quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt

quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55

Such dripping sarcasm. I thought better of you.
Says the guy who starts his comments with "hoo boy"?

quote:
Let's try this again:

Let's not. You're saying what everyone has said for the last 100 years, I'm saying what you don't want to hear. We're done.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.