[DainBramageStudios]

neurons obey the same laws of physics as everything else

[matsta]

DainBramageStudios posted:

neurons obey the same laws of physics as everything else

Not even talking about that.

[Bob Sagat]

I don't get it. If I see for example see a red neon light, I can assume that there is light of a certain wavelength being emitted, can I not? Are you saying that that red light doesn't exist outside my head??

[matsta]

Not sure of what does "outside your head" means. But if you assume that there IS an independent reality and it is exactly as we perceive it to be, I'd tell you that it isn't true.

Most of what comes thought perception is "made-up" by perception itself (or by our nature, as you'll call it). Take for example colours, there are no such thing as colours is physics, there are only wavelengths and other properties if light.

And I'm not saying that physics=truth. The fact that colours doesn't exist in physics should not mean that they "are not real". In fact, they ARE the real thing, every measurement is based on what we can observe in any way, and if there is something that we can't possibly observe then we can't work with that.

Edited:

To simplify things a bit, let's say that every conclusion that has been made in science come from (the very-human and very-subjective) experience.

[LuaGuy]

matsta posted:

Not even talking about that.

How do you know ?

[Bob Sagat]

matsta posted:

And I'm not saying that physics=truth. The fact that colours doesn't exist in physics should not mean that they "are not real". In fact, they ARE the real thing, every measurement is based on what we can observe in any way, and if there is something that we can't possibly observe then we can't work with that.

But shouldn't the wave length property be "more real" than the nature of the color?
Because a color of a certain wave length can be perceived different depending on the receiver.
But the wave length is constant, regardless of the nature of the receptors.

[Slight]

Color is real in all realms of science. Red and every other color have a concrete definition on the magnetic spectrum.

Careful not to overthink here, sure our brains precieve wavelengths, but that does not mean that because it is a perception it can't be a part of science.

Science is collective perception after all and in no way the actual state of reality, which of course is unattainable.

[matsta]

Slight posted:

Color is real in all realms of science. Red and every other color have a concrete definition on the magnetic spectrum.

Careful not to overthink here, sure our brains precieve wavelengths, but that does not mean that because it is a perception it can't be a part of science.

Science is collective perception after all and in no way the actual state of reality, which of course is unattainable.

The actual state of reality is perception. It is, in fact, questionable that there is anything apart from it.

Edited:

Bob Sagat posted:

But shouldn't the wave length property be "more real" than the nature of the color?
Because a color of a certain wave length can be perceived different depending on the receiver.
But the wave length is constant, regardless of the nature of the receptors.

Actually, the form in which the wavelength manifests varies when the nature of the receptor varies. You should take every instrument we use also as a receptor. Every time we use a different instrument the wavelength manifest as a different thing. For example, if we use chemical that react to an specific wavelength we see the manifestation of that wavelength in the chemical that reacted, if we use detect light though a change in the temperature of another substance all we see is the temperature of the substance changing, not the light itself.

I postulate that those things (the changes in the temperature, the reacting chemicals, etc.) are more real than the light itself. OF course, if you measured the changes in temperature or the reaction of the chemical with another tool, then the measures that are closer to you, verifying them with your own senses, are more real.

Edited:

This is all in relation to what can be and cannot be questionable in science, as science is about empiric evidence and empiric evidence is nothing but experience itself.

If you want to discover the true state of things (or as Kant said it) the things-in-themselves, then there is nothing that can help you.

Edited:

IT should be noted that I am not am empiricist, as I do believe also that abstract things suchs as love, thought, etc. can be treated as something real as long as any human can encounter them in their lives.

[JohnnyMo1]

Bob Sagat posted:

I don't get it. If I see for example see a red neon light, I can assume that there is light of a certain wavelength being emitted, can I not? Are you saying that that red light doesn't exist outside my head??

Not necessarily. You can experience things like color without actually sensing that color in the normal way. Consider a dream, for instance.

[DainBramageStudios]

matsta posted:

I postulate that those things (the changes in the temperature, the reacting chemicals, etc.) are more real than the light itself. OF course, if you measured the changes in temperature or the reaction of the chemical with another tool, then the measures that are closer to you, verifying them with your own senses, are more real.

the shit are you talking about

[matsta]

DainBramageStudios posted:

the shit are you talking about

I'm talking about some sort of empiricism.

[DainBramageStudios]

how are you quantifying "more real"

what would that even mean

something exists or it doesn't

[matsta]

DainBramageStudios posted:

how are you quantifying "more real"

what would that even mean

something exists or it doesn't

And what does existing even mean for you? Being in the universe described by physics? As I said before, nothing you have experienced in you entire life is on the universe described by physics.

[DainBramageStudios]

matsta posted:

And what does existing even mean for you? Being in the universe described by physics? As I said before, nothing you have experienced in your entire life is on the universe described by physics.

holy god you have got to be shitting me

my mind is a part of the physical universe. just because it feels different from the inside doesn't make it false

[zach1193]

possible no, ethical, sure. There is absolutely no way ever in the history of man will a genuine artificial intelligence be produced, for the reason that the human brain is so complicated and isn't even fully understood. Sure you can program a machine to "think" for itself, but even then, a man made it think. and emotions simply wouldn't work.

[matsta]

DainBramageStudios posted:

holy god you have got to be shitting me

my mind is a part of the physical universe. just because it feels different from the inside doesn't make it false

What evidence supports your view that the physical universe even exists?

[EvilMattress]

matsta posted:

What evidence supports your view that the physical universe even exists?

We're all here aren't we? Unless we're all having the same simultaneous hallucination inside our battery-pods for the overlord

[matsta]

EvilMattress posted:

We're all here aren't we? Unless we're all having the same simultaneous hallucination inside our battery-pods for the overlord

Where is here? The physical universe? As I said a million times, no of the experiences you've ever had belongs to the world described by physics. Therefore, an experience can't be the proof of the physical universe.

Edited:

Hint: The "proof" of the assumption that the physical universe is the real universe rest upon philosophy. Science can't prove that because science assumes it.

[JohnnyMo1]

matsta posted:

As I said a million times, no of the experiences you've ever had belongs to the world described by physics.

They do though. If we had a computer of arbitrary power we could in principle map all of a human's thoughts and sensory experiences from the physical functioning of their brain.

[DainBramageStudios]

zach1193 posted:

possible no, ethical, sure. There is absolutely no way ever in the history of man will a genuine artificial intelligence be produced, for the reason that the human brain is so complicated and isn't even fully understood. Sure you can program a machine to "think" for itself, but even then, a man made it think. and emotions simply wouldn't work.

you don't need to fully understand the human mind to make an AI

it would just be dissimilar to the human mind

Edited:

as for emotions, well if you made an AI that could self-improve, it could learn to emulate emotions if it chose to

[matsta]

JohnnyMo1 posted:

They do though. If we had a computer of arbitrary power we could in principle map all of a human's thoughts and sensory experiences from the physical functioning of their brain.

No, we can't. We can map the mechanical motion of the particles inside a brain, but in doing that we would just have mapped the motion of a lot of particles, not experience. Experience just doesn't belong to the physical universe, nothing about the essence of the things we experience can be described by physics.

Moreover, it is just the other way around. We describe physics using our experiences.

[JohnnyMo1]

matsta posted:

No, we can't. We can map the mechanical motion of the particles inside a brain, but in doing that we would just have mapped the motion of a lot of particles, not experience. Experience just doesn't belong to the physical universe, nothing about the essence of the things we experience can be described by physics.

No. Unless you can show the mind to have some sort of supernatural element, I see absolutely no reason to assume it has one.

Edited:

All of your thoughts, experiences, actions, and emotions are the product of the motions of particles in your brain. Your entire self is the motions of particles.

[matsta]

JohnnyMo1 posted:

No. Unless you can show the mind to have some sort of supernatural element, I see absolutely no reason to assume it has one.

Edited:

All of your thoughts, experiences, actions, and emotions are the product of the motions of particles in your brain. Your entire self is the motions of particles.

Actually, I see no proof of you statement.

Edited:

Science works on empiric evidence(=experience). If you want to prove something scientifically, then you must obtain evidence that justifies you claim (experience something that justifies your claim).

Since conciousness is something you can only experience in yourself, that isn't scientifically verifiable at all in others.

[JohnnyMo1]

Physics operates on the assumption that all things are physical and it has proven itself empirically to be capable of making predictions which are very accurate to the things we observe.

[matsta]

Just because a method works well at something doesn't mean that it is capable of defining what is real and what isn't.

[JohnnyMo1]

The fact that neuroscience is far more computationally complex than something like basic Newtonian dynamics and is a fledgling science does NOT make it any less physically describable than the motions of planets. You're playing god of the gaps with the brain.

Edited:

matsta posted:

Just because a method works well at something doesn't mean that it is capable of defining what is real and what isn't.

Oh I see, but you are? What makes your definition (which seems to have so far boiled down to "stuff I think is real") accurate?

Edited:

matsta posted:

Since conciousness is something you can only experience in yourself, that isn't scientifically verifiable at all in others.

Says who? Just because we haven't done it yet? What in principle makes it impossible to fully describe a mind?

[matsta]

JohnnyMo1 posted:

The fact that neuroscience is far more computationally complex than something like basic Newtonian dynamics and is a fledgling science does NOT make it any less physically describable than the motions of planets. You're playing god of the gaps with the brain.

No, not the brain, dear, experience. Science just can't explain why experience is as it is. A nice example I always like to use is colors. If you knew all the chemistry behind seeing the color red, would you be able to explain why does red looks as it looks? (not why does it look different than blue or green, why does it look the way it does.)

[JohnnyMo1]

matsta posted:

If you knew all the chemistry behind seeing the color red, would you be able to explain why does red looks as it looks? (not why does it look different than blue or green, why does it look the way it does.)

Yes. Yes you would.

[matsta]

JohnnyMo1 posted:

Yes. Yes you would.

Oh, you would. But you can't even imagine how would that explanation would be done, isn't it?
Moreover, you can't even imagine how a scientific research made on why does red looks as it does would be made.

[JohnnyMo1]

matsta posted:

Oh, you would. But you can't even imagine how would that explanation would be done, isn't it?
Moreover, you can't even imagine how a scientific research made on why does red looks as it does would be made.

What in the name of the Emprah are you blathering about? Gaps in my knowledge don't mean something is fundamentally unknowable.

[matsta]

JohnnyMo1 posted:

Says who? Just because we haven't done it yet? What in principle makes it impossible to fully describe a mind?

That science can't describe experience because it is based on it, it assumes it. Experience is the final proof of scientific theories, it is not the other way around.

[DainBramageStudios]

matsta posted:

Actually, I see no proof of you statement.

Edited:

Science works on empiric evidence(=experience). If you want to prove something scientifically, then you must obtain evidence that justifies you claim (experience something that justifies your claim).

Since conciousness is something you can only experience in yourself, that isn't scientifically verifiable at all in others.

do you even know what a null hypothesis is

[matsta]

DainBramageStudios posted:

do you even know what a null hypothesis is

Yes, what does this have to do here?

[DainBramageStudios]

that consciousness is entirely the result of physical processes is the simplest explanation that fits the current data, and as such it's the null hypothesis

there's no evidence yet that shows any kind of cartesian duality or whatever, so we go with the null hypothesis

Edited:

burden of proof etc

[matsta]

DainBramageStudios posted:

that consciousness is entirely the result of physical processes is the simplest explanation that fits the current data, and as such it's the null hypothesis

there's no evidence yet that shows any kind of cartesian duality or whatever, so we go with the null hypothesis

Edited:

burden of proof etc

I don't know what you mean by physical processes. But if by that you mean physical phenomena, I'd say you god to be crazy to believe that phenomena (things as we see them) cause consciousness.

Another thing is that a hypothesis exists if it can be verifiable. The hypothesis that consciousness has entirely physical causes isn't verifiable, since you can only experience consciousness in yourself, not in an "exterior reality".

[Lilyo]

matsta posted:

I don't know what you mean by physical processes. But if by that you mean physical phenomena, I'd say you god to be crazy to believe that phenomena (things as we see them) cause consciousness.

Another thing is that a hypothesis exists if it can be verifiable. The hypothesis that consciousness has entirely physical causes isn't verifiable, since you can only experience consciousness in yourself, not in an "exterior reality".

I think what he means by physical processes is that everything that we perceive of as a consciousness happens physically in the brain. Thoughts, emotions, reactions, decisions, memories, they're all physically located and occur in the brain in the forum of neurons and chemical reactions working together to create stimuli based on the intake of information we provide the brain with.

Artificial intelligence could potentially be identical to human intelligence if we ever had the right technology to do it. I'm guessing there can be different forms of AI, for example, multiple "actions" the AI robot is physically programmed by a human to take based on certain information it intakes of its environment vs. the AI robot being able to program itself and "create" actions similar to how humans do it. So to answer the OP's question, it depends on the technology that develops the AI. If we were to create an AI that worked the same way as the human brain does, then it comes down to whether something that didn't come about by natural biological means can be given the same right as something that did?

[matsta]

Lilyo posted:

I think what he means by physical processes is that everything that we perceive of as a consciousness physically in the brain.

What do you mean by that? That is what I asked. If by physical reality you mean perceptible reality, then it is a contradictory thought that the reality we perceive is responsible of our perceptions.

If by physical reality you mean the reality described by physics then there is no proof that that reality is the "real one", since physics is science, and science is build upon human perceptions.

[Vintage Thatguy]

Michio Kaku believes currently that robots are more like insects. We'd have total control of them honestly, we'd use them to our own benefit. If they wanted rights or something we'd just disable or weaken them.

[DainBramageStudios]

matsta posted:

I don't know what you mean by physical processes. But if by that you mean physical phenomena, I'd say you god to be crazy to believe that phenomena (things as we see them) cause consciousness.

Another thing is that a hypothesis exists if it can be verifiable. The hypothesis that consciousness has entirely physical causes isn't verifiable, since you can only experience consciousness in yourself, not in an "exterior reality".

In an amazing breakthrough, a multinational team of scientists led by Nobel laureate Santiago Ramón y Cajal announced that the brain is composed of a ridiculously complicated network of tiny cells connected to each other by infinitesimal threads and branches.

The multinational team—which also includes the famous technician Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, and possibly Imhotep, promoted to the Egyptian god of medicine—issued this statement:

"The present discovery culminates years of research indicating that the convoluted squishy thing inside our skulls is even more complicated than it looks. Thanks to Cajal's application of a new staining technique invented by Camillo Golgi, we have learned that this structure is not a continuous network like the blood vessels of the body, but is actually composed of many tiny cells, or "neurons", connected to one another by even more tiny filaments.

"Other extensive evidence, beginning from Greek medical researcher Alcmaeon and continuing through Paul Broca's research on speech deficits, indicates that the brain is the seat of reason.

"Nemesius, the Bishop of Emesia, has previously argued that brain tissue is too earthy to act as an intermediary between the body and soul, and so the mental faculties are located in the ventricles of the brain. However, if this is correct, there is no reason why this organ should turn out to have an immensely complicated internal composition.


"Charles Babbage has independently suggested that many small mechanical devices could be collected into an 'Analytical Engine', capable of performing activities, such as arithmetic, which are widely believed to require thought. The work of Luigi Galvani and Hermann von Helmholtz suggests that the activities of neurons are electrochemical in nature, rather than mechanical pressures as previously believed. Nonetheless, we think an analogy with Babbage's 'Analytical Engine' suggests that a vastly complicated network of neurons could similarly exhibit thoughtful properties.

"We have found an enormously complicated material system located where the mind should be. The implications are shocking, and must be squarely faced. We believe that the present research offers strong experimental evidence that Benedictus Spinoza was correct, and René Descartes wrong: Mind and body are of one substance.

"In combination with the work of Charles Darwin showing how such a complicated organ could, in principle, have arisen as the result of processes not themselves intelligent, the bulk of scientific evidence now seems to indicate that intelligence is ontologically non-fundamental and has an extended origin in time. This strongly weighs against theories which assign mental entities an ontologically fundamental or causally primal status, including all religions ever invented.

"Much work remains to be done on discovering the specific identities between electrochemical interactions between neurons, and thoughts. Nonetheless, we believe our discovery offers the promise, though not yet the realization, of a full scientific account of thought. The problem may now be declared, if not solved, then solvable."

We regret that Cajal and most of the other researchers involved on the Project are no longer available for comment.

Edited:

as for it being verifiable, I'm really not sure how you can say that with a straight face when proposing any alternative like mind-body duality or souls or anything other than that which arises just from fundamental particle interactions

if it comes from something outside physics then it is necessarily nonverifiable, not to mention ridiculously unlikely. please present me with the gigantic amount of evidence you need to even promote such an idea to be worth considering given its astronomical prior unlikeliness.

Edited:

when you have multiple hypotheses that all predict the same data, you go with the mathematically simplest one - namely the one that doesn't propose dualist voodoo

[Nikita]

Vintage Thatguy posted:

Michio Kaku believes currently that robots are more like insects. We'd have total control of them honestly, we'd use them to our own benefit. If they wanted rights or something we'd just disable or weaken them.

Michio Kaku is just a Popular Science speech guy. All he does is repeat what others say. He also has an awful habit of saying "I think that" and then just stating an established opinion of scientific community as if it's ripped straight from wiki. He didn't invent anything.