“…AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY POINT TO AND DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A MYSTERY.” – Mike
I see. For me, since I ‘am’ consciousness, I clearly know consciousness, thus it is no mystery at all. I AGREE THAT FOR ME CONSCIOUNESS IS NO MYSTERY, SINCE I EXPERIENCE IT, BUT FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM. iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES. ALSO WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE YOU CAN). THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST IT IS CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS ALSO SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS? THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS ONLY SECONDARY. BUT ONCE MATTER IS BELIEVED IN, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE MIND EXISTING AND ACTING OUTSIDE MATTER. AS FOR CONSCIOUNESS, WHO KNOWS? IT MIGHT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT EXISTANCE. On Nov 10, 6:12 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “…AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY POINT TO AND > DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A MYSTERY.” – > Mike > > I see. For me, since I ‘am’ consciousness, I clearly know > consciousness, thus it is no mystery at all. > > “….THE CONCEPTS THEMSELVES SEEM INTUITIVELY CLEAR OR RELATIVELY CLEAR. > FOR EXAMPLE THE CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS SEEM CLEAR TO ME, HOWEVER I > CAN NOT EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS IN TERMS OF OTHER CONCEPTS. DEPENDING ON > HOW I DEFINE CONCEPT, CONCEPTS THEMSELVES MUST EITHER BE PARTLY > CONSCIOUS OR ELSE SOME OF THEM CAN BE WHOLLY UNCONSCIOUS, BUT THEY > EXIST IN MIND AND MND EXIST IN WHAT WE CONCEPTULIZE AS MATTER. AT > LEAST THAT IS HOW I CONCEPTUALIZE THIS.” – Mike > > Ahhh, I see. For me, I don’t make the full link between concepts and > matter. However, I can see how one could make such a link. But, of > course, again, even using concepts the notion of matter sort of > disappears upon full analysis. > Oh, for me, ‘intuitively clear’ and ‘relatively clear’ of entirely > different substances. The former has to do with the absolute and the > latter with the relative. > > “…BY LOOKING AT EMOTIONS AND OTHER SUCH THINGS FUNCTIONALLY (HOW THEY > WORK AND WHAT THEY DO RATHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE MADE OF) IT IS > POSSIBLE TO MAKE HIGH QUALITY WORKING CONCEPTS FOR THESE THINGS.” – > Mike > > So, this is what you mean by being able to speak meaningfully about > something? The only use of ‘meaningfully’ I could find at the web link > was “For example, the meanings of words like “feelings,” “emotions,” > or “consciousness” seem so natural, clear, and direct to us that we > cannot see how to start thinking about them.” > I agree with this. > > And, yes, I meant quarks. And, while I do appreciate your speculation > and attempts at description, I don’t find it necessary to revert to > any type of ‘atomism’. > > For both, mind and what appears to be matter, in fact all being mind, > I find that looking at process including functions and results are > quite useful for describing all things. > > Again, Mike, I greatly appreciate your true humility when it comes to > such lofty notions!!! It makes interaction a joy and a mutual > exploration. Thanks again! > > On Nov 10, 2:36 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ORN, > > > I AM USING CAPS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ MY REPLY. > > > “…So, consciousness remains a mystery, for now…” – Isp. > > > Isp, by saying the above (admittedly pulled out of context), do you > > not presuppose the position of materialism? > > > PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT CONSCIOUNESS REMAINS A MYSTERY FOR > > MATERIALIST. HOWEVER, I HAVE NEVER HEARD CONSCIOUNESS EXPLAINED IN ANY > > OTHER TERMS. AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY > > POINT TO AND DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A > > MYSTERY. > > > “In the case of some materialists, consciousness is denied as being > > some sort of illusion or explained by untested > > incomplete theories that have huge gaps. While these gaps may > > eventually be filled without violating materialism, they haven’t been > > yet.” – Isp > > > The notion of ‘gaps’ arises for about any area of human > > conceptualization, no? > > > TRUE, WHEN CONCIOUS CONCEPTULIZATION IS CONSIDERED. BUT IN A GOOD > > EXPLANTION THE GAPS ARE SMALL AND THE LEAP FROM ONE CONCEPT TO THE > > NEXT SEEMS, YES SEEMS NOT NECESSARILY IS, INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO ALL, > > OR AT LEAST TO THE PEOPLE WHO STUDY A PARTICULAR FIELD. IN ADDITION > > THE CONCEPTS THEMSELVES SEEM INTUITIVELY CLEAR OR RELATIVELY CLEAR. > > FOR EXAMPLE THE CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS SEEM CLEAR TO ME, HOWEVER I > > CAN NOT EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS IN TERMS OF OTHER CONCEPTS. DEPENDING ON > > HOW I DEFINE CONCEPT, CONCEPTS THEMSELVES MUST EITHER BE PARTLY > > CONSCIOUS OR ELSE SOME OF THEM CAN BE WHOLLY UNCONSCIOUS, BUT THEY > > EXIST IN MIND AND MND EXIST IN WHAT WE CONCEPTULIZE AS MATTER. AT > > LEAST THAT IS HOW I CONCEPTUALIZE THIS. > > > “…The best of these foundations, in my opinion is the idea that mind > > exists in matter but is not the same as matter in that mind is about > > complex form and pattern. This approach has not yet answered the hard > > question of consciousness, but this approach, in conjunction with > > materialism, allow scientists to speak meaningfully about love, > > meaning, hate, fear and other things that materialism, by itself, was > > not able to speak about in a meaningful way.” – Isp > > > Isp, how does this approach “allow scientists to speak meaningfully > > about…”? I don’t quite understand, sorry. > > And, of course, when the very notion of ‘matter’ is brought up, is > > not > > this concept controversial in itself? > > > BY LOOKING AT EMOTIONS AND OTHER SUCH THINGS FUNCTIONALLY (HOW THEY > > WORK AND WHAT THEY DO RATHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE MADE OF) IT IS > > POSSIBLE TO MAKE HIGH QUALITY WORKING CONCEPTS FOR THESE THINGS. THIS > > IS WHERE THE FIELD OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HAS TAKEN US. THEY ARE > > NOW WORKING ON MACHINES THAT HAVE FUNCTIONAL EMOTIONS. THAT IS NOW > > CONSIDERED THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE A MACHINE THAT HAS ANY FLEXIBLE > > INTELIGENCE. LOGIC ONLY MAKES VERY DUMB AND INFLEXIBLE MACHINES THAT > > CAN BE CHESS PLAYING SAVANTS AND DO OTHER SUCH THINGS BUT CANNOT DO > > MOST BASIC FUNCTIONS THAT HUMANS CAN DO. THESE EMOTIONS ARE CREATED BY > > LOGICAL CIRCUITS AND PROGRAMS, BUT THEY LOGIC DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO ACT > > DIRECTLY ON THE WORLD. FOR A MUCH BETTER EXPLANATION TAKE A LOOK AT > > MARVIN MINSKY'S THE EMOTION MACHINE. HERE IS A LINK: > > >http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/Introduction.html > > > “…In this thinking, these habits are ingrained in subatomic > > particles, > > which may in fact be complex enough to have simple minds.” – Isp. > > > Are you talking about stuff like charm? > > > DO YOU MEAN CHARMED QUARKS? I DO NOT MEAN THAT. I AM JUST SPECULATING > > AND TRYING TO DESCRIBE THE WORLD FROM THE POINT OF VIEW THAT MIND IS > > THE MOST BASIC THING. I AM ALSO SHOWING THAT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE > > BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE THE MOST BASIC MATERIAL BUILDING BLOCKS, JUST AS > > TRYING TO DESCRIBE MIND FROM MATTER IS ALSO CUMBERSOME AND IN THE > > FINAL ANALYSIS MAY NEVER YEILD A GOOD WORKING MODEL. > > > “Minds need not be restricted to biological forms, any machine that > > uses feedback to self-correct, as evolution does, is in fact acting > > mindfully.” – Isp. > > > For more information on computers and thinking as well as a lot of > > other mapping, an old friend of mine has a lot of > > information.http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/ > > From that site, you can arrive > > at:http://www.macrovu.com/CCTBackgroundOnPrjct.html > > > I'LL TRY TO CHECK OUT THAT SITE LATER ON. > > > “An electron may use a self-correcting feedback mechanism to keep it > > on its proper course.” – Isp. > > > I thought we were not sure about the very nature of electrons what > > with the uncertainty principle and such, no? > > > I AM JUST SPECULATING AND ALSO TRYING TO DESCRIBE MATTER IN TERMS OF > > MIND. IT IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE MATTER, JUST AS > > MATTER IN PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE MIND. > > > “Mind is everywhere and in the human mind the idea of matter is > > born.” > > – Isp. > > > Interesting. In fact, I do appreciate your post overall Isp. I ask > > questions mainly to learn and probe deeper. I do agree that ‘mind’ is > > ‘everywhere’. I also find it to be eternal, in everything, and > > ultimately, one. > > > I ENJOYED YOUR REPLIES AND I HOPE THAT MINE HELP TO MAKE WHAT I AM > > THINKING OF CLEARER. > > > [should I call you isp or michael?] > > > On Nov 10, 8:22 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 10, 2:41 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [should I call you isp or michael?] > > > Michael, Mike, Isp, or Isparklaria will do. > > > On Nov 10, 2:41 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “…So, consciousness remains a mystery, for now…” – Isp. > > > > Isp, by saying the above (admittedly pulled out of context), do you > > > not presuppose the position of materialism? > > > > “In the case of some materialists, consciousness is denied as being > > > some sort of illusion or explained by untested > > > incomplete theories that have huge gaps. While these gaps may > > > eventually be filled without violating materialism, they haven’t been > > > yet.” – Isp > > > > The notion of ‘gaps’ arises for about any area of human > > > conceptualization, no? > > > > “…The best of these foundations, in my opinion is the idea that mind > > > exists in matter but is not the same as matter in that mind is about > > > complex form and pattern. This approach has not yet answered the hard > > > question of consciousness, but this approach, in conjunction with > > > materialism, allow scientists to speak meaningfully about love, > > > meaning, hate, fear and other things that materialism, by itself, was > > > not able to speak about in a meaningful way.” – Isp > > > > Isp, how does this approach “allow scientists to speak meaningfully > > > about…”? I don’t quite understand, sorry. > > > And, of course, when the very notion of ‘matter’ is brought up, is not > > > this concept controversial in itself? > > > > “…In this thinking, these habits are ingrained in subatomic particles, > > > which may in fact be complex enough to have simple minds.” – Isp. > > > > Are you talking about stuff like charm? > > > > “Minds need not be restricted to biological forms, any machine that > > > uses feedback to self-correct, as evolution does, is in fact acting > > > mindfully.” – Isp. > > > > For more information on computers and thinking as well as a lot of > > > other mapping, an old friend of mine has a lot of > > > information.http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/ > > > From that site, you can arrive > > > at:http://www.macrovu.com/CCTBackgroundOnPrjct.html > > > > “An- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
