It’s impossible to see the world as it is, argues a neuroscientist [video]
aeon.co
aeon.co
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
While I wasn't entirely convinced by a lot of arguments in the philosophy of mind as an undergrad 20 years ago, it definitely addresses problems "in the zeitgiest" now, e.g. with self-driving cars, etc.
And the conversation there is of a higher level than I see now.
I think taking a tiny bit of undergrad psychology, philosophy, and cognitive science, would help a lot of people think more clearly about AI. I didn't necessarily think that was true when I took it, but with hindsight I think there is a big hole in the conversation.
Gary Marcus is an AI practitioner with a psychology background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Marcus
he has a decidely different perspective that I think is a lot more grounded and reasoned: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00631
Also related: https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm
It would definitely be good for more "AI"-interested tech people to grapple with Searle, Nagel, Chalmers, even if you don't fully buy all their arguments.
No, it wouldn't, especially Searle whose best known argument in this area is entirely for a distinction which can by definition make no difference in the material universe. It might have theological/spiritual applications (though beyond holding open the possibility than certain material facts do not demand the naively obvious spiritual conclusions without itself rebutting those conclusions, it doesn't likely to bear much load even there), but from a material perspective it's pure intellectual autoeroticism that has already been granted far too much attention by people who could contribute more to human progress by spending that time on (almost literally) any other pursuit.
People who work on things that nobody in their group has good answers for, become much more aware of other disciplines and the histories, as they go looking for better answers.
But if entering a group working on known paths, or existing ideas (being tested), then wandering too far from base camp is going to look unfocused. The existing path has to hit a dead end. Which in many fields/professions takes decades.
Herbert Simon started off with Political Science. But look where the path takes him as he doesn't find answers on what he is working on - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon
Here's a related, although sort of tangent, NPR episode about originality: https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/321797073/what-i...
Also, even in neuroscience this is not new at all, Maturana and Varela researched and wrote about this subject extensively, their book The Tree of Knowledge is a good starter.
Why is this the current state of affairs? My guess is because Anglo-American academic philosophy [1] has gone a little too far down the language analysis hole and subsequently isn't perceived as relevant by scientists. It's a tragedy and unfortunately the supposed irrelevance of philosophy continues to be perpetuated by science popularizers.
[1] The academic philosophy traditions in continental Europe and the English-speaking world have drifted apart over the past ±150 years. You see less of this blatant ignorance of philosophy in somewhere like France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy
Or, this scientist did the research, learned about what philosophers did 2300 years ago and then adapted/repackaged the message/knowledge in a way that fits his audience.
Also, in your statement you are essentially saying the scientist was not original because he reached the same conclusion as someone else before him.
Then you conclude that being unoriginal is a waste of resources.
So of course this relates to originality.
https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-research...
Discussed here:
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscover...
Anais Nin
Not only empirically but personally?
I know a microscope exists. I can see it.
But there are levels of consciousness, what differentiates “higher consciousness” is maybe the question you’re getting at.
That unfortunately is an largely ascientific question. Like “what’s a good map of Seattle?” there is no such thing as a map of Seattle, so there’s nothing for science to study. Seattle exists for sure. Some maps will help you meet different ends in Seattle. But there is no such thing as an objective map. List n things a map gets right, and I will tell you n things it gets wrong.
But if you want a starting place, you could temporarily accept, e.g., Timothy Leary’s map of consciousnesses. That one is quite materially grounded. Within that orientation you can do all kinds of science and learn many things about consciousness.
Very interesting. I'm finding patterns in explorations of consciousness. The first four levels Leary describes could be Freud's id. The next 4 contain his super ego.
Compared to id = Dąbrowski's first level and super ego = 5th level.
Like you said these are all maps of consciousness. Psychological models that describe the actual physicality of a material mind.
I suppose I'm trying to determine how to physically recreate the material that will lead to a new consciousness.
We can't recreate Seattle from maps of Seattle to continue your analogy. Is it possible to recreate consciousness from our maps of consciousness?
It seems like that is what we have been trying to do in our pursuit of AI, when we know no more about what consciousness is than we know what Seattle is.
Consciousness requires sensation and action. Without action animals don’t learn to perceive anything at all.
If I were trying to make a conscious artificial being the first thing I would do would be to sign them up for a fast paced online FPS and teach them to play.
Next give them emotions (0 dimensional precepts).
Any time your codebase starts to feel big, delete most of it. Your end goal will be maybe 1000 lines total.
Use matrices.
Disclaimer: only a layman but I believe what I've said is an accurate synopsis of the debate
Well we started out perceiving a 0-dimensional universe and 4 dimensions is as far as we’ve gotten!
We’re certainly at work on the next one.
If you're suggesting that evolution isn't the right vehicle for this process, then we'll have to disagree.
Yeah, sure, I can agree with that.
Evolution does appear to be the most likely candidate, yes.
1) It's unclear which parts of our perception reflects the real world and which don't, and also how to measure how accurate they are. We obviously see objects as much more than what the photons representing them that hit our retina tells us. The brain creates all kinds of backstory and assumptions based on its model of the world, however, I would argue that the basic shapes we see are accurate.
So basically the geometry/shape of a face, of a chair, of <pick any object> is real, while the extended cultural, practical and personal associations the brain attaches to those are "not real" (or rather, we see a chair as a utility we can sit on, so we see both the shape of a chair but also potential uses for it, so it becomes an extended model of ourselves+chair, but that doesn't mean the shape isn't real). Also even though we can change our extended model of objects, we don't normally change our base perception, e.g. a chair always looks the same shape even though we may see different uses for it in different contexts. I would argue we really see the shape of the chair. This then leads to difficulty knowing how to define what is real/accurate and what isn't.
2) It's unclear whether the extended models we have are reflective of the real world or not, and if so how much. Just because I see a chair as a utility I can sit on, doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect reality. In fact you could say the model reflects a more abstract truth about how my body fits into a chair, so it becomes a more encompassing truth about bodies+chairs. Hell you could even include that it includes some information about how my muscles tire and need rest and so on.
3) I think the basic idea is true and interesting. We clearly do not see the world like a camera does, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it doesn't reflect reality at all. I haven't looked at this authors papers, but I saw an interview where he mentioned some statistical measurement of how organisms who saw the world as it actually was had a lower survival rate than those who do, and I'd be curious on how sound that argument is. The devil is in the details again and it sounds to me like such an argument could be interpreted several ways.
In other words, it isn't intelligence per se which lowers TFR, it's college. Which makes sense, adding at least four years before someone is earning a living will decrease the number of children they have, ceteris paribus.
Student loans aren't helping either.
Every person sees the world through their own way. Therefore there is no way to see it as it truly is. The sum of the parts can never equal the whole, no matter how much effort is done to reduce bias.
Worthless to discuss further.