Neural networks and computer simulation

[Laharl]

Re: Neural networks and computer simulation

Corberst:

"Okay. So what?"

I'm still failing to see what's so awe-inspiring in what you're talking about in here and how this "knowledge" is going to change my life or give me something new to think about and chew on. I think you completely missed the point of my post.

[coberst]

Re: Neural networks and computer simulation

Corberst:

"Okay. So what?"

I'm still failing to see what's so awe-inspiring in what you're talking about in here and how this "knowledge" is going to change my life or give me something new to think about and chew on. I think you completely missed the point of my post.

Here, the first paragraph of the OP, is something to chew on.

Cognitive science has radically attacked the traditional Western philosophical position that there is a dichotomy between perception and conception. This traditional view that perception is strictly a faculty of body and conception (the formation and use of concepts) is purely mental and wholly separate from and independent of our ability to perceive and move.

The point of the post is to give the reader something that will arouse their curiosity so that they can perhaps decide to seek further comprehension of the matter. It is an attempt to lead the reader off the beaten path and on to exploring new ground.

The beaten path takes you no place you have not already been. Try some new ideas, you might find them exciting.

[Laharl]

Re: Neural networks and computer simulation

Here, the first paragraph of the OP, is something to chew on.

Cognitive science has radically attacked the traditional Western philosophical position that there is a dichotomy between perception and conception. This traditional view that perception is strictly a faculty of body and conception (the formation and use of concepts) is purely mental and wholly separate from and independent of our ability to perceive and move.

I read that and went "Good for cognitive science. /golfclap"

The point of the post is to give the reader something that will arouse their curiosity so that they can perhaps decide to seek further comprehension of the matter. It is an attempt to lead the reader off the beaten path and on to exploring new ground.

Curiosity toward what? That is what I'm failing to see here. Are we supposed to be going "oh, so people can still be perceptive while not cognitively aware of their surroundings"? I figured that was pretty obvious anyway, seeing as people are able to train themselves to react to things without relying on any of their senses. Go see a martial arts master.

The beaten path takes you no place you have not already been. Try some new ideas, you might find them exciting.

The beaten path is beaten for a reason, friend. You could forge your own trail, sure, but the path between two points is still a straight line.

[Cavernio]

Re: Neural networks and computer simulation

"I figured that was pretty obvious anyway, seeing as people are able to train themselves to react to things without relying on any of their senses. Go see a martial arts master."

Right. Take out your sense of smell, sight, sound, taste and proprioception, and tell me you can react to things.

[Laharl]

Re: Neural networks and computer simulation

Well, you know what I meant. I think. It's possible to not rely on one's senses. I don't mean that in the sense that someone who is incapable of any sensory activity whatsoever. I mean more along the lines that it's possible to train yourself to, for example, tell if someone is taking a punch at you that you either can't see or hear coming at them. They can just sort of TELL that it's going on.

Am I making sense? Do you know what I mean now?

[Cavernio]

Re: Neural networks and computer simulation

heehee, I knew what you meant before, I'm just being a ****disturber :-p.

I think the term you were looking for is concious. "...without being concious of their senses."
I almost put in cognizant instead of concious, but cognition includes all the unconcious stuff.

Is sentience the same as conciousness? Can one be sentient without being concious, or concious without being sentient?

[Laharl]

Re: Neural networks and computer simulation

Well, yeah, I imagine you can because you are still sentient without being awake. I believe creatures we consider to have a lack of anything other than hunter-gathering mentalities are still sentient, like ants or something. Don't we? I really don't know now that I pose the question.

[Cavernio]

Re: Neural networks and computer simulation

I think it's sorta the tree falling in the woods thing. If we're sentient as we sleep, but we're never concious about it, does it matter that that existence is? I've always separated these 2 things myself, but I dunno anymore.

If one feels without knowing that one feels, do they actually feel? Can you have something know, but not feel?

Conciousness (as everything in this universe) is something which exists in time. Is sentience just a pinpoint's drop of time of conciousness, unconnected to the following drop of time?