Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

You sound like you're implying, again, that the observer is an entity that exist externally to the body. It doesn't "appear" or "materialize" or "flock to" when the brain is created, but is by definition the brain itself. No mental process structure = no observer at all! The concept of observer translated to artificial intelligence is the ability to acquire, process and react to external stimuli. There you have an observer.

The concept of observer is "space where qualia occur". So we are still not talking about the same thing. Search for qualia at the wikipedia. Something that reacts to stimuli does not necessarily has "first person experience".

I wonder who gave a bad rating to all these threads...

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

If this is your argument, then we should stop debating.

I am not "stagnated" with such a thought because such a thought is substantiated with evidence. Saying "you don't need to imagine nothing to conclude it doesn't make sense" is nonsense. By your logic, you could say "you don't need to imagine a coma to conclude it doesn't make sense" even though, for many, including myself, such a duration is devoid of any experience or observation. And yet, it still happens in reality.

What I meant is that, in the process of imagination, there are several thoughts that occur and can be useful, even if you don't actually imagine the thing itself. It's just thinking, it's complex and involves too many things.

And you're wrong when you say that this isn't important, because you are not allowing yourself to think outside the box: when you make affirmations such as "if it's gradual, then I choose gradually", you are treating everything as a directly syntatical problem, as if it were that simple. Affirmations like "nothing feels like nothing", "the space is created" and "the observer becomes the other" lack any semantic value. They are just meaningless affirmations based on previous assumptions. And semantic is extremely important in this subject.

If you think about it for a minute or two, you will quickly notice that a "gradual" change or apparition of an observer makes absolutely no sense. Because there is no semantic value in a gradual apparition. Either it exists, or it doesn't. One thing or the other. It's a simple and accurate conclusion that can be reached entirely by thinking. Such conclusions do exist and they are important.

The same thought can be applied for the creation of a space. It's important to look for a semantic representation of those things, especially for things like the observer. Observer, as the name implies, is the first person. It cannot be treated like a simple object. That's why the whole concept of observer exists, in the first place. That's why qualia are important, too.



I don't have trouble dealing with logic and objective thinking, honestly. But I do recognize that there are certain limitations in the objective approach. I know that it's difficult for a person like you to accept this, but that's what I have learned.



If you think that subjective experiences are worthless, no matter what they are, then I'm just sorry. If there is an error in your point of view, you will hardly be able to see it if you never try to think semantically. Because there will always be situations like this, that seem to be obviously and perfectly explained by your argument, but just because you don't care about semantics. It's like living in a perfect world that exists only in the paper, theoretically.

If we could create artificial intelligence that interacted with stimuli (e.g. making a sentient android), we'd still say it's an observer because it's able to observe and process just like a human could. It may experience "reality" in a different way than a "human" would but only to the extent that the biological hardware on our end and the mechanical hardware on their end differ.

The fact that the brain IS processing thought and able to interpret input from sensory areas is what makes that brain a sentient observer with a perspective. This IS the physical argument, and this is what we have proof for. If you're going to conjecture anything else, it's purely invoking magical thinking.

Again, saying that it's an observer for sure, just because it detects things and reacts, lacks semantic value. We can create machines that detect and react to the environment. But processing detected information is not the same as having first person experience. A robot does not necessarily have subjective experience. Do you remember the definition of observer, in this topic? "Space where qualia occur".

I don't understand where is the trouble in imagining this. Subjective experience means qualia, and there is nothing that indicates that a robot has qualia. It can have, maybe. But this cannot be proven. If a robot starts having true first person experience, then no one else will know it, only the robot.

I know what I'm talking about. If we ever create qualia, we will never know
for sure.

If the physical arguments say that these things are observers, for sure, then I'm afraid this is just a belief. There is no evidence of any kind regarding qualia in external objects. Qualia are always subjective.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

By the way, please address this part if you'd be so kind. In all of these instances we can describe their status as an observer with real-life evidence. Again, why postulate a soul argument to it all? What about the anencephalactic baby? Would you say it has a soul? If not, then you assume the neocortex is the "soul"? If so, why call it a soul at all? If you think such a baby does have a soul, then would you say a robot has a soul? What about a rock?

What the hell do you want me to answer?
No, it's NOT proven that these babies are observers. I already explained this in the last reply.
Maybe the anencephalactic one has a soul, but it's a maybe. That's all I can say about it. Maybe the entities that control the souls know that the baby is anencephalactic and will not allow any soul to enter it.

Why do you ask such questions if the answers will always be maybes, and you can't take maybes?

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Because there are so many "maybes" we could choose from -- I am trying to get at why you choose to believe in a "maybe" as opposed to an evidence-oriented pathway. Is it for emotional appeasement? Hope? Psychologically satisfactory? I'm just wondering what the impetus is because I honestly don't know why people believe in "maybes." I could believe in so many arbitrary things that require mammoth explanations to remain consistent with what we know -- I just don't understand why one would do so when we have evidence to contradict an otherwise unlikely/unwieldy theory.

What do you define as an observer, then?

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

The concept of observer is "space where qualia occur". So we are still not talking about the same thing. Search for qualia at the wikipedia. Something that reacts to stimuli does not necessarily has "first person experience".

I wonder who gave a bad rating to all these threads...

Maybe it is this concept of qualia you are confusing.

If you can agree that a computer does not have a soul, read on:

Look at your computer screen. This is a sort of "qualia" to your computer, is it not? What you see on your screen is visual information that is also being processed and stored in your computer hardware. The "space" where qualia occurs for a human is the result of a variety of factors. You have all your sensory inputs and then all sorts of higher-level consciousness processing going on. Your "consciousness" is an amazing thing, but it is still physical in nature. The difference is that a computer operates on metallic-based hardware, electrically-engineered logic gates, and software-level code execution. The human form is quite similar except we're more of a biochemical machine that has developed its higher level processing through evolution (i.e. the neocortex -- neo here meaning "new." We didn't always have such a large brain).

My point is that I think you are looking at this concept of "qualia" and assuming that your "soul" is a "qualia center" for which you access your sensory inputs, but the truth is that this is the result of conscious processing. The reason why we say "I see red, but how can I describe to you what *I* see as red?" is because as humans, our data-sensing process is localized. Our own brains give us our own interpretation of what it is we see, and we see what we do based on the structure of our brain and HOW it interprets outside data. This is of course different from computers which can share their data in all sorts of ways and allow for external processing (human use) and a standardized way of determining the makeup of a color (hex codes, alpha levels, etc).

Consider: What IS a first-person experience? If we had no processing and merely reacted to stimuli, then we'd be sort of "automatic robots" with no algorithm to process what goes on. It would be like a human not processing the eyes -- like a webcam looking at a picture but not doing anything with the data. There is sound, sight, touch, etc, but no processing. Would you still say there is no "first person perspective"? We say "first person" because we, as humans, define our experience as "first person" through the notion of that inner processing. We're able to make sense of and interpret our memories, thoughts, sensory input, etc. All of these functions together give us a "first person perspective" relative to a human form, but who's to say that a first-person experience doesn't also exist for something else that is able to take in data, interpret, and make decisions based off that data?

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

What I meant is that, in the process of imagination, there are several thoughts that occur and can be useful, even if you don't actually imagine the thing itself. It's just thinking, it's complex and involves too many things.

And you're wrong when you say that this isn't important, because you are not allowing yourself to think outside the box: when you make affirmations such as "if it's gradual, then I choose gradually", you are treating everything as a directly syntatical problem, as if it were that simple. Affirmations like "nothing feels like nothing", "the space is created" and "the observer becomes the other" lack any semantic value. They are just meaningless affirmations based on previous assumptions. And semantic is extremely important in this subject.

If you think about it for a minute or two, you will quickly notice that a "gradual" change or apparition of an observer makes absolutely no sense. Because there is no semantic value in a gradual apparition. Either it exists, or it doesn't. One thing or the other. It's a simple and accurate conclusion that can be reached entirely by thinking. Such conclusions do exist and they are important.

The same thought can be applied for the creation of a space. It's important to look for a semantic representation of those things, especially for things like the observer. Observer, as the name implies, is the first person. It cannot be treated like a simple object. That's why the whole concept of observer exists, in the first place. That's why qualia are important, too.



I don't have trouble dealing with logic and objective thinking, honestly. But I do recognize that there are certain limitations in the objective approach. I know that it's difficult for a person like you to accept this, but that's what I have learned.



If you think that subjective experiences are worthless, no matter what they are, then I'm just sorry. If there is an error in your point of view, you will hardly be able to see it if you never try to think semantically. Because there will always be situations like this, that seem to be obviously and perfectly explained by your argument, but just because you don't care about semantics. It's like living in a perfect world that exists only in the paper, theoretically.





Again, saying that it's an observer for sure, just because it detects things and reacts, lacks semantic value. We can create machines that detect and react to the environment. But processing detected information is not the same as having first person experience. A robot does not necessarily have subjective experience. Do you remember the definition of observer, in this topic? "Space where qualia occur".

I don't understand where is the trouble in imagining this. Subjective experience means qualia, and there is nothing that indicates that a robot has qualia. It can have, maybe. But this cannot be proven. If a robot starts having true first person experience, then no one else will know it, only the robot.

I know what I'm talking about. If we ever create qualia, we will never know
for sure.

If the physical arguments say that these things are observers, for sure, then I'm afraid this is just a belief. There is no evidence of any kind regarding qualia in external objects. Qualia are always subjective.

1. Yes, I can say "nothing feels like nothing" because we have evidence for it. If we remove a part of the brain, we no longer possess that function. I recall no experience prior to my birth and had no perspective or history. To me, my sense of time began the moment I was formed. I can say that I "feel" things I either feel through my stimulus/sensory inputs, my emotions, my thoughts, etc, which all occur in the brain. We can show how damage to various areas affect how we feel and think. There is no reason for us to believe that we still possess some form of a function once it either doesn't work or doesn't exist. Since the brain's functions involve both sensory inputs and processing, I can say that when all of those things are gone, there will be nothing for me to feel. This is also consistent with cases where, when people are in comas or vegetative states, there's not a whole lot of internal processing going on necessarily. When people come to, it can feel instant for them. During the interim, they felt nothing. The only reason they "feel" now is because their processing returned and allowed them to make sense of the continuity relative to what they may or may not have experienced. There is evidence, therefore to suggest what "nothing" will feel like -- nothing.

These concepts don't "lack value" because of their brevity, but are rather valuable because they're consistent and accurate with what we know. If I apply a certain stimulus to a part of your brain gradually, you will gradually lose your sight because I am applying the stimulus gradually, which affects the area's processing gradually. If I knock it out instantly, you lose it instantly. Therefore it's pretty intuitive and obvious to say that if something is changing gradually, we feel the state of whatever our brain is at the moment. What we feel and think IS what the current state of the brain is in, and therefore a gradual change -> gradual experience.

2. Again, you're assuming too much about "first person perspective" -- you need to realize what qualia IS on a hardware level and that it is something our brains do interpret.

3. The way I am approaching this problem IS through logic and evidence, and you can't say that you are too when you're making these kinds of arguments. You're ignoring certain components of physical evidence and overlaying philosophical concepts that are shaky. You have to ask yourself what it means, on a physical level, to be an observer. You have to consider what "qualia" actually is. Yes, being able to "imagine" things can help, but just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it isn't possible.

If you're against drugs/plants, do not read this paragraph. I am by no means a druggie, but I have tried salvia (a legal plant) with some friends. It's perfectly safe, but it totally shows you what it really means to have a different interpretation of reality. Your sensory inputs and processing go nuts. The things I saw, felt, and thought, were unlike anything I had ever experienced before. At one point, I felt like a raft and felt myself flowing through water, attached by ropes. Seriously. If I tried to imagine, right now, what that felt like, I just couldn't really do it. It's a feeling that you can only really feel when you're having it. It is amazing what the brain can do -- it's not something you can easily "imagine" necessarily. My point is that the brain is what it is, and sometimes the ability to imagine other types of sensory inputs is limited. However, it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Either way, a subjective experience is still objectively interpreted by the brain's form. We could say one computer's "experience" is "subjective," but we know it's not because we can examine how the computer processes data in every possible way. We just can't do this with a human brain yet (e.g. just access the data/memories like a hard drive).

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Because there are so many "maybes" we could choose from -- I am trying to get at why you choose to believe in a "maybe" as opposed to an evidence-oriented pathway. Is it for emotional appeasement? Hope? Psychologically satisfactory? I'm just wondering what the impetus is because I honestly don't know why people believe in "maybes." I could believe in so many arbitrary things that require mammoth explanations to remain consistent with what we know -- I just don't understand why one would do so when we have evidence to contradict an otherwise unlikely/unwieldy theory.

I've been trying to show, the whole thread, why I believe in what I do.

What do you define as an observer, then?

Well... The quote on your reply after this one includes this definition.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Maybe it is this concept of qualia you are confusing.

If you can agree that a computer does not have a soul, read on:

Look at your computer screen. This is a sort of "qualia" to your computer, is it not? What you see on your screen is visual information that is also being processed and stored in your computer hardware. The "space" where qualia occurs for a human is the result of a variety of factors. You have all your sensory inputs and then all sorts of higher-level consciousness processing going on. Your "consciousness" is an amazing thing, but it is still physical in nature. The difference is that a computer operates on metallic-based hardware, electrically-engineered logic gates, and software-level code execution. The human form is quite similar except we're more of a biochemical machine that has developed its higher level processing through evolution (i.e. the neocortex -- neo here meaning "new." We didn't always have such a large brain).

No, Rubix, the screen is not a sort of quale for the computer. If you believe something like that, I'm afraid you're the one misinterpreting the qualia concept.

The computer does not have an *I* that *feels* the things it's processing. It's an object. It doesn't have first person perspective.

Things are not qualia before they reach the observer, they are just data. The eye, an object, detects frequencies of eletromagnetic waves, also objects, and then send the information of the frequencies and intensity to the brain... You know the drill. The point is that there is no "image" on the universe itself. The "image" doesn't enter the eye and go directly to a part of the brain. The image exists only in the brain.

Close your eyes, for a few seconds, and imagine an apple. For the whole universe, this image of an "apple" that you see simply doesn't exist. An image does not "see" itself without an observer. An image exists only as qualia for someone.

My point is that I think you are looking at this concept of "qualia" and assuming that your "soul" is a "qualia center" for which you access your sensory inputs, but the truth is that this is the result of conscious processing. The reason why we say "I see red, but how can I describe to you what *I* see as red?" is because as humans, our data-sensing process is localized. Our own brains give us our own interpretation of what it is we see, and we see what we do based on the structure of our brain and HOW it interprets outside data. This is of course different from computers which can share their data in all sorts of ways and allow for external processing (human use) and a standardized way of determining the makeup of a color (hex codes, alpha levels, etc).

Qualia is so much more complex than that.

It's not mere "interpretation". There wouldn't be such a fuss regarding qualia if it were that simple. In this point, you're not making assumptions based on evidences, because there cannot be any sort of external proof for qualia.


You cannot treat qualia as an external object because qualia exists ONLY for you.

The computer processes numbers and determine which pixels it will lit up in the screen, but there's no feeling in this process. Computers don't feel the data.

The processing a computer does is just a matter of complexity. It's just multiplying several natural physical reactions to make a circuit. This is not the same as feeling.

You can say that this is the "same thing" that happens in a brain. But it's a superficial affirmation, it's based entirely on what one person sees when it looks at another brain other than it's own. You don't see qualia in another brain. You are completely ignore the existence of qualia. It's just ignoring everything that is not external, objective. Saying it doesn't matter.

Consider: What IS a first-person experience? If we had no processing and merely reacted to stimuli, then we'd be sort of "automatic robots" with no algorithm to process what goes on. It would be like a human not processing the eyes -- like a webcam looking at a picture but not doing anything with the data. There is sound, sight, touch, etc, but no processing. Would you still say there is no "first person perspective"? We say "first person" because we, as humans, define our experience as "first person" through the notion of that inner processing. We're able to make sense of and interpret our memories, thoughts, sensory input, etc. All of these functions together give us a "first person perspective" relative to a human form, but who's to say that a first-person experience doesn't also exist for something else that is able to take in data, interpret, and make decisions based off that data?

Because qualia and processing are not the same thing.

A computer or a robot can process data through logical values. It is not the same as the computer being an observer that feels the data.



I've said this before: I can create a robot that reacts to physical damage. It can process the information and react accordingly. I can even call it "pain". But it doesn't mean it feels "pain".



My point is: If there's no qualia, then there's no observer. This is based on the definition of observer.


For heaven's sake, MrRubix, you're just WRONG in this aspect. You are oversimplifying the concept of qualia, and you are doing so without any evidence regarding qualia itself! You don't understand what qualia is. You deny the true concept because that's what your physical argument tells you to do, but the physical argument doesn't explain qualia. The physical argument knows nothing about qualia, because the physical argument was based entirely on external experimentation. It doesn't care about subjective things like qualia, and THAT is why it's incomplete.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

1. Yes, I can say "nothing feels like nothing" because we have evidence for it. If we remove a part of the brain, we no longer possess that function. I recall no experience prior to my birth and had no perspective or history. To me, my sense of time began the moment I was formed. I can say that I "feel" things I either feel through my stimulus/sensory inputs, my emotions, my thoughts, etc, which all occur in the brain. We can show how damage to various areas affect how we feel and think. There is no reason for us to believe that we still possess some form of a function once it either doesn't work or doesn't exist. Since the brain's functions involve both sensory inputs and processing, I can say that when all of those things are gone, there will be nothing for me to feel. This is also consistent with cases where, when people are in comas or vegetative states, there's not a whole lot of internal processing going on necessarily. When people come to, it can feel instant for them. During the interim, they felt nothing. The only reason they "feel" now is because their processing returned and allowed them to make sense of the continuity relative to what they may or may not have experienced. There is evidence, therefore to suggest what "nothing" will feel like -- nothing.

These concepts don't "lack value" because of their brevity, but are rather valuable because they're consistent and accurate with what we know. If I apply a certain stimulus to a part of your brain gradually, you will gradually lose your sight because I am applying the stimulus gradually, which affects the area's processing gradually. If I knock it out instantly, you lose it instantly. Therefore it's pretty intuitive and obvious to say that if something is changing gradually, we feel the state of whatever our brain is at the moment. What we feel and think IS what the current state of the brain is in, and therefore a gradual change -> gradual experience.

I didn't say "gradually losing a function of your brain". I was talking about an observer "gradually appearing". In this case, this is just absurd. There cannot be a gradually appearing observer because when an observer exists, it EXISTS. It doesn't mater if the feelings are weak or incomplete: there's space for the feelings, therefore, there's a full observer.

2. Again, you're assuming too much about "first person perspective" -- you need to realize what qualia IS on a hardware level and that it is something our brains do interpret.

But qualia is NOTHING on hardware level. Qualia exists ONLY as a subjective experience. This comes from the definition of qualia itself.

3. The way I am approaching this problem IS through logic and evidence, and you can't say that you are too when you're making these kinds of arguments. You're ignoring certain components of physical evidence and overlaying philosophical concepts that are shaky. You have to ask yourself what it means, on a physical level, to be an observer. You have to consider what "qualia" actually is. Yes, being able to "imagine" things can help, but just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Read that answer again. The whole point of that reply was to consider the importance of subjective thinking.

Then, it looks like you just deny subjective thinking by saying that the subjective approach is not an objective approach, which is redundant.


I am not ignoring physical evidences. I am saying that the physical approach has limitations, because certain things exist only subjectively.



Do you admit that there are things that exist only subjectively, and, therefore, can only be treated subjectively?

No, of course you don't. I am sorry, but you've blocked your mind.

The whole existence, for you, is subjective. EVERYTHING. The very central pillar of your whole belief is that everything can be treated objectively. But the truth is: subjective comes before objective. I don't want to mention solipsism again. But you can't just ignore the importance of the subjective experience. Subjective experience is important because it's free, it's not limited by dogmas, assumptions or anything else.





I don't want to annoy you, but this is extremely frustrating. I am sorry, but you need to try to think outside the system that determines your belief, at least once in your life.

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

subjectivity is what creates errors.

"Subjectivity refers to a person's perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unsubstantiated personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs"

subjectivity means analisys of the world using only part of the data, which is the data in your possess (and consequantially the data that define your personality), therefore leading to fallacities. it's unavoidable. subjective approach to any matter means non-univoc answer. in other words, it's useless to argue about any kind of subjective position, even worse trying to use it as a mean to understand and interpret reality when there is objective evidence already. some of your objections may have made some sense but this is ridiculous. how are you going to make everyone else understand and follow your SUBJECTIVE position when everyone has their own, and they're all equally valuable* ?

*equally valuable between subjective positions, but meaningless when compared to actual facts and postulation over actual facts.

i'm sorry but what you just said automatically trashes every ounce of your point.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Yes, I can't show someone else my subjective position.

That's why I said it is frustrating.

I tried to make this as objective as possible, with the thought experiments, but, in the end, they cannot be conclusive unless we try to find a semantic value for some of the conclusions, and that cannot be done only with objective approach.

One observer "becoming" the other still doesn't make sense for me, but only if subjective approach is considered.


My point is that certain things exist only subjectively, therefore, objective approach has limitations. Subjective approach is not necessarily wrong, and, sometimes, it's the only option.


But if you think it's a waste of time, if you think that nothing useful can come from subjective approach, then never mind.

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

instead of closing completely to what i'm trying to say, you should actually think through it and keep discussing till we reach an univoc answer. in any discussion you (and i, of course) should be open to admit the fact of being wrong and adjust our knowledges and opinions due to the new data in possess. if you are going to be like "hey i don't want to adimt i'm wrong even if blatant evidence is against my point i will just keep thinking what i think" then you shouldn't be posting in critical thinking at all. you say that there are things which cannot be treaded objectively. can you please elaborate this? also, what makes something impossible to be treated objectively? what's the difference between something that can be treated objectively and something that can not?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Just look at the previous replies.

Qualia cannot be treated objectively, because it is, by definition, a completely subjective thing itself. The other things regarding the observer require a subjective approach to see if they actually make sense.

The thought experiments led to affirmations that, according to materialists, are perfectly acceptable. But, when I think about them, they cannot make sense. But that's the problem, it's a subjective thing.

If people simply deny every form of subjective approach, then certain things will never be discovered, because things like qualia exist only subjectively.

Subjective approach is limited, but so is objective approach.


I know this feels ridiculous to most people in this forum, but all I'm trying to do is seek alternative methods, when the most accepted method doesn't work.

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

things require an observer only to be interpreted, but they exist by themselves. the way you interpret anything is of course subjective, because it uses the structures that compose the mind and that are never going to be exactly the same as those of another person, but it also means that no interpretation is exact, because the interpretations may vary. if you use other means beside observation by your incomplete organs to support your theory, then you'll be more likely to get the exact result.

i still don't see how this applies to the discussion we're having.

[Iam90]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

stupid default linear - newest first post layout confused me and I realize that my post was a little off the current train of thought. I'll edit this later