dimreepr

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

It does not only fire or not,

Yes it does...

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

but apparently does much more; like share chemical information vesicles with other cells or use electromagnetism to communicate.

That's the wiring, or do you think a neuron can see electromagnetism?

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

We are still discovering how neurons work and it appears to be more complex then anticipated. For example, neurons found to use many types of vesicles to communicate with other cells, not at the synapse. As for neurons being transistors, they appear to be much more than this.

The complexity is the wiring not the neuron, it either fires or it doesnt as does a transistor.

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Also, I am unconvinced at this moment that AI or robots will one day be conscious. If it was the case, would we, like in lower life-forms that preceded us, have already begun to see inklings of consciousness in our machines?

We don't even know if our dog's are conscious and they are basically the same way as us; AI is but a child, we can't possibly know what it will grow up to be...

34 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Yep, really, the transducer model of the brain is one of many out there trying to replace the brain as a processor model, which is definitely not making grounds anymore. And, what about this one by Robert Epstein and the Empty Brain model, which is much more-timid than the transducer model in its' contention, but still steering away from the processor model. Taken from a thread in Science Forums. Having to take the environment (life history, social context) into the mind context; again, shy in its' contention, but getting there.

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

A neuron still works very much like a transistor, that doesn't mean the brain is a computer, but it does mean the brain is copyable given enough transistor's wired in the right order.

You should read this (or whatch the film):

Quote

Do robots dream of electric sheep is a question posed by the title of a 1968 novel by Philip K. Dick, which was later adapted into the film Blade Runner. The question challenges the conventional view of robots as emotionless and rational machines, and explores the possibility of robots having consciousness, feelings, and dreams. The question also reflects the impact of robots on human society and culture, and how humans relate to their artificial counterparts.

What would an NDE look like for a computer?

10 hours ago, naitche said:

You are not adding to the structure of our Objective here.

Perhaps you can provide a more concise explanation of what you are trying to say, bc what I'm getting from you is that it's subjective, which I'm pretty sure was covered on page one, what I'm not seeing is the objective part of your position.

As for an example of what I mean; I don't like celery, even though it's objectively edible and that many people say it's delicious. 

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

What you can see/observe is change, but this allows you to define a time dimension.

No, it only allows you to measure it against a known change, but unlike like the weight of a kilo it doesn't vary with its position in space; IOW it's not a dimension itself, it's part of the description.

9 hours ago, naitche said:

Example?

Of what?

10 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

Although biased polls might possibly influence the vote of some of those who aren't too bright.

The thing about bias is, intelligence has little to do with it... 

So, the more voters, the less we have to rely on what's considered "the light at the end of the tunnel".

And consider which way the light is pointing... 😇

10 hours ago, naitche said:

The root remains the same, the different words used direct context, rather than alter the root.

What ever value used, it is subjective of the purpose/objective it serves. It contributes value, in relation to that. Seems to me our understanding of the Objective and its subjective are at fault.

 

I see the Objective as being negative for value. An existence, subtracted from  relationship in its definition.  Reduced to a singular definition, or statehood. A subtraction of existence to a marginalized/defined state of being, apart from all 'other' values or relation to existence. 

Its constituent property, likewise subtracted from all other value is its subjective. Any value to the Objective is given, by its constituent property. That serves and directs the defined Objective by its inherent relationship. In context. Those constituent values must be given, or assumed, for realization. 

What is realized is dependent on the constitutional values expressed by 

5 is  5 of nothing, without the units to its measure. A rock is not a rock, without the minerals that contribute to its definition. They direct the definition through their values/properties  of hardness, cohesion, mass etc.

They in-form the state. What is realized is dependent on the constituent values expressed in The Objective properties.

There is no scale of meaning. The scale is of Objective and subjective.

Yes, you can put value into the Objective. Where it serves a further Objective, and becomes subject to that one. Such as building road works for humanity. Objective is to statehood, or structure.

The value is not actually  in the roads built, but in how those roads serve the Human objective.

I don't see a scale of meaning. Value is always subjective, the Objective neutral or negative for value.

If not in subjective service to Humanity, the building of roads has negative value. If we were to say our value lies in the objective of building roads,  it would be inhuman to do otherwise. A double negative when the value is put into the Objective. No recognition of environment/reality. 

We see this demonstrated in the formation of the Kennel clubs over 150 years ago. They formed with the  Objective of improving dogs and their breeding through the use of Pedigrees. A tool to maximize successful dogs through recording what is being built on.

Their mistake was in putting all the value into the Pedigree, and not the dogs their Objective represented or served. The statement that Dogs bred outside of their own rules and regulations are not recognized has been widely understood as conditional to their constituency. 

Form follows function is a prominent tenet of Dog breeders and breeders of other animals. Yet the system formed by the Kennel clubs 150 or more years ago, supposedly to maximize the success of Domestic Dogs in their given environments, places the value in state, or form,  above any function served. The double negative. There is no recognition of environment or subjectivity in that equation. As an objective body, they serve no purpose beyond preserving 'states' of dogs. An entropic biological system where nothing not already there, can contribute, and what does not contribute or fails to, is subtracted.

The environment, or existence of Dog Breeders is not recognized by this system whos constituency openly and actively  discredit their environment, (or the foundations of Dog breeding) through  a 'faith'  value in the Pedigree Objective. Dogs bred for subjective value to the environments or people they serve are not recognized with out a Pedigree to verify the validity of their state. Quite literally. Domestic Dogs natural environment is Humanity. Back yard breeders is a term used to discredit and remove environmental  value/favor for those breeding dogs  outside of the pedigree system, or deny validity of members within it.

"Standards' of the pedigree system are upheld at the expense of the environment/existence they were to serve.

 

The double negative sets up oppositional processes to the objective. It objects, to  values negative to its own state as being where any value must lie.

This appears to be reflected in other areas where double negatives, or value to the objective applies.

It is reductive of the Objective existence. Removing property.

Subjectivity, diversity and response ability.

The objective is to State, Subjective to direction.

Direction (or value)to the state is an entropic state, as in genetic selection.

The Objective 'Objects' to anything less than its  definition.

Value imposes  relationships contrary or oppositional The Objective.

 

 

The scarey bit is the word 'our', bc it doesn't work for everyone... 😇

22 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

Simple, you produce a definition of "sexy thought" through calculus,

and you measure the output of the neurons of the albatross,

and look for CNS patterns that produce such thoughts.

You keep prefixing your posts with the word simple, as if you are capable of doing what you suggest, and that it's only a matter of time before we can understand exactly why Tracey is a sexy bird, despite not getting the horn ourselves...

I don't even understand why I had a crush on Tracey human at school, she's propper ugly now...

22 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

This thread is more about the hard problem of consciousness,

such as how qualia forms, how scientists conclude that information has mass, and that complex configurations of mass produce consciousness. Integration theory of consciousness is part of neuroscience that was produced to figure out how complex mass has to exist as to form qualias and true consciousness.

But if you want to go for the smallest barrier,

the greatest so-called "AIs" such as ChatGPT 4.0 obviously are not conscious, as they can not handle food purchases,

whereas the artificial neural networks this thread describes would count as conscious,

whether based on albatross or human CNS,

as both would have the motor skills to walk to a store and perform purchases,

and various forms of intelligences to figure out which food is good for us.

OK, let's do that.

Do you think a dog/albatross has consciousness?

Some of their behaviours are hard wired into the unconscious, so we can't point to them as evidence.

I think ChatGPT would have a very good chance of persuading us that it's a dog/albatross, and in ten years time I dare say also a human, convincingly; at which point, we can no longer say "that machine is not conscious", we will never know bc we are not a machine; the machine will know that it is, but can only guess if we are... 😉 

19 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

I am asking here and now for immediate recognition from the physicalists for this non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside! That there exists at least one non-physical domain, or 'space' or 'dimension' that each of us personally witnesses, but cannot observe in others or the other physical objects,

So what?

1 hour ago, cryptocracy said:

What can you say about this subject? 

This is an assumption, but what could be the impact on the world?

This is two different questions, bc nothing happens in a vacuum (ironically).

17 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

Simple, attach thousands of electrodes to an albatross's neurons.

Show the albatross images (or another reproducible stimulus,) and look at responses of the albatross's neurons.

From your link:

Quote

Even the simplest behaviors depend on a large number of neurons that are distributed across many brain regions. Because electrical microstimulation can change the activity of localized subsets of neurons, it has provided valuable evidence that specific neurons contribute to particular behaviors.

Imagine if you could talk to an albatross directly?

Would that mean you understand what is so sexy about Tracey Albatross?

Even a quantum leap in the number of electrodes per neuron, 1-1, IOW, this is the neuron that went "phoar"; wouldn't explain why it thought a sexy thought.

17 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

How could you figure out if a human is conscious?

Well, I know I am bc I just had to walk to the shop to buy what I need to eat and drink today, I can reasonably assume the human shaped entities I saw doing the same, were as conscious as me; IOW I understand what it feels like to be a human bc their neurons fire in a similar way to me.

From your thread:

Quote

Consciousness poses two main problems. The first is understanding the conditions that determine to what extent a system has conscious experience. For instance, why is our consciousness generated by certain parts of our brain, such as the thalamocortical system, and not by other parts, such as the cerebellum? And why are we conscious during wakefulness and much less so during dreamless sleep? The second problem is understanding the conditions that determine what kind of consciousness a system has. For example, why do specific parts of the brain contribute specific qualities to our conscious experience, such as vision and audition?

Perhaps, when we understand our own consciousness, we'll have a chance to understand what it feels like to be an albatross; only then could we have a guess at if a machine is conscious.

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The megarich expect to survive it and stick around and ride out the worst of it in luxury bunkers.

I dare say they'll  expect it, till the day they can't, then luxury takes on a whole new meaning...

19 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe not quite as readily demonstrably incorrect, but cutting taxes, especially when they are excessive, can lead to growth. The key is to do it in a way that hurts people the least, and leads to the type of growth you want in the areas you want.

But they aren't excessive, especially now, after decades of the same mantra; it has become a cliché, because people want to believe that any extra cash in our pockets will help us, in some way; growth is not just a math/cash problem.

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Nothing we do now can possibly solve the problem. It could have been solved c. 40 years ago, given the international will.

Of course, there was nothing international, except talk and more talk, between people who flew to various places in jet planes. Of course, no resolution resulted and no meaningful action was taken.

Now, it's simply too late: we're screwed.

Governments can't be expected to admit that.

Of course not, they think they can survive it, for a number of reason's but mostly, bc they won't be around to see it; politics 101, don't be around when the miden hits the windmill...😇

11 hours ago, Sensei said:

The idea that you can solve a problem with taxes or duties is quite naive..

The idea that taxes can't solve a problem is demonstrably stupid, who payed NASA to go to the moon; and what was cut that stopped regular visit's?

When are we (by which I mean people like you) going to realise that cutting taxes to promote growth is beyond naive, it's fucking insane; it's like the funnel of acceptance, that's taught to salespeople/banker's, "the magical cornucopia of plenty, where money is edible..."

On 2/28/2024 at 12:04 AM, StringJunky said:

I get the joke, but I can't help but think that even geoff norcott would say "hang on a sec, what fire??? They not in the building yet...". 

23 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

This could be an interesting discussion on its own but if you believe modern cosmologists, there is a point where the universe (possibly the majority of it) is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. It seems to me, that would explain why the entire sky isn't bright and does little to show whether the universe is infinite or not.

Indeed, since it's not even a tangent of the topic at hand.

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

This was what de Toqueville and John Stuart Mill were warning about when they spoke of "the tyranny of the majority."  They saw an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions.  The minority needs a voice and to participate in policy making.  

Indeed, hubris seeds it's own demise, Trump is just a symptom of a deep seated disease.

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

This seems to go to the core of the current problems.  Populism is predicated on the notion that leadership matters.  Democracy, on the notion that facts, laws and principles matter.  The allure of populism is the notion that a great leader will determine what is true, relieving people of the burdens of ambiguity and clashing ideas.  Democracy requires fact acquisition in a public space where truths are larger than any one person, no matter how "great" they are. 

The real hubris of America (among others), is thinking that some people don't deserve a vote; I think populism would work fine if the populous all had a say.

All democracy requires to reveal the truth of society, is everyones voice, not just those of us that think/assume we know better.

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I know there are decent people in the US, I talk to you guys everyday, but one has to look at the sum total of effects of your political establishment on the world... wankers included.  I'm looking more at the forest that is each country rather than the individual trees within each forest.

Ultimately, it's Walt Disney's fault, for making us cry when Bambi's mum was killed; he greated the algorithm.

That ignores the nuances of life, in favour of a cute picture.

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

LoL.  And generally you don't get your own special gourmet chef in prison.   Though one does hear of powerful mobsters back in the day who managed to accrue a lot of perks while imprisoned.

Any convictions will come well after the convention, given the pace of such proceedings, so a jailbird Trump scenario would have no effect on primaries.  If the polls @iNow cites are accurate as to likely voters in the general election, then it will be a second Biden term thanks to Independents and suburban gop moderates who are being repelled by TFG.  

Also a possibility that TFG, if convicted, would be sentenced to house arrest in light of his age and the security issues that prisons present. Not difficult to imagine comedy sketches featuring a White House with Trump strolling around in an electronic ankle bracelet.

I can only imagine that he got hard... Which seems unlikely... 

On 2/24/2024 at 7:21 PM, StringJunky said:

Pfft, he's no Navalny. People like that are as rare as rocking horse droppings.

Indeed, "cometh the hour cometh the man", all we got to ask ourselves, is this really the hour; or is it sometime next week? 

4 hours ago, Muhammad Owais Isaac said:

The universe is expanding and I assume that space time fabric density is decreasing in all the regions equally except the regions occupied by matter .

What makes you think space-time has a density?

Fabric is a poor word to choose, it only explains things on one level, thereafter it's a hindrance to understanding; imagination only work's to expand our understanding, when diving from the right platform...

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Cue Monty Python version of "All things Bright and Beautiful":

 

The Judean peoples front... Fuck that...

Just now, MSC said:

Who is they? Kind of get the feeling you're just here to troll.

I'm a 'they' to you bc we don't agree... 

Seems like a fatuous reason, given that we are both human, and I'm going to assume male...