Jump to content

cladking

Senior Members
  • Posts

    960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cladking

  1. On 8/3/2022 at 8:24 AM, MigL said:

    Since there are not, and probably never been, any aliens on Earth, are you suggesting we do the same, and leave ?

    Mebbe never been.

    My theory is the aliens have a machine that can extract intelligence from the human species and will leave when they suck up the last little bit.  

    On 8/3/2022 at 4:46 AM, Glancer said:

    There is something wrong with human philosophy that is allowing human civilization to slide into a dark place.  Whatever woo New Age crystals that you all don't like, it was taking us in the right direction. 

    I am suggesting that we, as the scientific community, stop and reassess whether or not our philosophies are helping us survive as a species?  Or letting us perish.

    We have lost sight of our humanity.  We have lost sight of why science works and what it is for.  We no longer hold leaders responsible.  "Science" is often not pursued for its own sake but rather for monetary purposes.   

    Aliens might be our only hope.  

  2. The meaning of life?  

     

    That's the easy one.  Mebbe Mother Nature just got tired of watching boulders turn into sand while an entire species could have  come and gone so She invented consciousness.   

     

    😎

  3. 10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    Do you need to know how a computer works at the hardware/software interface in order to use it? Why do we need to understand consciousness in order to do science? 

    You certainly need to know how a computer works to improve on it.

    Like all life all science is individual.  Individuals invent hypothesis and experiment and interpret results.  Individuals build models and then science changes one funeral at a time.  

    https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

    Without understanding consciousness the mechanisms of this interpretation are unknown.  The effects of interpretations on humans and other science are unknown.  

    Only individuals are conscious. 

  4. 4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    Can't see that. At all. Without thought, how would they find shelter, capture food, win mates, decide who was in charge at any given activity, teach their children not eat poisonous berries...?

    They did it the same way animals do it; without beliefs, thought, or abstractions.  It is modern human consciousness that is different.  Ancient humans "thought" just like other species and part of this mode of consciousness is to not experience 'thought" at all.   It is apparently our beliefs that give rise to "thought" which is a comparison of sensory input to our models and beliefs.   Without beliefs animals experience reality directly but can perceive only what they understand.  

    4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    As for machine consciousness will not be created; it will 'arise' from unconscious machines once they expand their limited vocabulary.

    I couldn't disagree more.  There is no reason given time that even an animal brain couldn't be modeled with transistors.   Of course such miniaturization may well be very far in the future.  But even before that I believe that actual machine intelligence can be created.   Whether or not it is conscious is a different question.  

    I seriously doubt that language can create awareness or intelligence.  

    5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    No dictionaries. Symbols would suggest both thinking and abstraction, which you say this universal, very early use of shared symbology does not represent.

    No.  You're oversimplifying.

    You assume they are symbols but I believe they are representations of human knowledge.   This suggests either language spread from a point and was universal or that the nature of human consciousness was such everyone ended up at the same conclusions or it was both.  

    Since there is no known contact between humans tens of thousands of years ago it implies some kind of shared consciousness or shared language or both.   The odds against the same symbols evolving on each continent are too high  to even bother to estimate.   

    5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    No, I just can't follow either the reasoning or the history you present.

    History is history and the fact is there are incredibly few words expressed in ancient writing, virtually no historical accounts, no abstractions, no words for belief or thought, no taxonomies, breaks Zipf's Law, and none of it makes sense after translation.  This refers to the oldest language(s) does not apply to newer writings.  There is a very strong implication that the authors could not possibly think like we do.  There is an implication that consciousness itself must be different.  Rather than saying he acted after he thought about it they said he acted the second moment after perception!!!!   This says almost categorically that they could not think like we do.  

  5. 9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    There was language, with words and syntax, but it was limited (highly limited?) What circumstance imposed that limitation?

    The language wasn't "limited" the vocabulary was.  There were only some few hundred words and several thousand nouns but with these words they could talk about anything they knew.  Just like computer language employs only eight words and operates everything they could live their lives with very few words each with a single meaning.  

    9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    And then somebody - who was unconscious at the time - somehow invented a new kind of language, and that new language caused consciousness to happen, so that after the vocabulary was unleashed, we could experience thought.

    No.  People who spoke this language were conscious but simply didn't experience thought.  They knew they were alive and individual but their brains operated like other life forms.  They were "human" only because they possesses complex language which allows the generational passing down of knowledge and in many ways defines what it means to be human.  

    Language, modern language, programs the brain and allows us to experience thought.  Ancient Language was the natural programming for the brain but did have shortcomings like the lack of taxonomies, abstractions, and symbolism which made inductive reasoning impossible.  

    9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    I go along with the second half... provisionally.

    At this time.  I'm not ruling out the God, magic, or the ability to create machine consciousness.  I'm merely saying that at this time to our knowledge all life is conscious and consciousness, no matter how it is experienced by the individual, is life.  

     

    9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    If everybody understands about thinking, you don't need to talk about thinking.

    It isn't only words about "thought" that don't exist in Ancient Language but all words related to "believe" and all abstractions.  There is no inductive reasoning and their words show they reasoned from the specific to the general.  It was apparently a totally different way to experience consciousness.

    10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    But that's beside the point, which is: the earliest languages, and even some quite recent ones, were not written down.

    There are the same "symbols" written in caves all over the world.   Obviously these must be somehow innate to man.  I believe that they are the product of deductive reasoning, they are what early man learned based on his consciousness.  They are the natural product of a natural language as experienced by people all over the planet.   

     

  6. 2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    Arose - what does that mean in biological terms?  Why? When? By what mechanism? In response to what stimulus?

    I believe all these questions and their answers are highly relevant but I might be the only one.  I'll have to be extremely circumspect.  Only those answers directly related to consciousness will be provided.  

    "Arose" is not a biological term here.  The parent language that was natural lent only its highly limited vocabulary to modern language that gives rise to our consciousness and experience of thought.  In essence modern languages are a pidgin form of natural human language which is now nearly totally lost.  

    7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    What?

    Consciousness is life and all life is conscious.  Language in other species arise from the way the brain is organized or wired.   This wiring forms in utero and follows logical rules and a mathematical unfolding.  For practical purposes in all other species language and consciousness are two sides of the same coin.   Each species has a unique set of knowledge and this knowledge is based on what is needed to survive and procreate.  Their worlds are perceived only in terms of this knowledge while ours are perceived in terms of what we have been taught.  

     

    13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    Birds and groundhogs make specific sounds to stand for things and events; they express possession, intention, warning, persuasion and call to arms - those are ideas - with symbolic utterances.

    No.  Words in other languages represent something and each word has a fixed meaning.  The direction of a bee's waggle dance can not be interpreted or parsed because it represents the direction of food.  Each bee must take the exact same meaning so abstractions and symbolism do not exist.  

    16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    Sez who? On what evidence?

    Ancient people apparently described a different way to "think" where words like "think" simply did not even exist.   It is an abstraction and there's no evidence any animal understands abstraction.  But to deny them consciousness is obviously wrong.   We don't relate to animals (communicate) because we can't think like they do.  The formatting of the languages is different and "thought" as we experience it is an artifact of language.  

    Perhaps if you're interested I can start another thread for the evidence of this.  

     

     

  7. 9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    Of course an army requires each soldier to think! Not to devise strategy or make tactical decisions, but to deploy their learned skills and co-ordination to maximum effect, and to protect one another, and respond to changes in a developing situation. It's the same kind of limited thinking that ants or factory workers or migrating swallows have to do.

    Lol.

    You could be a boss in industry.   One of the biggest problems in American industry is the men aren't supposed to think.  

    All ideas originate in individuals so if any individuals aren't thinking then maybe none of them are.  The bosses and colonels can just look up procedure or rewrite Demming's Laws to operate any plant or take any hill.  

    There's no beating consciousness.

    9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    Where did this different language come from? Who did the programming?

    It arose from a previous language.   All language programs all "brains".  But there are at least two distinct kinds of language and our analog symbolic language underlies the programming of all modern language speakers.   The other kind of language, natural language, is digital and representative I believe.  Users are still completely "conscious" but they don't experience thought and operate on the total knowledge of their species rather than their beliefs as acquired through complex language.  

  8. You've not really thought this through; an ant doesn't need conscious thought for hive intelligence to work, so an ant colony is intelligent unconsciously. 

    An army doesn't require individuals to think either but you aren't ever going to be promoted for getting yourself killed following orders.   

    I believe humans "think" differently than all other consciousness.  All consciousness arises from the wiring of the "brain" but human brains are programmed by a different type of language that is analog and  symbolic where other consciousness employs digital and representative language.  We perceive thought because it emerges from the way we think.   We act on our "understanding" which is really just our models and beliefs of reality but all other consciousness acts on their knowledge and this knowledge is species wide.  Individuals still think but do not experience thought.  

    There is no "hive intelligence" but rather each individual acting and working in tandem create that which has served their needs ibn the past.  This action isn't really "instinct" but it is a product of language which is hard wired into the "brain" and usually into the genes as well.  Just like in humans every individual is thinking but more of the time animals are being carried along by their programming.  

    Every new invention of termites or bees was invented by an individual and then communicated to the rest of the hive.  

     

  9. On 5/6/2022 at 2:11 PM, Peterkin said:

     

    I'm not sure why you're so concerned about this cardinal behaviour. It sounds to me more like something a male would do than a female; I have to cover my mirrors in springtime from robins and redwings. They see a reflection and take it for another member of their species who is invading their territory and must be driven off - particularly if it's near their nesting site. The motivation and the behaviour are clear and logical in terms of bird life, but the artifact has no significance in terms of bird culture.

    Ask a child why a mirror reverses left and right but not up and down.  

    An animal that recognizes the existence of itself in a reflective surface will know "instinctively" the nature of a refection.

    I've come up with a few possible hypotheses for why at least three species of birds fly into mirrors, but only one seems very possible at this time; they are trying to teach themselves how to hover better and, quite possibly, so they can defend a territory.  I'll be trying a few experiments and observations to try to support or deny the possibility. 

    The point here, though is that "consciousness" exists and underlies everything from beaver fisheries to, perhaps, even pyramid construction.  Why do ants leave a pile of sand around their entrances?   Calling things "instinct" is not a solution to understanding how animals and humans think and behave.   

  10. Quote

    But the cardinal might understand the mirror as well as most 15 year olds.  

    She sits on the window about 5" away looking at her reflection for a few seconds then flies into the mirror and then goes straight down to the ground staying only moments.  This is followed by a short flight to the bottom of the hill from whence she returns after about 20 seconds and repeats the process.  He mate usually watches from about 20'  from a vantage on the opposite side of the vehicle and downhill.  He's obviously watching her flight path rather than what seems to be her strange behavior.  

    My understanding is cardinals don't necessarily nest in the spring and this spring has been so cold they might not be ready.  

     

    I'll try to make a better observation and use some binoculars.  

    Whatever she's thinking it's definitely the mirror that is fundamental since I've seen her flying into another one.  

  11. Quote

    I strongly recommend attempting both. Anthropocentric assumptions have kept us in ignorance about and indifference to everyone else - and pretty soon, there won't be anyone else. 

    I agree.   

    But we can't do the latter until we do the former.  

    Quote

    Really? The existence of a watch proves... what? 

    It merely proves that one species has sufficiently complex language, manual dexterity, and enough understanding to create a new thing of nature; a watch or a rear view mirror.  

    Understanding the read out of any of our watches (since the sun dial) is probably too abstract for any animal to understand.  

    But the cardinal might understand the mirror as well as most 15 year olds.  

  12. Quote

    Self-awareness does not require understanding of artefacts from outside one's natural environment.

    I would suggest that what we take as "self awareness" is merely a recognition of our own thinking.  But all "thinking" is an abstraction based in language which is the means by which we acquire all our knowledge and the ability to think.  For some unknown (to me) reason the cardinal appears to either be interested in her reflection or in streaking my car under the mirror with her waste.  I seriously doubt she's "thinking" in any terms we would recognize.  To understand her consciousness we must either learn the nature of consciousness or quit "thinking" in terms of self awareness or consciousness being something uniquely human.  

    It is to be presumed cardinals have an exceedingly simple language based on their behavior.  Yes, they have highly complex and "intelligent" behavior but they don't attend school or read books.  They don't understand abstractions or form committees to study their problems.  

     

    It seems there must be something far more fundamental to consciousness than self awareness; even more fundamental than thought or abstractions.  

    I don't believe there is such a thing as "man made" so it follows that there is nothing in a cardinal's environment that isn't completely natural.  If she weren't trying to torture my mirror there are a dozen other cars within less than half a mile.  

    Perhaps she wants me to drive her somewhere but then this is one trick I haven't learned yet.  

  13. On 4/19/2022 at 7:45 AM, geordief said:

    "Is there any kind of a test (perhaps along the lines of the Turing test) that we could administer to a sentient creature (or a machine) that would allow us to define or determine whether or not the said subject was actually  conscious?

    Until there is a definition for "consciousness" we will not be able to study it or even understand whether it must be "self-aware".  Then this begs the question of what is self awareness.  A cardinal has been flying into the rear view mirror of my parked car for days now.  Does this mean she's self aware?  Was the male cardinal conscious when it stabilized a hosta stem loaded with seeds while his mate gorged a few seasons back?  

    Any definition of consciousness that excludes living things will prove a failure to its study.  Any definition of "self awareness" that applies only to humans will have no usefulness except to humans and it will provide no knowledge of consciousness.  

  14. 5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    That may happen sometimes, but it can't be the norm, or society would break down and cease to function. More likely, it could never been established in the first place.

    We do when the other guy shows up an hour late at the wrong meeting-place, or all the walls of a building lean outward. When a bridge or tunnel started at two end fails to match up in the middle as planned, the discrepancy is not due to verbal misunderstanding but mathematical miscalculation. Most of the time, in most transactions and social interactions, people understand one another quite well - in fact, much meaning is communicated indirectly, in oblique or coded language, coupled with intonation, facial expression, gesture and context.  

    Yes.  Two people engaging in different conversations is rare.   The longest I ever heard was about twelve sentences.  

    Usually it's just a very few sentences but neither notices.   

     

    Hundreds of marines were killed in Normandy when their gear to scale the cliffs was insufficient for overhanging cliffs there was and is no standard means to depict these.   Many times when people are supposed to meet at "midnight tuesday" they show up on different days because this is not defined.   "Midnight occurs between two days and neither it nor noon is AM or PM.   

    Nobody seems to notice these things until a walkway collapses with  dozens of people and then nothing changes.  

     

    Language is "confused".   It works after a fashion for thought but not so well for communication.  

  15. This is really remarkably simple but difficult to see. Modern language always has an ephemeral meaning because words are defined.  Not only does the specific intended definition have to be parsed from context but connotations can affect how the sentence is parsed.  If this isn't problematic enough most people have unique definitions of many words and whether that unique definition belongs to the speaker or the parser is irrelevant and will affect meaning in ways neither the speaker nor listener can possibly predict.  But here is where Wittenstein comes in; the way our brains process information and experience is driven by language so even our intended meaning as well As the taken meaning is dependent on language as much as author intent.   

    The long and short of it is that every listener always takes a different meaning of every utterance.   We assume these are merely shades of meaning but in actuality they can be polar opposites.  But we don't notice this.  Two people can actually have two different conversations and walk away thinking they had just communicated with someone where there was actually no communication whatsoever; no exchange of ideas or knowledge.  

    This is all exceedingly important because among the problems of programmed thought is the belief that we are intelligent and that this "intelligence" can be imparted to machines if they merely have a sufficient number of diodes or processors.  We can teach language to a machine and it might well mimic intelligence but it will still be susceptible to the same inability to accurately communicate or to consistently come up with a correct answer except in mathematical questions.   This is because no modern language is logical and meaning must be relayed as tautologies to have a fair chance at correct interpretation.  

     

    There are simple steps that can be taken to mitigate or eliminate all these problems but they are not recognized so their is no will to do so.   The message to the general should simply have said "attack at day break and I'll follow immediately, do not proceed without me".  Generally a better solution is to limit the number of generals.  

  16. On 1/6/2022 at 8:57 AM, Genady said:

    In fact, it is overexplained. There are many different explanations, sometimes overlapping, sometimes inconsistent. My OP generated a small survey of what some members here pick as their favorite explanation. It turned out to be a subset of explanations existing "on the market."

    Here's one you probably haven't seen;

    My "theory" is that math is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest.   

    The imperfect overlap creates rounding errors, constants, and a misapplication of mathematical principles and equations to a digital reality.  

  17. I once had a TV that I had needed to repair several times.  Like so many such things it was highly "quirky' and required experience to even operate.   

    When it went out "completely" the picture was replaced by two narrow horizontal lines across the center.  The sound still worked so before I bought a new TV I would continue to use it once in a while for old movies or the like.   One day an ad I had never seen before was on and before they said the phone number I knew what it was.   It took me a while to figure out how I knew but if I looked at the bottom of the screen and quickly looked upward I'd get a pretty good image of the entire picture. So I got a piece of glass and flipped it up and down in front of the screen rapidly and it worked.  I even motorized the glass for optimum viewing.  

    I bought a new TV anyway.  

  18. It's always been assumed that there wasn't a single Ancient Language as is suggested in some ancient sources and necessary for my hypotheses about pyramid construction and why the evidence hasn't been seen despite it's ubiquitousness and vast array as to type.   "Proto-indo-european" languages may well have all arisen from a single vocabulary that I call Ancient Language which like animal languages was representative, digital, and lacked abstractions.  

    There is growing reason to believe our interpretations of the oldest writing is misinterpreted and mistranslated.  There is growing evidence that there was a single global language with very few words.  

     

    mg30990701.jpg?width=800

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230990-700-in-search-of-the-very-first-coded-symbols/

     

    We don't so much experience "evidence" as we see what we expect to see.  Ancient people simply didn't think like we do.

     "the second moment after he saw N (the dead king) , the second moment after he perceived N (the dead king)."

    The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 6. Mostly Serpent Charms, Utterances 226-243 (sacred-texts.com)

     

  19. On 7/5/2021 at 2:50 PM, Andrew William Henderson said:

    I'm a keen reader of ww2 history and once read of german and allied submarine crew witnessing ball lighting travelling the length of the inside of the sub whilst been targeted with depth charges and was thought to be the effects of concussion / pressureand humidity of the atmosphere within the sub...🤔

    I heard an unsubstantiated report that a B17 flying in formation suddenly glowed and disintegrated.  

    It was reported lost to enemy fire.  

    I've watched for ball lightning under all sorts of conditions my entire life.  Ironically I was only a few hundred yards away when a machine operator told me he had just seen what looked like a bright ball bounce off a metallic pile and then settle back and disappear.  

  20. There are numerous ways to "cheat" gravity.  We can throw ourselves forward and using our legs to convert the momentum to lifting.  Essentially we can use most of our muscles to lift ourselves rather than just those designed for the task.  As you get older you find that such tricks are less a luxury and more a necessity.  Where you were once able to leap to your feet from a prone position in one single movement you'll find that six or eight movements become needed.  

     

    They say if you can get up in two or fewer movements you won't die for five years.  It's been a long time though since I could do it in two.  

     

    I don't believe there are "laws of physics" but I certainly believe a set amount of work is required to left weight and this amount is fixed.  Efficiency can vary widely though no matter what means is employed.  

  21. 23 hours ago, zapatos said:

    Interesting. What kind of science and which technologies?

    I can not properly address these questions in someone else's thread.  I have threads around in which I'd be happy to address them.

    So far as ancient technology; it is everywhere.  They didn't invent agriculture based on Darwinian beliefs.  They didn't use first year physics to calculate the ideal angle for "ramps".  They  made fantastic shapes like the tri lobed disc of Sabu by unknown means and for unknown reasons.  While they had almost no words in their language most of the nouns (which all invention would need) have no known referent.  It is hardly logical to assume they lacked sophistication and used primitive means when the artefacts are mostly mysterious.  This goes many times over since most of the surviving artefacts are stone clearly implying objects made of more perishable materials are lost.  Other than a few lines from Sumeria that Might be more hyperbole and fiction than reality there is no recorded history from prior to 2000 BC.  All this missing writing about science, technology, and history are necessary to understanding ancient technology.  Ancient technology may be only explicable in terms of ancient science and this does not survive.  Instead we have mostly incomprehensible writing like the "book of the dead" from many centuries after the invention of writing, the advent of history, or the end of the era after which all these mysteries and artifacts arose.  

    How did ancient people before written history exist?  How did they survive and most importantly, how did they accumulate the knowledge which is clearly evident in archaeological excavations?  This is the question here.  

  22. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    shows that you don't understand your knowledge of people, or your ancestors; have a little respect... 

    We are led by our beliefs and the beliefs that we are exactly like our ancestors has led us for centuries.  It did not lead the inventors of modern science and it did not lead early scientists.  If we are wrong then we are off the rails.   I believe the subject of this thread is critically important to the continuation of the human race. 

    Perhaps you think that because I refer to us as "homo omnisciencis" that I have no respect for us.  Far from it!  Our ability to survive (and eventually prosper) despite knowing everything shows a great deal of character and countless positive traits.  

    YOU believe that the ability to survive is good genes and fitness but I do not.  I believe that for us it is science and before science was invented it was ancient technology.  I believe looking for the science that gave rise to this technology is a very important endeavor and I await Einy and The Greeksinterpretation of evidence.  Just seeing what his focus is will be exceedingly interesting to me. 

  23. 2 hours ago, zapatos said:

    Interesting. What kind of science and which technologies?

    This is Einy and The Greeks thread so I'm not going to get into science based on logic and observation instead of experiment and observation.  

    But the technology is everywhere.  "Agriculture" was a very highly complex and multidisciplinary technology.  They didn't cultivate a few crops or animals as non-human animals have but dozens of different types of plants and animals.  They mined and refined metals and created alloys.  They worked all sorts of stone with results that are impossible to duplicate today.  They invented cities and built megaliths all over the world.  Most of their accomplishments are unknown as to the means, metaphysics or science.  Little survives from before 2000 BC because it has all rotted away so we can only imagine the technology that might be in evidence had it not.   

    Ancient people all believed their ancestors were wise and powerful and that their science and technology had been lost.   All that survived were crafts and those things that could be passed down father to son or journeyman to apprentice.  If there were any science then there was necessarily metaphysics.  It is impossible to know highly complex science  simply by being expert or through observation, trial and error, or referral to authority.   

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.