This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

why don't you study philosophy?

#51kozlo100Posted 6/23/2011 1:44:56 PM
I reject all such feelings as useless in determining the truth.

I don't think that's an appropriate rejection. It seems an important data point that being a person has a feeling associated with it, while there is nothing to suggest that being anything else has a feeling associated with it. It is true that we cannot experimentally verify that personhood is the only thing with that property, but we can and do verify that it does at least have it.

If you carry that farther, and reason that a person is the only kind of thing that has that property, then you have a differentiation between it and other things that does imply something about how it is structured. The fact that no software we are familiar with believes it has a self, nor is there any proposed method for introducing that feature to software, suggests that our identity is non-identical to software as we understand it.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#52Adito99(Topic Creator)Posted 6/23/2011 4:35:26 PM
It seems an important data point that being a person has a feeling associated with it, while there is nothing to suggest that being anything else has a feeling associated with it.

I agree that it's an important data point but I do not agree that it's different from all the other data points. The feelings that comes with being a person are just like the property of hardness that comes with being a piece of granite. I think your intuition will be to say that something is supervening upon the physical in the first case and not the second but I see no real distinction (in kinds) between the two.

...nor is there any proposed method for introducing that feature to software, suggests that our identity is non-identical to software as we understand it.

I think this is empirically false. Current work on AI and neuroscience provides an in-theory method of copying/transferring human brains into computers. If we can copy brains into computers then it also seems likely that we could generate them and therefore have a "purely" software mind. Our intuitions about these ideas have been trashed due to their association with science fiction but in reality they stand a very good chance of coming true.
---
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2561/goodvsevil.jpg
#53ElementalWindPosted 6/23/2011 4:39:28 PM
Current work on AI and neuroscience
Link me. (ACM publications preferred, but IEEE should be workable too)
---
Now, if we'd just use postfix syntax like sensible people, this wouldn't even be an issue. -scudobuio
#54Adito99(Topic Creator)Posted 6/23/2011 5:32:10 PM
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0136042597/ref=nosim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading#Relevant_technologies_and_techniques

Best I can do for now. My own research into it is fairly young.

My thought process so far is that we understand quite a bit about how physical processes are relevant to conscious experience (dopamine and endorphin release for example) and how to create in-theory minds capable of complex reasoning (strong and weak AI). All of this seems to create a scaffold were we simply have to fill in the details to reach a mind capable of all the things human minds are capable of.

It would be strange if every detail about humans and our world turned out to have a physical explanation but consciousness did not. There's simply no reason to think we're special in this way. The burden of proof is clearly on those suggesting non-physical explanations for consciousness to provide an argument for why this should be the case.

I do want to note that compatibilism is not dependent on the identity theory of mind (where brain states = mind states) . In fact I could see the same software view of minds as supporting an epiphenominalist position. I just happen to think the former is more likely so that's the perspective I argue from.
---
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2561/goodvsevil.jpg
#55anavriNPosted 6/26/2011 5:40:46 PM
I've been studying philosophy full-time for the past two years, that's after I got my bachelor degree in psychology.

Anyways, this here:
In fact over half of philosophers think the former at least is not just possible, but how the world really works.

The only philosopher I can think of who reconciles determinism with free will is Daniel Dannett. Are there many other prominent philosophers who share his view?
---
§ 157. Der Gedanke an den Selbstmord ist ein starkes Trostmittel: mit ihm kommt man gut über manche böse Nacht hinweg.
#56Adito99(Topic Creator)Posted 6/26/2011 6:48:25 PM
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

Accept or lean toward: compatibilism 550 / 931 (59%)
Other 139 / 931 (14.9%)
Accept or lean toward: libertarianism 128 / 931 (13.7%)
Accept or lean toward: no free will 114 / 931 (12.2%)


Source - http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
---
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2561/goodvsevil.jpg
#57Julian_CaesarPosted 6/26/2011 7:58:47 PM
Your reason for seeking the truth doesn't matter in the slightest. Reality doesn't care what you think. The point here is to figure out what's true. There are plenty of interesting questions about what to do with the truth once you've got it but they're very different issues.

My point wasn't that your reasons influence reality. It was that your reasons reflect your own purposes in seeking truth...and ultimately, your ability to the handle any truth you DO find will depend very heavily on what those reasons are.

Experiencing the world without in the way you suggest is more likely to confuse and bias you than it is to let you in on the truth. By studying philosophy (and psychology) we can avoid those mistakes and have a shot at getting the right answers. That's what it means to stand on the shoulders of giants.

I completely disagree. You are much more prone to retaining incorrect viewpoints when you're the only active mind engaging the material. In order to truly see the world from someone else's shoes, you have to talk to them and get to know them. While this can be done to a degree with great writers, it's not nearly as effective as getting some coffee with your friend and discussing religion.

Now, obviously someone can go out and live life and retain their bias anyway. But that's a fault with the person's intent rather than with the method.

Truth is not a secret passed down in books from great philosopher to great philosopher. It is rediscovered every generation by those great philosophers, who knew that standing on the shoulders of giants and seeing the world doesn't mean a thing...not unless you then step that giant forward and go into the world.
---
"I don't think you can run a double-blind experiment with an omniscient being as the subject." -- kozlo100