Addition 1 to unlimited Morn fail thread.

[MornTheOrator]

These tiny circuits transport and store chemical information in our brains, the emergent property of which is referred to as mind or consciousness or (if you're really superstitious) the immortal soul.

Can you prove to me that you are  'sentient' or 'conscious' in that you have any awareness of what you are doing and are not just a sophisticated automaton evolved to simulate 'emotions' to sustain yourself. Can you prove to me that any human is including myself?

[MornTheOrator]

Cheers eerhm, I'm a webdesigner /  musician /  comic artist / programmer / sci-fi writer / illustrator / graphics artist, you know ̄what you become after you dropped out of studying mathematical physics—which I did. Also, I'm kind of an epistemological scepticist towards out-and-out-nihilism, I'm not even willing to assume platonically that my own mind exists and sincerely quæstion the oft-made but unproven dogma that humans are 'self-aware'. I'm also quite fond of the latest technological advancements in unicode which enable things like encyclopædia, diarr̄hœa, naïve, deus ex machinā et cetera, which kind of make me look like a terrible schnob.

Apart from that, I'm just here for the food you know.

Edited to remove sticky - Roger

[Iason Ouabache]

radial patterns are abundant in the universe. Neurons, galactic clustering, any system where a network of points with more than three vectors from every point to another.

No wai, Kai. This obviously means that the universe is just one giant brain and we are its thoughts.

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

radial patterns are abundant in the universe. Neurons, galactic clustering, any system where a network of points with more than three vectors from every point to another.

Given that we know think our consciousness is a result of the transfer of energy/information within complex arrays of these radial patterns maybe some of the other ones are busy thinking too?

Can you prove to me that you are  'sentient' or 'conscious' in that you have any awareness of what you are doing and are not just a sophisticated automaton evolved to simulate 'emotions' to sustain yourself. Can you prove to me that any human is including myself?

Nope. You'll have to figure that one out for yourself. Try Descartes for some hints

[Cain]

P3nt is obviously mired in Cartesian dualism!

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

 

[MornTheOrator]

Can you prove to me that you are  'sentient' or 'conscious' in that you have any awareness of what you are doing and are not just a sophisticated automaton evolved to simulate 'emotions' to sustain yourself. Can you prove to me that any human is including myself?

Nope. You'll have to figure that one out for yourself. Try Descartes for some hints

Descartes never proved his sentience, he used his sentience as a dogma to 'prove' his existence and then used the benevolence of God as a proof the world was real. Descartes tried to start again from foundational axiomatic his argument is as follows:

I think (he claimed to know this)
therefore: I exist (seems reasonable, at least some thing should have those thoughts that is then called 'I'.
as God is benevolent, surely he would not deceive us and thus the world as we experience it is real (countering platonism and antirealism)

Well there are a couple of things wrong with this argument:
- How does he know God is benevolent? or even exists?
- Why would God not deceive us out of benevolence and spare us a much harder truth?
- He claims to know he thinks, but introspection, the only apparatus able to verify that of oneself cannot be checked by a second observer. For all we know he just claims to think out of some biological mechanism and in reality is a cold mechanical automaton that has evolved to claim this via natural selection, as all humans perhaps are.
- I find the 'I think, therefore I exist' step also not self-evident logic, first define 'existence'.

So all in all, it was a pretty bad attempt of René to try and base naïve realism on solid foundations, it was quite apparent from the start that he wanted to go in that direction, strangely only cogito ergo sum survived time to be widely known while it's a pretty small part of his argument. I personally am in favour of 'dico me cogitare ergo esse' or 'I claim that I think, that I exist.'

[ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S.]

radial patterns are abundant in the universe. Neurons, galactic clustering, any system where a network of points with more than three vectors from every point to another.

Given that we know think our consciousness is a result of the transfer of energy/information within complex arrays of these radial patterns maybe some of the other ones are busy thinking too?

How strong is the network? How complex? Are these just visual patterns we're sensing or is there some actual inter-part "communication" occuring? How strong is that "communication"?

[MornTheOrator]

radial patterns are abundant in the universe. Neurons, galactic clustering, any system where a network of points with more than three vectors from every point to another.

Given that we know think our consciousness is a result of the transfer of energy/information within complex arrays of these radial patterns maybe some of the other ones are busy thinking too?

How strong is the network? How complex? Are these just visual patterns we're sensing or is there some actual inter-part "communication" occuring? How strong is that "communication"?

As I hinted at afore, most philosophical work hereon works on 'if some thing resembles the human brain enough, is it then conscious?'.

My idea is more that it's still very much debatable if humans are conscious or 'self-aware' to begin with and not just come cold machines that operate and compute things on the laws of physics via electrical flow.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Can you prove to me that you are  'sentient' or 'conscious' in that you have any awareness of what you are doing and are not just a sophisticated automaton evolved to simulate 'emotions' to sustain yourself. Can you prove to me that any human is including myself?

Nope. You'll have to figure that one out for yourself. Try Descartes for some hints

Descartes never proved his sentience, he used his sentience as a dogma to 'prove' his existence and then used the benevolence of God as a proof the world was real. Descartes tried to start again from foundational axiomatic his argument is as follows:

I think (he claimed to know this)
therefore: I exist (seems reasonable, at least some thing should have those thoughts that is then called 'I'.
as God is benevolent, surely he would not deceive us and thus the world as we experience it is real (countering platonism and antirealism)

Well there are a couple of things wrong with this argument:
- How does he know God is benevolent? or even exists?
- Why would God not deceive us out of benevolence and spare us a much harder truth?
- He claims to know he thinks, but introspection, the only apparatus able to verify that of oneself cannot be checked by a second observer. For all we know he just claims to think out of some biological mechanism and in reality is a cold mechanical automaton that has evolved to claim this via natural selection, as all humans perhaps are.
- I find the 'I think, therefore I exist' step also not self-evident logic, first define 'existence'.

So all in all, it was a pretty bad attempt of René to try and base naïve realism on solid foundations, it was quite apparent from the start that he wanted to go in that direction, strangely only cogito ergo sum survived time to be widely known while it's a pretty small part of his argument. I personally am in favour of 'dico me cogitare ergo esse' or 'I claim that I think, that I exist.'

As I said - you're on your own. Me? I couldn't give less of a fuck about proving my existence or not. I seem (to what passes for myself, at least) to exist. If I turn out to be wrong about this - sue me.

[P3nT4gR4m]

radial patterns are abundant in the universe. Neurons, galactic clustering, any system where a network of points with more than three vectors from every point to another.

Given that we know think our consciousness is a result of the transfer of energy/information within complex arrays of these radial patterns maybe some of the other ones are busy thinking too?

How strong is the network? How complex? Are these just visual patterns we're sensing or is there some actual inter-part "communication" occuring? How strong is that "communication"?

As I hinted at afore, most philosophical work hereon works on 'if some thing resembles the human brain enough, is it then conscious?'.

My idea is more that it's still very much debatable if humans are conscious or 'self-aware' to begin with and not just come cold machines that operate and compute things on the laws of physics via electrical flow.

Strikes me you're comparing form with function

[ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S.]

radial patterns are abundant in the universe. Neurons, galactic clustering, any system where a network of points with more than three vectors from every point to another.

Given that we know think our consciousness is a result of the transfer of energy/information within complex arrays of these radial patterns maybe some of the other ones are busy thinking too?

How strong is the network? How complex? Are these just visual patterns we're sensing or is there some actual inter-part "communication" occuring? How strong is that "communication"?

As I hinted at afore, most philosophical work hereon works on 'if some thing resembles the human brain enough, is it then conscious?'.

My idea is more that it's still very much debatable if humans are conscious or 'self-aware' to begin with and not just come cold machines that operate and compute things on the laws of physics via electrical flow.

1) Categorical novum, bitches. Look it up.

2) Also, read The Triple Helix by Richard Lewontin. Organisms are far from computer like molecular machines.

3) Humans are most definitely self aware. I am aware of "myself", whatever that is, and can step back in a sort of recursive reflection. If that isn't self awareness then maybe we need to scrap the term "self awareness".

4) The interaction between neurons is far from simple "electrical flow".

[P3nT4gR4m]

3) Humans are most definitely self aware. I am aware of "myself", whatever that is, and can step back in a sort of recursive reflection. If that isn't self awareness then maybe we need to scrap the term "self awareness".

But, like, what if the whole thing is just a dream, man?
 

[MornTheOrator]

radial patterns are abundant in the universe. Neurons, galactic clustering, any system where a network of points with more than three vectors from every point to another.

Given that we know think our consciousness is a result of the transfer of energy/information within complex arrays of these radial patterns maybe some of the other ones are busy thinking too?

How strong is the network? How complex? Are these just visual patterns we're sensing or is there some actual inter-part "communication" occuring? How strong is that "communication"?

As I hinted at afore, most philosophical work hereon works on 'if some thing resembles the human brain enough, is it then conscious?'.

My idea is more that it's still very much debatable if humans are conscious or 'self-aware' to begin with and not just come cold machines that operate and compute things on the laws of physics via electrical flow.

1) Categorical novum, bitches. Look it up.

2) Also, read   by Richard Lewontin. Organisms are far from computer like molecular machines.

3) Humans are most definitely self aware. I am aware of "myself", whatever that is, and can step back in a sort of recursive reflection. If that isn't self awareness then maybe we need to scrap the term "self awareness".

4) The interaction between neurons is far from simple "electrical flow".

1) Philosophical ideas do not prove any thing, I need hard scientifically testale facts.

2) apparently:

Lewontin has been criticized by some academics for a rejection of sociobiology for non-scientific reasons. Some credit this rejection to political beliefs (Wilson 1995). Lewontin has at times identified himself as Marxist or at least left-leaning (Levins and Lewontin 1985). Others (Kitcher 1985) have countered that Lewontin's criticisms of sociobiology are genuine scientific concerns about the discipline and claim that attacking Lewontin's motives amount to an ad hominem argument.

It seems that this guy is more motivated by political ideas that hard science and it seems he's quite extremely determined to prove that humans are 'more' than 'just another orgasm', some thing mainstream biology thankfully gave up 120 years back. 'The Triple Helix' is not a scientific work but a political one aiming to convince people of his view that humans are more than just a machine, without offering true proofs.

3) You may say that you aware of yourself but prove it. And note that saying 'I experience myself' is not a prove, you have to prove that you also actually do, you have to find a way to let me look into your mind. Otherwise all I know is that you claim to experience thoughts and feelings but not that you actually do experience them. A machine evolved over millions of years shall most likely also claim these things regardless of if it truly feels them because claiming those things is a handy asset to stay alive. Important factor in evolution.

4) Contemporary neuroscience disagrees. In fact, it's already mainstream neuroscience that 'free will' is an illusion, free will can be forced and influence by the appropriate inducing of electrical charges in the brain, people then claim they actually had the sensation that they truly wanted to stretch out their arm after some electrode started a cascade in the motor cortex.

The quæstion hower is not if sentience is 'free' or above the laws of physics, but rather if it exists. Dualism is a long discarded theory, if humans or any thing is sentient, then said sentience is a slave to the laws of physics. The possibility that humans are not sentient and do not experience any thoughts but simply claim that they do from automaton-strategies is also not quite possible to rule out.

[P3nT4gR4m]

3) You may say that you aware of yourself but prove it. And note that saying 'I experience myself' is not a prove, you have to prove that you also actually do, you have to find a way to let me look into your mind. Otherwise all I know is that you claim to experience thoughts and feelings but not that you actually do experience them. A machine evolved over millions of years shall most likely also claim these things regardless of if it truly feels them because claiming those things is a handy asset to stay alive. Important factor in evolution.

Welcome to a new world of weird! Looks to me like you're starting to get the picture - there is no such thing as proof. The search for truth, absolute or otherwise, is pointless when the searchers very existence can be called into question. There is no proof, there is no science, it's all in your head and there isn't even a head