Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

The Nature of Consciousness and the Universe

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 11:56:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have put together some scientific facts, with an assumption (or two ;P), to form a hypothesis about the metaphysical nature of consciousness and the universe.

Fact 1: The Big Bang hypothesis suggests that the universe started out as a singularity (or else close to it).

Fact 2: The leading theory on the nature of the spacetime continuum is that it consists of 11 dimensions, the 4 we normally experience and 7 more that are curled up tightly.

Fact 3: Due to the nature of relativity, light does not experience time and space. If you were to ride a photon from a distant quasar 13 billion light years away, and get off when it reached Earth, the trip would take you zero seconds and you would travel zero inches.

Fact 4: Consciousness is not approachable by the sciences, despite centuries of advancement and perfection of the scientific method by humankind.

Assumption 1: Peter Russell attempts to solve the Hard Problem in physics by asserting that consciousness is not derived from matter and energy, as is classically assumed, but that physical reality is instead derived from consciousness.

To tie this all together, I'd like to propose that the other 7 dimensions of spacetime never expanded with the rest of the universe in the Big Bang. 4 dimensions unfurled while the other 7 remained tightly curled up - the way they all were prior to the explosion. Our physical sciences cannot (yet) reach into these dimensions, but photons give a hint that they are there within practical reach. Photons must somehow exist within one or more of these tightly curled-up dimensions, which is why, from their perspective, they do not move.

I also assume that consciousness exists in one or more of these tightly curled-up dimensions, which is why our physical sciences (limited to our classical 4 dimensions) cannot reach it.

I propose a strong and a weak version of the theory. The strong version, put forth by Peter Russell, is that consciousness is the foundation of all physical reality. Even inanimate matter is consciously-derived. The fact that solid matter is not solid under a microscope, and that atoms themselves are 99.9999% empty space (and that 0.00001% is probably not solid itself, it's just a value in a wave-equation) indicates that there is a fundamental lack of "stuff" in the universe. It only exists to service us, it isn't there in any physical sense. There are many other aspects of physics that are a testament to the unreality of physical being as well. The Uncertainty Principle is the biggest one. Slowing down time or reducing heat energy as a back-door to the UP are also unsuccessful at letting us "see" particles, they simply become smears in the case of temperature and wildly uncertain when time is slowed-down (a particle with time at 0 theoretically exists at every point in known space, in complete chaos). Quantum Entanglement is another theory which casts doubt on reality.

The weak version would be that physical reality exists, and consciousness affects it from one of these other dimensions only to create life. While consciousness IS the Big Bang in the strong version, in the weak version consciousness simply caused the Big Bang and is the basis of life, affecting it from another dimension while remaining separate from the 4 classical dimensions. Inanimate matter is not consciously derived, consciousness is simply a fundamental aspect of life and is present only in organic matter. Science will have to explore the rest of the spacetime continuum to find consciousness.

These are just ideas strewn together loosely, but does anybody have any thoughts or contributions? There will be no shortage of criticisms, no doubt lol!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 7:41:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 11:56:32 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I have put together some scientific facts, with an assumption (or two ;P), to form a hypothesis about the metaphysical nature of consciousness and the universe.

Fact 1: The Big Bang hypothesis suggests that the universe started out as a singularity (or else close to it).

Fact 2: The leading theory on the nature of the spacetime continuum is that it consists of 11 dimensions, the 4 we normally experience and 7 more that are curled up tightly.

Fact 3: Due to the nature of relativity, light does not experience time and space. If you were to ride a photon from a distant quasar 13 billion light years away, and get off when it reached Earth, the trip would take you zero seconds and you would travel zero inches.

Fact 4: Consciousness is not approachable by the sciences, despite centuries of advancement and perfection of the scientific method by humankind.

Assumption 1: Peter Russell attempts to solve the Hard Problem in physics by asserting that consciousness is not derived from matter and energy, as is classically assumed, but that physical reality is instead derived from consciousness.

To tie this all together, I'd like to propose that the other 7 dimensions of spacetime never expanded with the rest of the universe in the Big Bang. 4 dimensions unfurled while the other 7 remained tightly curled up - the way they all were prior to the explosion. Our physical sciences cannot (yet) reach into these dimensions, but photons give a hint that they are there within practical reach. Photons must somehow exist within one or more of these tightly curled-up dimensions, which is why, from their perspective, they do not move.

I also assume that consciousness exists in one or more of these tightly curled-up dimensions, which is why our physical sciences (limited to our classical 4 dimensions) cannot reach it.

I propose a strong and a weak version of the theory. The strong version, put forth by Peter Russell, is that consciousness is the foundation of all physical reality. Even inanimate matter is consciously-derived. The fact that solid matter is not solid under a microscope, and that atoms themselves are 99.9999% empty space (and that 0.00001% is probably not solid itself, it's just a value in a wave-equation) indicates that there is a fundamental lack of "stuff" in the universe. It only exists to service us, it isn't there in any physical sense. There are many other aspects of physics that are a testament to the unreality of physical being as well. The Uncertainty Principle is the biggest one. Slowing down time or reducing heat energy as a back-door to the UP are also unsuccessful at letting us "see" particles, they simply become smears in the case of temperature and wildly uncertain when time is slowed-down (a particle with time at 0 theoretically exists at every point in known space, in complete chaos). Quantum Entanglement is another theory which casts doubt on reality.

The weak version would be that physical reality exists, and consciousness affects it from one of these other dimensions only to create life. While consciousness IS the Big Bang in the strong version, in the weak version consciousness simply caused the Big Bang and is the basis of life, affecting it from another dimension while remaining separate from the 4 classical dimensions. Inanimate matter is not consciously derived, consciousness is simply a fundamental aspect of life and is present only in organic matter. Science will have to explore the rest of the spacetime continuum to find consciousness.

These are just ideas strewn together loosely, but does anybody have any thoughts or contributions? There will be no shortage of criticisms, no doubt lol!

Just a comment about "Fact 4". I don't think it is really a fact. I mean, for starters sciencie didn't try to measure consciousness until a couple of centuries when people started to think that souls maybe didn't exist. There's also a progression of what we know about consciousness through history. For example we now know about the involvement of the cortex and other brain areas in producing consciousness, or how some damages in other particular areas can disable/hurt consciousness. These things weren't known in the past.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:01:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 11:56:32 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Fact 4: Consciousness is not approachable by the sciences, despite centuries of advancement and perfection of the scientific method by humankind.

Modern neuroscience is quite young (arguably dating from the neuron doctrine -- part of the work that won a Nobel in 1906), but there's every indication that consciousness may be fully describable in neurological terms, for example:

How to measure consciousness - http://www.newscientist.com...
'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain - http://www.newscientist.com...
'Consciousness meter' may predict coma recoveries - http://www.newscientist.com...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 6:23:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 11:56:32 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I have put together some scientific facts, with an assumption (or two ;P), to form a hypothesis about the metaphysical nature of consciousness and the universe.

Fact 1: The Big Bang hypothesis suggests that the universe started out as a singularity (or else close to it).

Fact 2: The leading theory on the nature of the spacetime continuum is that it consists of 11 dimensions, the 4 we normally experience and 7 more that are curled up tightly.

Fact 3: Due to the nature of relativity, light does not experience time and space. If you were to ride a photon from a distant quasar 13 billion light years away, and get off when it reached Earth, the trip would take you zero seconds and you would travel zero inches.

Fact 4: Consciousness is not approachable by the sciences, despite centuries of advancement and perfection of the scientific method by humankind.

Assumption 1: Peter Russell attempts to solve the Hard Problem in physics by asserting that consciousness is not derived from matter and energy, as is classically assumed, but that physical reality is instead derived from consciousness.

To tie this all together, I'd like to propose that the other 7 dimensions of spacetime never expanded with the rest of the universe in the Big Bang. 4 dimensions unfurled while the other 7 remained tightly curled up - the way they all were prior to the explosion. Our physical sciences cannot (yet) reach into these dimensions, but photons give a hint that they are there within practical reach. Photons must somehow exist within one or more of these tightly curled-up dimensions, which is why, from their perspective, they do not move.

I also assume that consciousness exists in one or more of these tightly curled-up dimensions, which is why our physical sciences (limited to our classical 4 dimensions) cannot reach it.

I propose a strong and a weak version of the theory. The strong version, put forth by Peter Russell, is that consciousness is the foundation of all physical reality. Even inanimate matter is consciously-derived. The fact that solid matter is not solid under a microscope, and that atoms themselves are 99.9999% empty space (and that 0.00001% is probably not solid itself, it's just a value in a wave-equation) indicates that there is a fundamental lack of "stuff" in the universe. It only exists to service us, it isn't there in any physical sense. There are many other aspects of physics that are a testament to the unreality of physical being as well. The Uncertainty Principle is the biggest one. Slowing down time or reducing heat energy as a back-door to the UP are also unsuccessful at letting us "see" particles, they simply become smears in the case of temperature and wildly uncertain when time is slowed-down (a particle with time at 0 theoretically exists at every point in known space, in complete chaos). Quantum Entanglement is another theory which casts doubt on reality.

The weak version would be that physical reality exists, and consciousness affects it from one of these other dimensions only to create life. While consciousness IS the Big Bang in the strong version, in the weak version consciousness simply caused the Big Bang and is the basis of life, affecting it from another dimension while remaining separate from the 4 classical dimensions. Inanimate matter is not consciously derived, consciousness is simply a fundamental aspect of life and is present only in organic matter. Science will have to explore the rest of the spacetime continuum to find consciousness.

These are just ideas strewn together loosely, but does anybody have any thoughts or contributions? There will be no shortage of criticisms, no doubt lol!

I will have to disagree with some of the facts, most noticeably the 'perfection of the scientific method'.
Even so, I find your proposals, assumptions and consequences of your facts (or my versions of similar facts) as being very agreeable and reasonable.

The idea of 'solid matter' may be handy, but not accurate.
I think of all matter as being a super-cooled liquid is more accurate. Actually super-cooled gas may be even better, although neither fit well with scientific linguistics.
'Solid' means less than1% matter and more than 99% something else, I get it.

Science assumes it has a naturalistic, brick and mortar, explanation for all things, and will always try to make the data fit those types of models. Since 'failure' is only a temporary state, it will always 'succeed', even if it later has to recant.
If history is any indication of the future, in 200 years science will be in its infancy concerning understanding consciousness.

I think it may be time to reread 'Zen and the Birds of Appetite', by Christian mystic Thomas Merton.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:42:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 7:41:40 PM, Otokage wrote:

Just a comment about "Fact 4". I don't think it is really a fact. I mean, for starters sciencie didn't try to measure consciousness until a couple of centuries when people started to think that souls maybe didn't exist.

It didn't try because it was absolutely hopeless. The desire was there, I'm sure.

There's also a progression of what we know about consciousness through history.

I disagree. I see regression. While science is impotent to tell us anything about what consciousness is, ancient thinkers, through meditation, were making decent strides at explaining it. In "Primacy of Consciousness" by Peter Russell, he outlines many of these thinkers, I can dig them up if you'd like.

For example we now know about the involvement of the cortex and other brain areas in producing consciousness, or how some damages in other particular areas can disable/hurt consciousness. These things weren't known in the past.

Again I disagree with the interpretation here. Showing somebody a cat and then noting what pathways of the mind are electrified, or damaging a brain and noting how the person suffers is not an analysis of consciousness, it's an analysis of the biological brain. These tests are independent of our consciousness, as evidenced by the example where the brain is damaged and it cannot communicate between the left side and the right side. The subject is flashed a sad picture in only one eye, and starts crying without knowing why. The subject is unconscious of what's happening while the brain is being manipulated. Therefore consciousness is independent of these scientific analyses.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:54:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 12:01:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Modern neuroscience is quite young (arguably dating from the neuron doctrine -- part of the work that won a Nobel in 1906), but there's every indication that consciousness may be fully describable in neurological terms, for example:

How to measure consciousness - http://www.newscientist.com...
'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain - http://www.newscientist.com...
'Consciousness meter' may predict coma recoveries - http://www.newscientist.com...

There is a difference between consciousness in the the intrinsic sense and consciousness in the psychological sense. As explained in the previous post, the biological brain can be manipulated and a person's psychology tested without the person actually being intrinsically conscious of it. Another example is going to a psychologist; she is trained in methods of understanding and manipulating the patterns in your brain, but she is not any more enlightened about actual consciousness than you or I.

Can you summarize the points in your articles for me please?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:04:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:23:34 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I will have to disagree with some of the facts, most noticeably the 'perfection of the scientific method'.

I think we've got a great hold on the method. In college I learned about the basic principles, and then was briefly introduced to cycles of induction and deduction... our ability to employ it is evidenced strongly by the technology around us.

Even so, I find your proposals, assumptions and consequences of your facts (or my versions of similar facts) as being very agreeable and reasonable.

Thank you.

The idea of 'solid matter' may be handy, but not accurate.
I think of all matter as being a super-cooled liquid is more accurate. Actually super-cooled gas may be even better, although neither fit well with scientific linguistics.
'Solid' means less than1% matter and more than 99% something else, I get it.

As we kept discovering lower forms of matter, we kept pushing the "solid" part lower. A table was seen as relatively hollow - but the strands of fiber were solid! The fibers were seen as hollow next, but the molecules and atoms were solid! Then atoms turned out to be 99.9999% empty space - but those proton and neutrons are solid! And now those particles are being reduced to quarks and leptons, which are in turn being reduced to the vibration of string, and nothing more than values in a wave-equation with "solidity" merely being dependent upon what frequency the string is vibrating at. Matter simply does not exist. Distance doesn't exist, time doesn't exist, nothing has a bonafide existence.

Science assumes it has a naturalistic, brick and mortar, explanation for all things, and will always try to make the data fit those types of models. Since 'failure' is only a temporary state, it will always 'succeed', even if it later has to recant.
If history is any indication of the future, in 200 years science will be in its infancy concerning understanding consciousness.

I'm sure computers and genetics will progress, and we'll make many other incredible technological leaps, but understanding consciousness? Nobody can do more than guess.

I think it may be time to reread 'Zen and the Birds of Appetite', by Christian mystic Thomas Merton.

What relevant points does he make?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:13:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 9:42:05 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:41:40 PM, Otokage wrote:

Just a comment about "Fact 4". I don't think it is really a fact. I mean, for starters sciencie didn't try to measure consciousness until a couple of centuries when people started to think that souls maybe didn't exist.

It didn't try because it was absolutely hopeless. The desire was there, I'm sure.

There's also a progression of what we know about consciousness through history.

I disagree. I see regression. While science is impotent to tell us anything about what consciousness is, ancient thinkers, through meditation, were making decent strides at explaining it. In "Primacy of Consciousness" by Peter Russell, he outlines many of these thinkers, I can dig them up if you'd like.
For example we now know about the involvement of the cortex and other brain areas in producing consciousness, or how some damages in other particular areas can disable/hurt consciousness. These things weren't known in the past.

Again I disagree with the interpretation here. Showing somebody a cat and then noting what pathways of the mind are electrified, or damaging a brain and noting how the person suffers is not an analysis of consciousness, it's an analysis of the biological brain. These tests are independent of our consciousness, as evidenced by the example where the brain is damaged and it cannot communicate between the left side and the right side. The subject is flashed a sad picture in only one eye, and starts crying without knowing why. The subject is unconscious of what's happening while the brain is being manipulated. Therefore consciousness is independent of these scientific analyses.

I don't think it's possible to see a regression of knowledge in any aspect, consciousness included. This would mean there's knowledge that was destroyed, but precisely because it was destroyed you would be clueless about that knowledge, so you could not logicaly infer that you "see regression". This is like if I say: "I see a loss of apples in my tree" but the truth is that I have never seen those apples in the first place, so it is an absurdity to say I see a loss. You get my point?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 11:54:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:13:08 AM, Otokage wrote:

I don't think it's possible to see a regression of knowledge in any aspect, consciousness included. This would mean there's knowledge that was destroyed, but precisely because it was destroyed you would be clueless about that knowledge, so you could not logicaly infer that you "see regression". This is like if I say: "I see a loss of apples in my tree" but the truth is that I have never seen those apples in the first place, so it is an absurdity to say I see a loss. You get my point?

I suppose there's a technical error in me saying that society as a whole is stupider than before, because the information is known by somebody and written in a book somewhere (and to be honest, I doubt most people knew about it when it was created back then either). But it's frustrating when knowledge is created and then collects dust on a shelf while people refrain from using it. It's not enough to discover and record truth, one must somehow convince others to use it for it to mean anything important.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:11:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:04:23 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:23:34 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I will have to disagree with some of the facts, most noticeably the 'perfection of the scientific method'.

I think we've got a great hold on the method. In college I learned about the basic principles, and then was briefly introduced to cycles of induction and deduction... our ability to employ it is evidenced strongly by the technology around us.

There is a lot of controversy in and out of the Science community about the short comings of the Scientific Method as in practice today.
It has certainly changed since it began being taught 150 years ago, and 50 years ago when it was taught to me. it was much stronger 50 years ago.
Haste make waste.
It has been and continues to be a good tool, currently not even close to perfect.
The generally agreed upon shortcomings are in: inadequate peer review, misuse of statistics, and faulty computer modeling.
More on that later, I'll be starting a thread.

Even so, I find your proposals, assumptions and consequences of your facts (or my versions of similar facts) as being very agreeable and reasonable.

Thank you.

The idea of 'solid matter' may be handy, but not accurate.
I think of all matter as being a super-cooled liquid is more accurate. Actually super-cooled gas may be even better, although neither fit well with scientific linguistics.
'Solid' means less than1% matter and more than 99% something else, I get it.

As we kept discovering lower forms of matter, we kept pushing the "solid" part lower. A table was seen as relatively hollow - but the strands of fiber were solid! The fibers were seen as hollow next, but the molecules and atoms were solid! Then atoms turned out to be 99.9999% empty space - but those proton and neutrons are solid! And now those particles are being reduced to quarks and leptons, which are in turn being reduced to the vibration of string, and nothing more than values in a wave-equation with "solidity" merely being dependent upon what frequency the string is vibrating at. Matter simply does not exist. Distance doesn't exist, time doesn't exist, nothing has a bonafide existence.

Science assumes it has a naturalistic, brick and mortar, explanation for all things, and will always try to make the data fit those types of models. Since 'failure' is only a temporary state, it will always 'succeed', even if it later has to recant.
If history is any indication of the future, in 200 years science will be in its infancy concerning understanding consciousness.

I'm sure computers and genetics will progress, and we'll make many other incredible technological leaps, but understanding consciousness? Nobody can do more than guess.

Well, there are other choices besides science and guessing.
it has been the concern of humans for thousands of years, much longer than Science has existed.

I think it may be time to reread 'Zen and the Birds of Appetite', by Christian mystic Thomas Merton.

What relevant points does he make?

It has been a few decades since I read the book, I just remember that consciousness was a topic he discussed.
I had a copy downloaded to my kindle today, and will be rereading it, between other books.
if anything interesting comes up, I'll get back to you.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 1:46:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 11:54:45 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:13:08 AM, Otokage wrote:

I don't think it's possible to see a regression of knowledge in any aspect, consciousness included. This would mean there's knowledge that was destroyed, but precisely because it was destroyed you would be clueless about that knowledge, so you could not logicaly infer that you "see regression". This is like if I say: "I see a loss of apples in my tree" but the truth is that I have never seen those apples in the first place, so it is an absurdity to say I see a loss. You get my point?

I suppose there's a technical error in me saying that society as a whole is stupider than before, because the information is known by somebody and written in a book somewhere (and to be honest, I doubt most people knew about it when it was created back then either). But it's frustrating when knowledge is created and then collects dust on a shelf while people refrain from using it. It's not enough to discover and record truth, one must somehow convince others to use it for it to mean anything important.

I see, so the problem you see is people not paying attention to the wisdom that supposedly already exists somewhere about consciousness. Why do you think this information is not being paid sufficient atention?

Btw how do you reconcile the idea of consciousness not emerging from matter, with the observation that the more complex a nervious system is, the more conscious it is too? Doesn't the later mean that there's a clear relationship between the organization of matter and consciousness?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 3:38:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 1:46:10 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 11:54:45 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:13:08 AM, Otokage wrote:

I don't think it's possible to see a regression of knowledge in any aspect, consciousness included. This would mean there's knowledge that was destroyed, but precisely because it was destroyed you would be clueless about that knowledge, so you could not logicaly infer that you "see regression". This is like if I say: "I see a loss of apples in my tree" but the truth is that I have never seen those apples in the first place, so it is an absurdity to say I see a loss. You get my point?

I suppose there's a technical error in me saying that society as a whole is stupider than before, because the information is known by somebody and written in a book somewhere (and to be honest, I doubt most people knew about it when it was created back then either). But it's frustrating when knowledge is created and then collects dust on a shelf while people refrain from using it. It's not enough to discover and record truth, one must somehow convince others to use it for it to mean anything important.

I see, so the problem you see is people not paying attention to the wisdom that supposedly already exists somewhere about consciousness. Why do you think this information is not being paid sufficient atention?

Knowledge can degrade over time. Look at terms like:

Ambitious: originally meant to describe ruthless tyrants, perhaps the worst thing you could call somebody, we have now lost the ability to use the term as it was created. It's now a compliment to call somebody ambitious, and the negative aspects about it (being hungry for power and money) are no longer seen as bad.

Kindness: originally meant to show how one can overcome the urge to hate somebody that has something they want (envy). If somebody gets a promotion over you, for example. Now kindness is just a synonym for "niceness;" the meaning in the word is lost.

Patience: Another lost virtue to oppose the seven sins, patience wasn't always something we used just to describe waiting in line at the bank. It was your ability to control your temper.

I looked in a dictionary from 1997 recently, and as I browsed it I was astonished at how many terms were changing over time. When we create an idea, and then it degrades into something else, we lose the original meaning of the term. If in a century, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle simply means the confusion you get at the ice-cream store, then we'll have lost the wisdom behind it and it will need to be rediscovered.

Many great thinkers had deep insights into consciousness over the last millenium, and it doesn't really catch-on because there is a level of enlightenment one must achieve to understand it. It's not enough to see a scientific documentary on how electricity runs through the brain when we perform certain functions to understand the essence of what it is to be conscious. There's a big difference between psychology and consciousness. People don't recognize this because they want to believe that science is going to conquer consciousness and do the work for us while we sit back and consume the fruits of their labor, but we can't depend on others to do our thinking for us.

Btw how do you reconcile the idea of consciousness not emerging from matter, with the observation that the more complex a nervious system is, the more conscious it is too? Doesn't the later mean that there's a clear relationship between the organization of matter and consciousness?

There's a clear relationship between how matter is organized and the level of consciousness, yes. A cat is less conscious than a person, a jellyfish is less conscious than a cat, an amoeba is less conscious than a jellyfish, and an atom is less conscious than an amoeba. But how do we measure consciousness? How do we know if an atom is conscious or not? It may have the slightest, .0000000001% consciousness, or it may be utterly unconscious. But we don't know, in fact Descartes showed that I can't even know if you're conscious or not. It doesn't matter what psychological testing you do, the concept of zombies applies to everything and everyone because science is absolutely, 100% unable to approach consciousness.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 6:35:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 3:38:55 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 1:46:10 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 11:54:45 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:13:08 AM, Otokage wrote:

I don't think it's possible to see a regression of knowledge in any aspect, consciousness included. This would mean there's knowledge that was destroyed, but precisely because it was destroyed you would be clueless about that knowledge, so you could not logicaly infer that you "see regression". This is like if I say: "I see a loss of apples in my tree" but the truth is that I have never seen those apples in the first place, so it is an absurdity to say I see a loss. You get my point?

I suppose there's a technical error in me saying that society as a whole is stupider than before, because the information is known by somebody and written in a book somewhere (and to be honest, I doubt most people knew about it when it was created back then either). But it's frustrating when knowledge is created and then collects dust on a shelf while people refrain from using it. It's not enough to discover and record truth, one must somehow convince others to use it for it to mean anything important.

I see, so the problem you see is people not paying attention to the wisdom that supposedly already exists somewhere about consciousness. Why do you think this information is not being paid sufficient atention?

Knowledge can degrade over time. Look at terms like:

Ambitious: originally meant to describe ruthless tyrants, perhaps the worst thing you could call somebody, we have now lost the ability to use the term as it was created. It's now a compliment to call somebody ambitious, and the negative aspects about it (being hungry for power and money) are no longer seen as bad.

Kindness: originally meant to show how one can overcome the urge to hate somebody that has something they want (envy). If somebody gets a promotion over you, for example. Now kindness is just a synonym for "niceness;" the meaning in the word is lost.

Patience: Another lost virtue to oppose the seven sins, patience wasn't always something we used just to describe waiting in line at the bank. It was your ability to control your temper.

I looked in a dictionary from 1997 recently, and as I browsed it I was astonished at how many terms were changing over time. When we create an idea, and then it degrades into something else, we lose the original meaning of the term. If in a century, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle simply means the confusion you get at the ice-cream store, then we'll have lost the wisdom behind it and it will need to be rediscovered.

Many great thinkers had deep insights into consciousness over the last millenium, and it doesn't really catch-on because there is a level of enlightenment one must achieve to understand it. It's not enough to see a scientific documentary on how electricity runs through the brain when we perform certain functions to understand the essence of what it is to be conscious. There's a big difference between psychology and consciousness. People don't recognize this because they want to believe that science is going to conquer consciousness and do the work for us while we sit back and consume the fruits of their labor, but we can't depend on others to do our thinking for us.

Btw how do you reconcile the idea of consciousness not emerging from matter, with the observation that the more complex a nervious system is, the more conscious it is too? Doesn't the later mean that there's a clear relationship between the organization of matter and consciousness?

There's a clear relationship between how matter is organized and the level of consciousness, yes. A cat is less conscious than a person, a jellyfish is less conscious than a cat, an amoeba is less conscious than a jellyfish, and an atom is less conscious than an amoeba. But how do we measure consciousness? How do we know if an atom is conscious or not? It may have the slightest, .0000000001% consciousness, or it may be utterly unconscious. But we don't know, in fact Descartes showed that I can't even know if you're conscious or not. It doesn't matter what psychological testing you do, the concept of zombies applies to everything and everyone because science is absolutely, 100% unable to approach consciousness.

How does a change in the meaning of words, lead you to believe this means knowledge is degrading?
This has been going on for 5000 years or so that we know of, so has knowledge been degrading this whole time?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 6:42:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 3:38:55 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 1:46:10 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 11:54:45 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:13:08 AM, Otokage wrote:

I don't think it's possible to see a regression of knowledge in any aspect, consciousness included. This would mean there's knowledge that was destroyed, but precisely because it was destroyed you would be clueless about that knowledge, so you could not logicaly infer that you "see regression". This is like if I say: "I see a loss of apples in my tree" but the truth is that I have never seen those apples in the first place, so it is an absurdity to say I see a loss. You get my point?

I suppose there's a technical error in me saying that society as a whole is stupider than before, because the information is known by somebody and written in a book somewhere (and to be honest, I doubt most people knew about it when it was created back then either). But it's frustrating when knowledge is created and then collects dust on a shelf while people refrain from using it. It's not enough to discover and record truth, one must somehow convince others to use it for it to mean anything important.

I see, so the problem you see is people not paying attention to the wisdom that supposedly already exists somewhere about consciousness. Why do you think this information is not being paid sufficient atention?

Knowledge can degrade over time. Look at terms like:

Ambitious: originally meant to describe ruthless tyrants, perhaps the worst thing you could call somebody, we have now lost the ability to use the term as it was created. It's now a compliment to call somebody ambitious, and the negative aspects about it (being hungry for power and money) are no longer seen as bad.

Kindness: originally meant to show how one can overcome the urge to hate somebody that has something they want (envy). If somebody gets a promotion over you, for example. Now kindness is just a synonym for "niceness;" the meaning in the word is lost.

Patience: Another lost virtue to oppose the seven sins, patience wasn't always something we used just to describe waiting in line at the bank. It was your ability to control your temper.

I looked in a dictionary from 1997 recently, and as I browsed it I was astonished at how many terms were changing over time. When we create an idea, and then it degrades into something else, we lose the original meaning of the term. If in a century, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle simply means the confusion you get at the ice-cream store, then we'll have lost the wisdom behind it and it will need to be rediscovered.

Sorry but I think you are beating around the bush. The evolution of language does not mean a degradation of concepts. The words are always subjective, mere symbols for the concepts. The words may now mean something else, but the concepts remain unchanged. Being ambitious is and always be "being ambitious", envy will always be envy, kindness will always be kindness, etc. Even if the word "envious" means something else in the future, the "envious" concept will always exist under this or any other word. So again, imo there's no wisdom lost whatsoever, simply a different way of referring to that wisdom, which is btw normal and necessary, or did you expect society to be stuck always with the same language, or concepts, or morality? I think that would be catastrophic for the progress of humanity as a whole.

Many great thinkers had deep insights into consciousness over the last millenium, and it doesn't really catch-on because there is a level of enlightenment one must achieve to understand it. It's not enough to see a scientific documentary on how electricity runs through the brain when we perform certain functions to understand the essence of what it is to be conscious. There's a big difference between psychology and consciousness. People don't recognize this because they want to believe that science is going to conquer consciousness and do the work for us while we sit back and consume the fruits of their labor, but we can't depend on others to do our thinking for us.

I believe it is impossible to fully understand consciousness without science, as we can only understand consciousness at a fundamental level if we are able to determine the structural basis that creates it, and how it is created.

Btw how do you reconcile the idea of consciousness not emerging from matter, with the observation that the more complex a nervious system is, the more conscious it is too? Doesn't the later mean that there's a clear relationship between the organization of matter and consciousness?

There's a clear relationship between how matter is organized and the level of consciousness, yes. A cat is less conscious than a person, a jellyfish is less conscious than a cat, an amoeba is less conscious than a jellyfish, and an atom is less conscious than an amoeba. But how do we measure consciousness? How do we know if an atom is conscious or not? It may have the slightest, .0000000001% consciousness, or it may be utterly unconscious.

Well, then don't you agree that determining the structures from which consciousness arises, would help a big deal to determine if an atom is consciouss or not?

It is clearly difficult to measure "how conscious" is a being if we don't even know the processes that make someone conscious. Since consciousness limits are precisely not well established by science or philosophy, we can not figure out a way to measure consciousness because we essentially don't know in depth what consciousness is. However, you jumped to agree with me when I said the more complex an organism is, the more conscious is, and therefore there is a way to measure consciousness even by pure intuition.

But we don't know, in fact Descartes showed that I can't even know if you're conscious or not. It doesn't matter what psychological testing you do, the concept of zombies applies to everything and everyone because science is absolutely, 100% unable to approach consciousness.

I don't agree with Descartes because his "zombie" experiment assumes the soul exists. Since I don't believe the soul exists, I can not accept there's something more than Descartes' zombies in here.

Now if we change soul by consciousness, then the experiment gets more realism, and also is more easy to solve. It is pretty easy to distinguish between fake-consciousnes and real consciousness as evidenced by the inability of artificial intelligence to overcome the Turing test.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:52:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:35:37 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/23/2015 3:38:55 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 1:46:10 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 11:54:45 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:13:08 AM, Otokage wrote:

I don't think it's possible to see a regression of knowledge in any aspect, consciousness included. This would mean there's knowledge that was destroyed, but precisely because it was destroyed you would be clueless about that knowledge, so you could not logicaly infer that you "see regression". This is like if I say: "I see a loss of apples in my tree" but the truth is that I have never seen those apples in the first place, so it is an absurdity to say I see a loss. You get my point?

I suppose there's a technical error in me saying that society as a whole is stupider than before, because the information is known by somebody and written in a book somewhere (and to be honest, I doubt most people knew about it when it was created back then either). But it's frustrating when knowledge is created and then collects dust on a shelf while people refrain from using it. It's not enough to discover and record truth, one must somehow convince others to use it for it to mean anything important.

I see, so the problem you see is people not paying attention to the wisdom that supposedly already exists somewhere about consciousness. Why do you think this information is not being paid sufficient atention?

Knowledge can degrade over time. Look at terms like:

Ambitious: originally meant to describe ruthless tyrants, perhaps the worst thing you could call somebody, we have now lost the ability to use the term as it was created. It's now a compliment to call somebody ambitious, and the negative aspects about it (being hungry for power and money) are no longer seen as bad.

Kindness: originally meant to show how one can overcome the urge to hate somebody that has something they want (envy). If somebody gets a promotion over you, for example. Now kindness is just a synonym for "niceness;" the meaning in the word is lost.

Patience: Another lost virtue to oppose the seven sins, patience wasn't always something we used just to describe waiting in line at the bank. It was your ability to control your temper.

I looked in a dictionary from 1997 recently, and as I browsed it I was astonished at how many terms were changing over time. When we create an idea, and then it degrades into something else, we lose the original meaning of the term. If in a century, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle simply means the confusion you get at the ice-cream store, then we'll have lost the wisdom behind it and it will need to be rediscovered.

Many great thinkers had deep insights into consciousness over the last millenium, and it doesn't really catch-on because there is a level of enlightenment one must achieve to understand it. It's not enough to see a scientific documentary on how electricity runs through the brain when we perform certain functions to understand the essence of what it is to be conscious. There's a big difference between psychology and consciousness. People don't recognize this because they want to believe that science is going to conquer consciousness and do the work for us while we sit back and consume the fruits of their labor, but we can't depend on others to do our thinking for us.

Btw how do you reconcile the idea of consciousness not emerging from matter, with the observation that the more complex a nervious system is, the more conscious it is too? Doesn't the later mean that there's a clear relationship between the organization of matter and consciousness?

There's a clear relationship between how matter is organized and the level of consciousness, yes. A cat is less conscious than a person, a jellyfish is less conscious than a cat, an amoeba is less conscious than a jellyfish, and an atom is less conscious than an amoeba. But how do we measure consciousness? How do we know if an atom is conscious or not? It may have the slightest, .0000000001% consciousness, or it may be utterly unconscious. But we don't know, in fact Descartes showed that I can't even know if you're conscious or not. It doesn't matter what psychological testing you do, the concept of zombies applies to everything and everyone because science is absolutely, 100% unable to approach consciousness.

How does a change in the meaning of words, lead you to believe this means knowledge is degrading?

If you read my example about Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle and still don't understand, then I'm not sure how else to put it - that was a powerful example.

This has been going on for 5000 years or so that we know of, so has knowledge been degrading this whole time?

Obviously we advance in some areas, but I find it troubling that we regress or remain stagnant in others. As far as moral knowledge, we certainly are regressing, and I think technology and individualism play a big part in that. And why should we be surprised? Does it make any sense that we could spend our days sitting in front of TV sets while people in other countries labor away for us and sacrifice their land and resources so that we may have an abundance of material goods? Would somebody who knows absolutely nothing about America other than how much we consume expect us to be a nation of virtuous people?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:07:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 6:42:02 PM, Otokage wrote:

Sorry but I think you are beating around the bush. The evolution of language does not mean a degradation of concepts.

I think I demonstrated satisfactorily that this was degradation of language, certainly not "evolution." Evolution implies improvement, while in these cases intricate concepts are being lost and being replaced with dull, dim-witted ideas.

The words are always subjective, mere symbols for the concepts. The words may now mean something else, but the concepts remain unchanged.

One's wisdom can be judged solely on his vocabulary. When you learn a new, more intricate idea, you can encapsulate that idea in a vocabulary term and save much knowledge inside a single term. I don't understand how you ca say the concepts remain unchanged when I just told you precisely how they aren't.

Being ambitious is and always be "being ambitious", envy will always be envy, kindness will always be kindness, etc. Even if the word "envious" means something else in the future, the "envious" concept will always exist under this or any other word.

But it doesn't - I just explained why. The word has dulled, not evolved. The concept of kindness, patience, and ambitious are lost, and no words have replaced them.

So again, imo there's no wisdom lost whatsoever, simply a different way of referring to that wisdom, which is btw normal and necessary, or did you expect society to be stuck always with the same language, or concepts, or morality? I think that would be catastrophic for the progress of humanity as a whole.

I can appreciate the difference between old English and new, the way sentence structure works, but to take a word that has a perfect meaning and let it colloquially dull into a ambiguous synonym for something else is not healthy. And letting such an intricate concept turn to dust is really quite tragic.

Many great thinkers had deep insights into consciousness over the last millenium, and it doesn't really catch-on because there is a level of enlightenment one must achieve to understand it. It's not enough to see a scientific documentary on how electricity runs through the brain when we perform certain functions to understand the essence of what it is to be conscious. There's a big difference between psychology and consciousness. People don't recognize this because they want to believe that science is going to conquer consciousness and do the work for us while we sit back and consume the fruits of their labor, but we can't depend on others to do our thinking for us.

I believe it is impossible to fully understand consciousness without science, as we can only understand consciousness at a fundamental level if we are able to determine the structural basis that creates it, and how it is created.

I love science... but as of yet it is %100 useless to describe consciousness. If it wasn't, the concept of "zombie" would be abolished overnight and Descartes would be shelved along with Ptolemy.

Btw how do you reconcile the idea of consciousness not emerging from matter, with the observation that the more complex a nervious system is, the more conscious it is too? Doesn't the later mean that there's a clear relationship between the organization of matter and consciousness?

There's a clear relationship between how matter is organized and the level of consciousness, yes. A cat is less conscious than a person, a jellyfish is less conscious than a cat, an amoeba is less conscious than a jellyfish, and an atom is less conscious than an amoeba. But how do we measure consciousness? How do we know if an atom is conscious or not? It may have the slightest, .0000000001% consciousness, or it may be utterly unconscious.

Well, then don't you agree that determining the structures from which consciousness arises, would help a big deal to determine if an atom is consciouss or not?

But your metaparadigm has not been questioned. You are unable to even ask yourself the question: "is it possible for matter to come from consciousness, as opposed to consciousness coming from matter?"

It is clearly difficult to measure "how conscious" is a being if we don't even know the processes that make someone conscious. Since consciousness limits are precisely not well established by science or philosophy, we can not figure out a way to measure consciousness because we essentially don't know in depth what consciousness is. However, you jumped to agree with me when I said the more complex an organism is, the more conscious is, and therefore there is a way to measure consciousness even by pure intuition.

This is an antiscientific way of thinking, is it not?

But we don't know, in fact Descartes showed that I can't even know if you're conscious or not. It doesn't matter what psychological testing you do, the concept of zombies applies to everything and everyone because science is absolutely, 100% unable to approach consciousness.

I don't agree with Descartes because his "zombie" experiment assumes the soul exists. Since I don't believe the soul exists, I can not accept there's something more than Descartes' zombies in here.

Now if we change soul by consciousness, then the experiment gets more realism, and also is more easy to solve. It is pretty easy to distinguish between fake-consciousnes and real consciousness as evidenced by the inability of artificial intelligence to overcome the Turing test.

The difference between AI and consciousness is as wide as the difference between Albert Einstein and a Sham-Wow. I don't accept that AI is useful for anything even remotely having to do with consciousness.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 6:27:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 9:07:41 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:42:02 PM, Otokage wrote:

Sorry but I think you are beating around the bush. The evolution of language does not mean a degradation of concepts.

I think I demonstrated satisfactorily that this was degradation of language, certainly not "evolution." Evolution implies improvement, while in these cases intricate concepts are being lost and being replaced with dull, dim-witted ideas.

Evolution doesn't mean improvement. Where did you get this from? Evolution means adaptation, change. In this same sense, the langague is being adapted to present times, and thus it is evolving. About the "dull, dim-witted" ideas, that is highly subjective. Why would I consider the 100 year old definition of "envy", more useful than the present definition of envy? It seems you are simply appealing to your personal tastes here.

The words are always subjective, mere symbols for the concepts. The words may now mean something else, but the concepts remain unchanged.

One's wisdom can be judged solely on his vocabulary. When you learn a new, more intricate idea, you can encapsulate that idea in a vocabulary term and save much knowledge inside a single term. I don't understand how you ca say the concepts remain unchanged when I just told you precisely how they aren't.

If the concepts, the ideas, change, then we wouldn't have any word to define ancient concepts, yet we still have words to define those concepts, although different from the words ancient people used. The word changes, the concept is intact.

Being ambitious is and always be "being ambitious", envy will always be envy, kindness will always be kindness, etc. Even if the word "envious" means something else in the future, the "envious" concept will always exist under this or any other word.

But it doesn't - I just explained why. The word has dulled, not evolved. The concept of kindness, patience, and ambitious are lost, and no words have replaced them.

If no words have replaced them, how is it possible that you transmited to me purely through your words, the meaning of these concepts?

Btw:
Kindness: from "kydnes" -> nation, production, increase. (three words!)
Patience: from "patientia" -> patience, endurance, submission, indulgence, leniency, humility... (there are more)
Ambitious: from "ambitionem" -> "going around soliciting votes, thirst, striving for favor, courting, flattery, desire for honor..."

So no concept lost for those...

So again, imo there's no wisdom lost whatsoever, simply a different way of referring to that wisdom, which is btw normal and necessary, or did you expect society to be stuck always with the same language, or concepts, or morality? I think that would be catastrophic for the progress of humanity as a whole.

I can appreciate the difference between old English and new, the way sentence structure works, but to take a word that has a perfect meaning and let it colloquially dull into a ambiguous synonym for something else is not healthy. And letting such an intricate concept turn to dust is really quite tragic.

Well that's certainly your subjective appreciation. But it is simply natural for the language to change along with society. If this didn't happen, language would lose his useful purpose.

I believe it is impossible to fully understand consciousness without science, as we can only understand consciousness at a fundamental level if we are able to determine the structural basis that creates it, and how it is created.

I love science... but as of yet it is %100 useless to describe consciousness. If it wasn't, the concept of "zombie" would be abolished overnight and Descartes would be shelved along with Ptolemy.

Well, then don't you agree that determining the structures from which consciousness arises, would help a big deal to determine if an atom is consciouss or not?

But your metaparadigm has not been questioned. You are unable to even ask yourself the question: "is it possible for matter to come from consciousness, as opposed to consciousness coming from matter?"
It is clearly difficult to measure "how conscious" is a being if we don't even know the processes that make someone conscious. Since consciousness limits are precisely not well established by science or philosophy, we can not figure out a way to measure consciousness because we essentially don't know in depth what consciousness is. However, you jumped to agree with me when I said the more complex an organism is, the more conscious is, and therefore there is a way to measure consciousness even by pure intuition.

This is an antiscientific way of thinking, is it not?

In which sense? Are you suggesting accepting science current limitations is antiscientific?

I don't agree with Descartes because his "zombie" experiment assumes the soul exists. Since I don't believe the soul exists, I can not accept there's something more than Descartes' zombies in here.

Now if we change soul by consciousness, then the experiment gets more realism, and also is more easy to solve. It is pretty easy to distinguish between fake-consciousnes and real consciousness as evidenced by the inability of artificial intelligence to overcome the Turing test.

The difference between AI and consciousness is as wide as the difference between Albert Einstein and a Sham-Wow. I don't accept that AI is useful for anything even remotely having to do with consciousness.

I don't see why. We can't take Descartes into account as he is speaking, as for now, of a fictitious human (a human with soul) and his counterpart (a zombie), the later being, as for now, the real human since ftm we have no evidence of the soul whatsoever. So the only way I could find Descartes experiment useful, is by considering consciousness, not soul, in the experiment. This could lead only to two conclussions:

1-AI is incapable of producing consciousness, therefore we can distinguish humans from zombies as opposed to Descartes' conclussion.
2-AI is capable of producing consciousness, therefore consciousness arises from matter and not viceversa.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 7:41:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 8:52:50 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:35:37 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/23/2015 3:38:55 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 1:46:10 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 11:54:45 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:13:08 AM, Otokage wrote:

How does a change in the meaning of words, lead you to believe this means knowledge is degrading?

If you read my example about Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle and still don't understand, then I'm not sure how else to put it - that was a powerful example.

It is interesting where we find knowledge, outside of Science.
in this case I will refer you to Romeo and Juliet - by William Shakespeare, from nearly 500 years ago when he wrote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
My powerful example trumps yours, unless the knowledge expressed in his words has been lost to you, and then I will have to explain it.

This has been going on for 5000 years or so that we know of, so has knowledge been degrading this whole time?

Obviously we advance in some areas, but I find it troubling that we regress or remain stagnant in others. As far as moral knowledge, we certainly are regressing, and I think technology and individualism play a big part in that. And why should we be surprised? Does it make any sense that we could spend our days sitting in front of TV sets while people in other countries labor away for us and sacrifice their land and resources so that we may have an abundance of material goods? Would somebody who knows absolutely nothing about America other than how much we consume expect us to be a nation of virtuous people?

If such a thing is true, then there was a zenith.
Such things may not be known with certainty, but I would think you would have some idea when our moral knowledge started regressing.
Was it with the invention of TV, or possibly U.S. capitalism - the American Revolution perhaps?
When in the history of man did our knowledge in any area start regressing?

There was the period known as the Dark Ages, which was more about weather and agriculture than knowledge. Even then, I would argue, the rate of growth decreased, but knowledge of mankind as a species did not regress.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 7:54:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 9:07:41 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:42:02 PM, Otokage wrote:

Sorry but I think you are beating around the bush. The evolution of language does not mean a degradation of concepts.

I think I demonstrated satisfactorily that this was degradation of language, certainly not "evolution." Evolution implies improvement, while in these cases intricate concepts are being lost and being replaced with dull, dim-witted ideas.

The words are always subjective, mere symbols for the concepts. The words may now mean something else, but the concepts remain unchanged.

One's wisdom can be judged solely on his vocabulary. When you learn a new, more intricate idea, you can encapsulate that idea in a vocabulary term and save much knowledge inside a single term. I don't understand how you ca say the concepts remain unchanged when I just told you precisely how they aren't.

Being ambitious is and always be "being ambitious", envy will always be envy, kindness will always be kindness, etc. Even if the word "envious" means something else in the future, the "envious" concept will always exist under this or any other word.

But it doesn't - I just explained why. The word has dulled, not evolved. The concept of kindness, patience, and ambitious are lost, and no words have replaced them.

So again, imo there's no wisdom lost whatsoever, simply a different way of referring to that wisdom, which is btw normal and necessary, or did you expect society to be stuck always with the same language, or concepts, or morality? I think that would be catastrophic for the progress of humanity as a whole.

I can appreciate the difference between old English and new, the way sentence structure works, but to take a word that has a perfect meaning and let it colloquially dull into a ambiguous synonym for something else is not healthy. And letting such an intricate concept turn to dust is really quite tragic.

Many great thinkers had deep insights into consciousness over the last millenium, and it doesn't really catch-on because there is a level of enlightenment one must achieve to understand it. It's not enough to see a scientific documentary on how electricity runs through the brain when we perform certain functions to understand the essence of what it is to be conscious. There's a big difference between psychology and consciousness. People don't recognize this because they want to believe that science is going to conquer consciousness and do the work for us while we sit back and consume the fruits of their labor, but we can't depend on others to do our thinking for us.

I believe it is impossible to fully understand consciousness without science, as we can only understand consciousness at a fundamental level if we are able to determine the structural basis that creates it, and how it is created.

I love science... but as of yet it is %100 useless to describe consciousness. If it wasn't, the concept of "zombie" would be abolished overnight and Descartes would be shelved along with Ptolemy.

Btw how do you reconcile the idea of consciousness not emerging from matter, with the observation that the more complex a nervious system is, the more conscious it is too? Doesn't the later mean that there's a clear relationship between the organization of matter and consciousness?

There's a clear relationship between how matter is organized and the level of consciousness, yes. A cat is less conscious than a person, a jellyfish is less conscious than a cat, an amoeba is less conscious than a jellyfish, and an atom is less conscious than an amoeba. But how do we measure consciousness? How do we know if an atom is conscious or not? It may have the slightest, .0000000001% consciousness, or it may be utterly unconscious.

Well, then don't you agree that determining the structures from which consciousness arises, would help a big deal to determine if an atom is consciouss or not?

But your metaparadigm has not been questioned. You are unable to even ask yourself the question: "is it possible for matter to come from consciousness, as opposed to consciousness coming from matter?"

It is clearly difficult to measure "how conscious" is a being if we don't even know the processes that make someone conscious. Since consciousness limits are precisely not well established by science or philosophy, we can not figure out a way to measure consciousness because we essentially don't know in depth what consciousness is. However, you jumped to agree with me when I said the more complex an organism is, the more conscious is, and therefore there is a way to measure consciousness even by pure intuition.

This is an antiscientific way of thinking, is it not?

But we don't know, in fact Descartes showed that I can't even know if you're conscious or not. It doesn't matter what psychological testing you do, the concept of zombies applies to everything and everyone because science is absolutely, 100% unable to approach consciousness.

I don't agree with Descartes because his "zombie" experiment assumes the soul exists. Since I don't believe the soul exists, I can not accept there's something more than Descartes' zombies in here.

Now if we change soul by consciousness, then the experiment gets more realism, and also is more easy to solve. It is pretty easy to distinguish between fake-consciousnes and real consciousness as evidenced by the inability of artificial intelligence to overcome the Turing test.

The difference between AI and consciousness is as wide as the difference between Albert Einstein and a Sham-Wow. I don't accept that AI is useful for anything even remotely having to do with consciousness.

Having a grandson who has developmental delay in both speech and language has reinforced in me the certain knowledge that language can be related to knowledge, but knowledge is not dependent on language.
Even more true, Wisdom is certainly not related to language.
He has knowledge well beyond his expression of speech, and wisdom beyond his understanding of the use of words.

I am reminded of Helen Keller and those who labeled her as being severely retarded.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:38:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
An interesting article on Newspeak and the dumbing down of language.
The keen observer will notice there is no loss of knowledge mentioned.
it includes a fun clip from George Carlin.
http://southernnationalist.com...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 1:50:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 6:27:32 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 9:07:41 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:42:02 PM, Otokage wrote:

Sorry but I think you are beating around the bush. The evolution of language does not mean a degradation of concepts.

I think I demonstrated satisfactorily that this was degradation of language, certainly not "evolution." Evolution implies improvement, while in these cases intricate concepts are being lost and being replaced with dull, dim-witted ideas.

Evolution doesn't mean improvement. Where did you get this from? Evolution means adaptation, change. In this same sense, the langague is being adapted to present times, and thus it is evolving. About the "dull, dim-witted" ideas, that is highly subjective. Why would I consider the 100 year old definition of "envy", more useful than the present definition of envy? It seems you are simply appealing to your personal tastes here.

The original term was created with an abstract meaning, based on wisdom and experience. Consider the term "work." In physics this means force times distance. The colloquial usage loses the wisdom within the term. If the colloquial term completely replaced the physics term, our knowledge would suffer - and this is precisely what has happened with some of our language.

The words are always subjective, mere symbols for the concepts. The words may now mean something else, but the concepts remain unchanged.

One's wisdom can be judged solely on his vocabulary. When you learn a new, more intricate idea, you can encapsulate that idea in a vocabulary term and save much knowledge inside a single term. I don't understand how you ca say the concepts remain unchanged when I just told you precisely how they aren't.

If the concepts, the ideas, change, then we wouldn't have any word to define ancient concepts, yet we still have words to define those concepts, although different from the words ancient people used. The word changes, the concept is intact.

The concepts do not remain intact, they are lost. What words have replaced "ambitious," "patience," and "kindness?"

Being ambitious is and always be "being ambitious", envy will always be envy, kindness will always be kindness, etc. Even if the word "envious" means something else in the future, the "envious" concept will always exist under this or any other word.

But it doesn't - I just explained why. The word has dulled, not evolved. The concept of kindness, patience, and ambitious are lost, and no words have replaced them.

If no words have replaced them, how is it possible that you transmited to me purely through your words, the meaning of these concepts?

Because I have done the research, and fought against the current to get there. I cannot communicate the ideas because I am seemingly the only one who currently knows them! And that is tragic.

Btw:
Kindness: from "kydnes" -> nation, production, increase. (three words!)
Patience: from "patientia" -> patience, endurance, submission, indulgence, leniency, humility... (there are more)
Ambitious: from "ambitionem" -> "going around soliciting votes, thirst, striving for favor, courting, flattery, desire for honor..."

So no concept lost for those...

The words have roots, but that doesn't change the fact that they had very precise meanings at one time and those meanings are now lost.

So again, imo there's no wisdom lost whatsoever, simply a different way of referring to that wisdom, which is btw normal and necessary, or did you expect society to be stuck always with the same language, or concepts, or morality? I think that would be catastrophic for the progress of humanity as a whole.

I can appreciate the difference between old English and new, the way sentence structure works, but to take a word that has a perfect meaning and let it colloquially dull into a ambiguous synonym for something else is not healthy. And letting such an intricate concept turn to dust is really quite tragic.

Well that's certainly your subjective appreciation. But it is simply natural for the language to change along with society. If this didn't happen, language would lose his useful purpose.

There is positive change and negative change. Our new vocabularies in sciences and technology are positive changes, while our loss in moral terminology is negative.

I believe it is impossible to fully understand consciousness without science, as we can only understand consciousness at a fundamental level if we are able to determine the structural basis that creates it, and how it is created.

I love science... but as of yet it is %100 useless to describe consciousness. If it wasn't, the concept of "zombie" would be abolished overnight and Descartes would be shelved along with Ptolemy.

Well, then don't you agree that determining the structures from which consciousness arises, would help a big deal to determine if an atom is consciouss or not?

But your metaparadigm has not been questioned. You are unable to even ask yourself the question: "is it possible for matter to come from consciousness, as opposed to consciousness coming from matter?"
It is clearly difficult to measure "how conscious" is a being if we don't even know the processes that make someone conscious. Since consciousness limits are precisely not well established by science or philosophy, we can not figure out a way to measure consciousness because we essentially don't know in depth what consciousness is. However, you jumped to agree with me when I said the more complex an organism is, the more conscious is, and therefore there is a way to measure consciousness even by pure intuition.

This is an antiscientific way of thinking, is it not?

In which sense? Are you suggesting accepting science current limitations is antiscientific?

You suggested using intuition to measure consciousness. Intuition is the enemy of science, it is why science was created - to block our intuition and biases, and replace them with cold hard facts. I intuitively think the Sun goes round the Earth...

I don't agree with Descartes because his "zombie" experiment assumes the soul exists. Since I don't believe the soul exists, I can not accept there's something more than Descartes' zombies in here.

Now if we change soul by consciousness, then the experiment gets more realism, and also is more easy to solve. It is pretty easy to distinguish between fake-consciousnes and real consciousness as evidenced by the inability of artificial intelligence to overcome the Turing test.

The difference between AI and consciousness is as wide as the difference between Albert Einstein and a Sham-Wow. I don't accept that AI is useful for anything even remotely having to do with consciousness.

I don't see why. We can't take Descartes into account as he is speaking, as for now, of a fictitious human (a human with soul) and his counterpart (a zombie), the later being, as for now, the real human since ftm we have no evidence of the soul whatsoever. So the only way I could find Descartes experiment useful, is by considering consciousness, not soul, in the experiment. This could lead only to two conclussions:

1-AI is incapable of producing consciousness, therefore we can distinguish humans from zombies as opposed to Descartes' conclussion.
2-AI is capable of producing consciousness, therefore consciousness arises from matter and not viceversa.

Just because AI cannot produce consciousness doesn't mean we can distinguish humans from zombies, I don't see your connection there.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 2:01:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 7:41:56 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/23/2015 8:52:50 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:35:37 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/23/2015 3:38:55 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 1:46:10 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 11:54:45 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:13:08 AM, Otokage wrote:

How does a change in the meaning of words, lead you to believe this means knowledge is degrading?

If you read my example about Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle and still don't understand, then I'm not sure how else to put it - that was a powerful example.

It is interesting where we find knowledge, outside of Science.
in this case I will refer you to Romeo and Juliet - by William Shakespeare, from nearly 500 years ago when he wrote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
My powerful example trumps yours, unless the knowledge expressed in his words has been lost to you, and then I will have to explain it.

I understand your meaning, and I appreciate it. But a rose differs from wisdom. If the physics term "work" was replaced with the colloquial version, i.e., distance times force was replaced with a vague idea of physical productivity, then that concept would be lost and have to be re-learned at some point. This is what has happened with moral terminology, and I suspect our individualistic, technologically-enhanced culture has something to do with it. A rose, on the other hand, does not need definition because it grows itself and cannot be extinguished unless we plan on extermination the species to extinction.

This has been going on for 5000 years or so that we know of, so has knowledge been degrading this whole time?

Obviously we advance in some areas, but I find it troubling that we regress or remain stagnant in others. As far as moral knowledge, we certainly are regressing, and I think technology and individualism play a big part in that. And why should we be surprised? Does it make any sense that we could spend our days sitting in front of TV sets while people in other countries labor away for us and sacrifice their land and resources so that we may have an abundance of material goods? Would somebody who knows absolutely nothing about America other than how much we consume expect us to be a nation of virtuous people?

If such a thing is true, then there was a zenith.
Such things may not be known with certainty, but I would think you would have some idea when our moral knowledge started regressing.
Was it with the invention of TV, or possibly U.S. capitalism - the American Revolution perhaps?
When in the history of man did our knowledge in any area start regressing?

There was the period known as the Dark Ages, which was more about weather and agriculture than knowledge. Even then, I would argue, the rate of growth decreased, but knowledge of mankind as a species did not regress.

Our degradation started as a gentle slope upward centuries ago, and has turned a sharp corner in recent times. It is an amazingly complicated social phenomenon, and I doubt I can do it justice in a few paragraphs here. Do you not see it for yourself? As technology softens the demand on our skills, our skills disappear. Our physical and mental abilities are evaporating. Can most people fix a single thing in their houses? Can most people create or maintain even a single product they use? Do we know anything about where our stuff comes from, how it is made, or where it goes when we are done with it? Do most people have more than perhaps one skill, which, even if it is highly technical, applies to almost nothing in our daily lives? We depend on others for everything, and we are absolutely clueless about the outside world.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 2:05:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 7:54:41 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/23/2015 9:07:41 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/23/2015 6:42:02 PM, Otokage wrote:

Sorry but I think you are beating around the bush. The evolution of language does not mean a degradation of concepts.

I think I demonstrated satisfactorily that this was degradation of language, certainly not "evolution." Evolution implies improvement, while in these cases intricate concepts are being lost and being replaced with dull, dim-witted ideas.

The words are always subjective, mere symbols for the concepts. The words may now mean something else, but the concepts remain unchanged.

One's wisdom can be judged solely on his vocabulary. When you learn a new, more intricate idea, you can encapsulate that idea in a vocabulary term and save much knowledge inside a single term. I don't understand how you ca say the concepts remain unchanged when I just told you precisely how they aren't.

Being ambitious is and always be "being ambitious", envy will always be envy, kindness will always be kindness, etc. Even if the word "envious" means something else in the future, the "envious" concept will always exist under this or any other word.

But it doesn't - I just explained why. The word has dulled, not evolved. The concept of kindness, patience, and ambitious are lost, and no words have replaced them.

So again, imo there's no wisdom lost whatsoever, simply a different way of referring to that wisdom, which is btw normal and necessary, or did you expect society to be stuck always with the same language, or concepts, or morality? I think that would be catastrophic for the progress of humanity as a whole.

I can appreciate the difference between old English and new, the way sentence structure works, but to take a word that has a perfect meaning and let it colloquially dull into a ambiguous synonym for something else is not healthy. And letting such an intricate concept turn to dust is really quite tragic.

Many great thinkers had deep insights into consciousness over the last millenium, and it doesn't really catch-on because there is a level of enlightenment one must achieve to understand it. It's not enough to see a scientific documentary on how electricity runs through the brain when we perform certain functions to understand the essence of what it is to be conscious. There's a big difference between psychology and consciousness. People don't recognize this because they want to believe that science is going to conquer consciousness and do the work for us while we sit back and consume the fruits of their labor, but we can't depend on others to do our thinking for us.

I believe it is impossible to fully understand consciousness without science, as we can only understand consciousness at a fundamental level if we are able to determine the structural basis that creates it, and how it is created.

I love science... but as of yet it is %100 useless to describe consciousness. If it wasn't, the concept of "zombie" would be abolished overnight and Descartes would be shelved along with Ptolemy.

Btw how do you reconcile the idea of consciousness not emerging from matter, with the observation that the more complex a nervious system is, the more conscious it is too? Doesn't the later mean that there's a clear relationship between the organization of matter and consciousness?

There's a clear relationship between how matter is organized and the level of consciousness, yes. A cat is less conscious than a person, a jellyfish is less conscious than a cat, an amoeba is less conscious than a jellyfish, and an atom is less conscious than an amoeba. But how do we measure consciousness? How do we know if an atom is conscious or not? It may have the slightest, .0000000001% consciousness, or it may be utterly unconscious.

Well, then don't you agree that determining the structures from which consciousness arises, would help a big deal to determine if an atom is consciouss or not?

But your metaparadigm has not been questioned. You are unable to even ask yourself the question: "is it possible for matter to come from consciousness, as opposed to consciousness coming from matter?"

It is clearly difficult to measure "how conscious" is a being if we don't even know the processes that make someone conscious. Since consciousness limits are precisely not well established by science or philosophy, we can not figure out a way to measure consciousness because we essentially don't know in depth what consciousness is. However, you jumped to agree with me when I said the more complex an organism is, the more conscious is, and therefore there is a way to measure consciousness even by pure intuition.

This is an antiscientific way of thinking, is it not?

But we don't know, in fact Descartes showed that I can't even know if you're conscious or not. It doesn't matter what psychological testing you do, the concept of zombies applies to everything and everyone because science is absolutely, 100% unable to approach consciousness.

I don't agree with Descartes because his "zombie" experiment assumes the soul exists. Since I don't believe the soul exists, I can not accept there's something more than Descartes' zombies in here.

Now if we change soul by consciousness, then the experiment gets more realism, and also is more easy to solve. It is pretty easy to distinguish between fake-consciousnes and real consciousness as evidenced by the inability of artificial intelligence to overcome the Turing test.

The difference between AI and consciousness is as wide as the difference between Albert Einstein and a Sham-Wow. I don't accept that AI is useful for anything even remotely having to do with consciousness.

Having a grandson who has developmental delay in both speech and language has reinforced in me the certain knowledge that language can be related to knowledge, but knowledge is not dependent on language.
Even more true, Wisdom is certainly not related to language.
He has knowledge well beyond his expression of speech, and wisdom beyond his understanding of the use of words.

I am reminded of Helen Keller and those who labeled her as being severely retarded.

These are peculiar examples, and there is an important distinction between our ability to articulate things and our inner ability to understand them. If somebody has a particular difficulty with speech, then it becomes more difficult to judge them on their language. Language is a reflection of our wisdom nonetheless...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 2:32:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 8:38:24 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
An interesting article on Newspeak and the dumbing down of language.
The keen observer will notice there is no loss of knowledge mentioned.
it includes a fun clip from George Carlin.
http://southernnationalist.com...

I am speechless. The name includes the phrase "dumbing down of language" and you, in the next breath, express how no loss of knowledge occurs. I wonder what George Carlin would have to say about your post :/
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 3:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 2:32:17 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/24/2015 8:38:24 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
An interesting article on Newspeak and the dumbing down of language.
The keen observer will notice there is no loss of knowledge mentioned.
it includes a fun clip from George Carlin.
http://southernnationalist.com...

I am speechless. The name includes the phrase "dumbing down of language" and you, in the next breath, express how no loss of knowledge occurs. I wonder what George Carlin would have to say about your post :/

You have failed to see the difference between language and knowledge as demonstrated several times now.
A person's language skills could be limited to 100 signs of the American Sign language, and no spoken words, and this in no way would reflect the knowledge of the individual.
Then this: "Language is a reflection of our wisdom nonetheless... ".

Language is a cognitive skill. Other cognitive skills such as perception, attention, memory, problem solving, decision making, sequencing, inferring, and reasoning. are not dependent on language.
All of these skills can be stellar, even in the absence of language.
Wisdom is unrelated to language.

You have lead a sheltered life.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:14:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 3:52:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/24/2015 2:32:17 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/24/2015 8:38:24 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
An interesting article on Newspeak and the dumbing down of language.
The keen observer will notice there is no loss of knowledge mentioned.
it includes a fun clip from George Carlin.
http://southernnationalist.com...

I am speechless. The name includes the phrase "dumbing down of language" and you, in the next breath, express how no loss of knowledge occurs. I wonder what George Carlin would have to say about your post :/

You have failed to see the difference between language and knowledge as demonstrated several times now.

"A man with a scant vocabulary will almost certainly be a weak thinker. The richer and more copious one's vocabulary and the greater one's awareness of fine distinctions and subtle nuances of meaning, the more fertile and precise is likely to be one's thinking. Knowledge of things and knowledge of the words for them grow together. If you do not know the words, you can hardly know the thing."
R13; Henry Hazlitt, Thinking as a Science

"As vocabulary is reduced , so are the number of feelings you can express, the number of events you can describe, the number of the things you can identify! Not only understanding is limited, but also experience. Man grows by language. Whenever he limits language he retrogresses!"
R13; Sheri S. Tepper, A Plague of Angels

"We are losing our common vocabulary, built over thousands of years to help and delight and instruct us, for the sake of what we take to be the new technology's virtues. "
R13; Alberto Manguel, The Library at Night

"Every one has experienced how learning an appropriate name for what was dim and vague cleared up and crystallized the whole matter. Some meaning seems distinct almost within reach, but is elusive; it refuses to condense into definite form; the attaching of a word somehow (just how, it is almost impossible to say) puts limits around the meaning, draws it out from the void, makes it stand out as an entity on its own account."
R13; John Dewey, How We Think

I find these arguments much better than yours. No offense.

A person's language skills could be limited to 100 signs of the American Sign language, and no spoken words, and this in no way would reflect the knowledge of the individual.

Like I said, that is a peculiar example and does not represent everyone. If somebody has some disorder, then perhaps that can be true in special cases. But in a normal person, particularly one that desires to grasp complex ideas, one needs a vocabulary to, as the quote put forth, "condense it into definite form."

Then this: "Language is a reflection of our wisdom nonetheless... ".

Language is a cognitive skill. Other cognitive skills such as perception, attention, memory, problem solving, decision making, sequencing, inferring, and reasoning. are not dependent on language.
All of these skills can be stellar, even in the absence of language.
Wisdom is unrelated to language.

If you challenge Aaron Rodgers to a game of tennis, he'll probably beat you. Why? Because he's a great athlete. He may be a football player, not a tennis-player, but being a great athlete he'll probably be good at all sports. The intellectual is the same way. One isn't going to be proficient in all the areas you mentioned and then all of a sudden extremely deficient in one. And if that is the case, they will have some very special condition that does not apply to most people in general. In the same way, you won't find Aaron Rodgers can't hit a baseball or a tennis ball to save his life, just because football is his main sport.

You have lead a sheltered life.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 7:07:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 11:14:43 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/24/2015 3:52:39 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/24/2015 2:32:17 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/24/2015 8:38:24 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
An interesting article on Newspeak and the dumbing down of language.
The keen observer will notice there is no loss of knowledge mentioned.
it includes a fun clip from George Carlin.
http://southernnationalist.com...

I am speechless. The name includes the phrase "dumbing down of language" and you, in the next breath, express how no loss of knowledge occurs. I wonder what George Carlin would have to say about your post :/

You have failed to see the difference between language and knowledge as demonstrated several times now.

"A man with a scant vocabulary will almost certainly be a weak thinker. The richer and more copious one's vocabulary and the greater one's awareness of fine distinctions and subtle nuances of meaning, the more fertile and precise is likely to be one's thinking. Knowledge of things and knowledge of the words for them grow together. If you do not know the words, you can hardly know the thing."
R13; Henry Hazlitt, Thinking as a Science

"As vocabulary is reduced , so are the number of feelings you can express, the number of events you can describe, the number of the things you can identify! Not only understanding is limited, but also experience. Man grows by language. Whenever he limits language he retrogresses!"
R13; Sheri S. Tepper, A Plague of Angels

"We are losing our common vocabulary, built over thousands of years to help and delight and instruct us, for the sake of what we take to be the new technology's virtues. "
R13; Alberto Manguel, The Library at Night

"Every one has experienced how learning an appropriate name for what was dim and vague cleared up and crystallized the whole matter. Some meaning seems distinct almost within reach, but is elusive; it refuses to condense into definite form; the attaching of a word somehow (just how, it is almost impossible to say) puts limits around the meaning, draws it out from the void, makes it stand out as an entity on its own account."
R13; John Dewey, How We Think

I find these arguments much better than yours. No offense.

A person's language skills could be limited to 100 signs of the American Sign language, and no spoken words, and this in no way would reflect the knowledge of the individual.

Like I said, that is a peculiar example and does not represent everyone. If somebody has some disorder, then perhaps that can be true in special cases. But in a normal person, particularly one that desires to grasp complex ideas, one needs a vocabulary to, as the quote put forth, "condense it into definite form."

"Represent everyone"?
What does that even mean?
I think you must mean a 'completely average person'.
I mentioned Helen Keller - that should have been your clue that I was not referring to someone representing everyone.
Average people have language skills - so duh - of course my comment is not about representing everyone.
I said "Other cognitive skills such as perception, attention, memory, problem solving, decision making, sequencing, inferring, and reasoning. are not dependent on language."

If a group of people that lack language skills, have these other cognation skills, what I say is true.
Language skills are not inseparably linked to other mental skills.
In a general way do we suspect that someone who lacks language skills might lack other cognition skills?
Sure, that suspicion would be a reasonable belief, that may be incorrect.
Should we assume that that all persons who lack language skills lack these other cognition skills? Of course not. It is called judging a book by its cover - not a prudent thing to do.

"Non-verbal intelligence enables people to solve complex problems using visual and hands-on reasoning skills requiring little or no use of language."
http://www.ed.ac.uk...

"Other than the difference in their language development, people with high-functioning autism and people with Asperger's syndrome share many similar characteristics. They typically have average or above-average intelligence. "
http://www.webmd.com...

Scores on fine motor (Peabody Developmental Motor Scale 2), expressive language (Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test) and receptive language (Reynell Developmental Language Scales or Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals - Preschool 2) testing, and cognitive performance (Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Third Edition) were obtained.
The conclusion was made that an initial diagnosis of GDD is not necessarily associated with objective cognitive impairment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Since 1861 scientists have known that language is processed by particular parts of the brain.
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca...
The impairment of these parts of the brain does not insure a similar impairment in other cognition skills (perception, attention, memory, problem solving, decision making, sequencing, inferring, and reasoning).

Then this: "Language is a reflection of our wisdom nonetheless... ".

Language is a cognitive skill. Other cognitive skills such as perception, attention, memory, problem solving, decision making, sequencing, inferring, and reasoning. are not dependent on language.
All of these skills can be stellar, even in the absence of language.
Wisdom is unrelated to language.

If you challenge Aaron Rodgers to a game of tennis, he'll probably beat you. Why? Because he's a great athlete. He may be a football player, not a tennis-player, but being a great athlete he'll probably be good at all sports. The intellectual is the same way. One isn't going to be proficient in all the areas you mentioned and then all of a sudden extremely deficient in one. And if that is the case, they will have some very special condition that does not apply to most people in general. In the same way, you won't find Aaron Rodgers can't hit a baseball or a tennis ball to save his life, just because football is his main sport.

"Does not apply to most people in general".
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.
In all people, repeat, all people, cognition skills of perception, attention, memory, problem solving, decision making, sequencing, inferring, and reasoning, are not dependent on language skills.
There is no casual relationship, no 'if this, then this..." relationship.
Correlations are a dime a dozen, and mean nothing.

You have lead a sheltered life.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 8:22:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 1:50:42 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The original term was created with an abstract meaning, based on wisdom and experience. Consider the term "work." In physics this means force times distance. The colloquial usage loses the wisdom within the term. If the colloquial term completely replaced the physics term, our knowledge would suffer - and this is precisely what has happened with some of our language.

I still don't get what you are trying to say. The term work in the context of physics still means force*distance. Obviously in other context, the term work means different things. Did you expect words to be inmune to context? I'm honestly very confused by your arguments.

The concepts do not remain intact, they are lost. What words have replaced "ambitious," "patience," and "kindness?"
Btw:
Kindness: from "kydnes" -> nation, production, increase. (three words!)
Patience: from "patientia" -> patience, endurance, submission, indulgence, leniency, humility... (there are more)
Ambitious: from "ambitionem" -> "going around soliciting votes, thirst, striving for favor, courting, flattery, desire for honor..."

So no concept lost for those...

The words have roots, but that doesn't change the fact that they had very precise meanings at one time and those meanings are now lost.

They aren't lost, the meanings are simply part of different words now. To put you an example, "sophisticated" originaly meant fake/superficial. But with time, it started meaning "complex" and the original meaning was moved to the word "superficial". And therefore the meaning was never lost.

There is positive change and negative change. Our new vocabularies in sciences and technology are positive changes, while our loss in moral terminology is negative.

Still I see no loss, just words changing and meanings changing from one word to another. I'm starting to think the argument is pointless, as I suspect I will never understand what you are trying to say...

You suggested using intuition to measure consciousness. Intuition is the enemy of science, it is why science was created - to block our intuition and biases, and replace them with cold hard facts. I intuitively think the Sun goes round the Earth...

No I didn't suggest such a thing. I simply stated the obvious that consciousness can be easily recogniced even by pure intuition by all of us, but by no means I would propose intuition as a serious way to measure consciousness or anything at all. About you thinking the Sun goes around the Earth, it is simply impossible that you know that by pure intuition, because the concept of orbits, spherical earth, gravitational pull, etc. are extremely counter-intuitive.

Just because AI cannot produce consciousness doesn't mean we can distinguish humans from zombies, I don't see your connection there.

It is simple. If humans are "people with real consciousness" and zombies are "people without consciousness trying to trick you into believing they have one" then zombies are essentialy AI trying to pass the Turing Test. As it is extremely easy for everyone to determine whether or not an IA has passed this test, it is therefore extremely easy to distinguish a zombie from a human, and therefore the Descartes' problem is not difficult to solve at all.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 9:10:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 8:22:39 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/24/2015 1:50:42 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

Just because AI cannot produce consciousness doesn't mean we can distinguish humans from zombies, I don't see your connection there.

It is simple. If humans are "people with real consciousness" and zombies are "people without consciousness trying to trick you into believing they have one" then zombies are essentialy AI trying to pass the Turing Test. As it is extremely easy for everyone to determine whether or not an IA has passed this test, it is therefore extremely easy to distinguish a zombie from a human, and therefore the Descartes' problem is not difficult to solve at all.

Minor point, but we don't actually use the Turing test as a sufficient means to determine consciousness. It would result in too many false positives.