/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11005605

72KiB, 496x431, image-20160302-25879-1bwwgbg.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Panpsychism shouldn't be ruled out.

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 12:42:57 2019 No.11005605 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11005797 >>11005815 >>11005831 >>11005833 >>11005856 >>11008021 >>11008257 >>11009060

>inb4 /x/

Consciousness and intelligence are two different things. People only rule out panpsychism because they forget this.

Also, we view the world as concrete "things."
In my opinion, nouns are an illusion. The world is full of happenings, our brain just likes to interpret them as concepts for simplicity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:01:58 No.11005797 Report

Quoted By: >>11005799 >>11005815 >>11005828

>>11005605
>Consciousness and intelligence are two different things

This is also why I find the idea that AI would eventually get conscious just because it got "intelligent enough" very dubious. Our computers already have superhuman intelligence, why don't we consider them conscious? Just because they lack the generality and ability to learn in a flexible manner? Well in that there has been already some considerable development in recent years but I doubt anyone thinks any form of AI has any consciousness at all so far. And what has that do with consciousness, i.e. feelings like pain? Qualia that can be really simple and as far as we know even the dumbest animals experience?

That's not to say I think there's a reason why we couldn't create artificial consciousness, or that consciousness is dependent on some very specific kind of hardware like a brain made out of meat. That might happen with AI as well if we try to create it by reverse-engineering human brain, just not by simply the virtue of its generality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:03:01 No.11005799 Report

Quoted By: >>11005835

>>11005797
>Our computers already have superhuman intelligence

"in their limited domains" got left out for some reason

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:06:56 No.11005815 Report

Quoted By: >>11005839

>>11005605
>>11005797
Right, consciousness (subjective experiences, whatever you wanna call it) might be completely orthogonal to intelligence. Our society could end up being controlled largely by machines that are running ”blind” or in the dark with respect to consciousness, so to speak (I think there’s an SF novel based around this concept).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:12:49 No.11005828 Report

Quoted By: >>11005835

>>11005797
> Our computers already have superhuman intelligence.
No, they just have a lot of computational power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:14:20 No.11005831 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005605
If you have the ability to think outside of established and "approved" norms, conceptualize intelligence over time. That is to say, entities that you might otherwise deem unintelligent may have an intelligence that processes either much slower or faster than we do, such as plant responses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:15:24 No.11005833 Report

Quoted By: >>11005853

>>11005605
Nobody rules it out we just can’t verify it. That’s what science is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:15:35 No.11005835 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005799
>>11005828
you can't completely separate those two (though they are certainly distinct), and I already added that I meant to say superhuman in specialized areas

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:16:15 No.11005839 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005815
I don't like "running blind" or "in the dark" as terms for it. I feel they don't really give the right idea as to what you mean, a better expression would be "without anyone watching through the windows" or something to that effect. Simply because being "in the dark" often means being ignorant of something and "running blind" does not give the idea of a lack of true consciousness but of blindness.

It's like the difference between an npc and a player in a video game, say, call of duty. From all appearances in the game world there is no difference between the npc's and the players but the players are the only ones through which I person is viewing the game.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:25:15 No.11005853 Report

Quoted By: >>11008020

>>11005833
I know many people including scientists who rule it out as New Age bullshit.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO The Combination Problem.png, 271KiB, 833x630

Anonymous Thu 26 Sep 2019 14:27:40 No.11005856 Report

Quoted By: >>11009045 >>11009096 >>11012582

>>11005605
The Combination Problem is the main reason panpsychism is ruled out: how do micro subjects combine to form a macro subject?
Dr. Bernardo Kastrup explains why this problem is fatal to panpsychism and how a view like idealism should be preferred:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7cspjwvHM

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:53:37 No.11008020 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005853
many people are stupid mane who gives a shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 05:54:08 No.11008021 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005605
Schizo

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 09:10:47 No.11008257 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005605
Based Chalmers. Also read String theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 16:31:38 No.11009045 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005856
I haven't watched that video yet but keep in mind that consciousness isn't a subject, your mind produces the illusion of self or being a subject, so there is no combination problem with consciousness. The mistake made is that there must be an "experiencer of experiences."
Experience is happening, without an experiencer. Think more with verbs than nouns.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 16:39:06 No.11009060 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005605
I'm not going to waste time arguing with with you, but if you have a feeling that people on this board will reject you are direct you back to /x/, why don't you just go >>>/x/ in the first place? I'm sure they're love your "theory."

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Sep 2019 16:54:24 No.11009096 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005856
>what physical process could possibly account for the combination

my abacus can't run tetris
does that mean a more complex calculator also can't?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 02:35:26 No.11010937 Report

Quoted By:

We don't in the current time know anywhere near enough about the brain to discuss any of this is a meaningful way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Sep 2019 18:23:36 No.11012582 Report

Quoted By:

>>11005856
>that video
>/x/

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches