Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello Jack!

Thank you. Actually, when you think about it, (in consciousness) not only is the discourse much about discouraging the either/or approach (instead of embracing the appropriate both/and) consciousness is both material and immaterial. But what we are left with is the question over primacy. For instance, "St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."

In that case it's a little of both working together (subjective sentience/feeling and objective logic/intellect). It's all a matter of degree.

To this end, given that the feeling of human Will (for happiness, purpose, Being, etc.) is metaphysical, I would argue that the metaphysical takes primacy in human causation. In other words, what primarily causes human behavior (why do we do the things that we do)? Is it because we want to feel a something? What is that something?

Even if it's emergent instinct, the mysterious explanations of genetically coded anthropic conditions are partially beyond the physical because of our self-awareness and volition (we don't act on instinct alone). Our human motivations are different. It's called one's quality of life (quality over quantity). And so we are left with what it is that causes us to want to live and be a somebody? We typically want to feel pleasure and avoid pain, whatever that may be.

The short, the two part question there is: either/or, or both/and? And also, which takes primacy? Or, does it also depend on the happenstance? In discussing behavioral features of human consciousness and causation, I would consider the primacy of quality over quantity. Is quality metaphysical? What would it look like if we didn't have quality?

Thanks for your reply and I am glad that someone sees that it consciousness cannot be reduced to an either/ or of materialism or idealism. Until I started writing on this site and TPF I never saw that the two positions were opposed fiercely. I was familiar with Skinner's behaviourist materialism and had read a little of Dennett's ideas. There is so much debate on the topic and I would say that the discussion on it. I am fairly impressed with the positions of Sy Borg, who seems to be coming more from a materialist perspective and Belindi, who is coming from more of an idealist approach, because they are not going to the extremes. They are listening to both arguments and trying to look in depth, rather than some people who seem to come from a completely one-sided approach.

The interaction between the material aspects and those beyond it is extremely complex. It may be difficult to determine which came first. I did have some discussion about it with Wayfarer on TPF, who comes from a Buddhist perspective. He argues that it is likely that the mind and matter both emerge from a higher order. I agree with that and think that this is the basic perspective of most esoteric philosophies, including esoteric traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. There are scientists who incorporate the esoteric aspects traditions too, like Fritjof Capra, Paul Davies and David Bohm.

I am not trying to suggest that the esoteric thinkers have the complete or better knowledge. But, some of these thinkers seem to have read and thought about this in a thorough way. The aspect which I dislike about forum discussion is that many people seem to wish to just argue on a fairly superficial level and don't appreciate reading philosophy. Of course, I don't wish to look down on anyone because every person is entitled to think as they choose and there is no obligation to read. However, the problem may be the opposite where some are critical of those who do read writers like Kant, Schopenhauer and Hegel. These writers didn't come from the scientific approach of the twentieth first century, but it may be that they captured ideas of importance, which may become lost in the blur of information overload, especially on the internet.

The issue of idealism and materialism is complex. Even with reading about it there is a need for reflection and there may not be clear cut answers because human knowledge is limited.

Yes Jack thank you. For our discussion purposes, I think if you meditate or focus on the different concepts of Quality and Quantity and the distinctions therein, you can see both are unique and required for consciousness. In the end, with much of existence, as philosophers, we are more often than not charged with the task of unraveling backward causation (in one instance, the why/how associated with finding meaning and purpose), and those intrinsic forces (of conscious beings/consciousness) that come along with it. Kind of analogous to music, someone created it then later on someone else figured it out (music theory or otherwise). And part of those mysteries relate to the unending force behind the will to embrace meaning, purpose and once again, one's own quality of life. An intrinsic or innate need of sorts, unique to sentient beings.

Anyway, you mentioned Paul Davies so I thought you would enjoy a kind of summary to our discussion. The fundamental impacts of observation, choice, self-awareness on a quantum scale, all partially speak to quality and meaning. The interminable will to seek purpose. And the metaphysical part is the emotive part (sentient Beings within the universe) driving it all, for which there is no escape. Life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being.

Thanks for the link to the Paul Davies video. The emphasis he gives to consciousness and your own point about 'quality' seems to me to point to the significance of consciousness as the central aspect of human experiences. The idea of consciousness an illusion is in the opposite direction as a way of undervaluing the nature of the inner world of experience and its intrinsic source of meaning. It is materialism, and with a slant towards undervaluing human meaning and worth. In a way, it is a specific ideology which could be used to say that human consciousness and feelings don't matter. As it is, the animal kingdom and other aspects have been undervalued through the mechanistic picture of Newtonian- Cartesian dualism. The idea of consciousness as an illusion may go even further as a means of suggesting that human beings can be seen as objects, and of insignifiant value.

Jack!

Yes, I'm glad you picked up on his use of the word "quality" as well as the philosophically equivalent term he cited "Qualia". And yes feelings ( portions of the Will among other's) do matter. As we briefly uncovered, feelings are the cause of Being (or 'not being' in the case of suicide, etc.). So the meta-physical 'thing' that occurs in consciousness has a primacy causal effect (i.e., the causational force that wills us to live and not die, to seek happiness, purpose, intentionality, ad nauseum) in our current state of Being.

What's kind of interesting (another rub), is the even Empiricist David Hume apparently recognized that primacy in his Treatise of Human Nature. When he infamously said ‘reason is the slave of the passions’ , and [ethical] decisions are grounded in [ethical] sentiment...."arguing that reason cannot be behind such [metaphysical] things from conscious existence.

"[Ethics-the force associated with sentient Beings] excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of [sentient Beings], therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."

But with respect to the OP and the use of the word-concept "illusion", I must conclude that for the material extremists, their use of that word 'illusion', seems to be just a euphemism for the meta-physical. Kind of a rhetorical nightmare of sorts (rhetorical device), not willing to acquiesce to the so-called truth in one's normal way of Being... LOL.

[JackDaydream]

Thanks for your reply and I am glad that someone sees that it consciousness cannot be reduced to an either/ or of materialism or idealism. Until I started writing on this site and TPF I never saw that the two positions were opposed fiercely. I was familiar with Skinner's behaviourist materialism and had read a little of Dennett's ideas. There is so much debate on the topic and I would say that the discussion on it. I am fairly impressed with the positions of Sy Borg, who seems to be coming more from a materialist perspective and Belindi, who is coming from more of an idealist approach, because they are not going to the extremes. They are listening to both arguments and trying to look in depth, rather than some people who seem to come from a completely one-sided approach.

The interaction between the material aspects and those beyond it is extremely complex. It may be difficult to determine which came first. I did have some discussion about it with Wayfarer on TPF, who comes from a Buddhist perspective. He argues that it is likely that the mind and matter both emerge from a higher order. I agree with that and think that this is the basic perspective of most esoteric philosophies, including esoteric traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. There are scientists who incorporate the esoteric aspects traditions too, like Fritjof Capra, Paul Davies and David Bohm.

I am not trying to suggest that the esoteric thinkers have the complete or better knowledge. But, some of these thinkers seem to have read and thought about this in a thorough way. The aspect which I dislike about forum discussion is that many people seem to wish to just argue on a fairly superficial level and don't appreciate reading philosophy. Of course, I don't wish to look down on anyone because every person is entitled to think as they choose and there is no obligation to read. However, the problem may be the opposite where some are critical of those who do read writers like Kant, Schopenhauer and Hegel. These writers didn't come from the scientific approach of the twentieth first century, but it may be that they captured ideas of importance, which may become lost in the blur of information overload, especially on the internet.

The issue of idealism and materialism is complex. Even with reading about it there is a need for reflection and there may not be clear cut answers because human knowledge is limited.

Yes Jack thank you. For our discussion purposes, I think if you meditate or focus on the different concepts of Quality and Quantity and the distinctions therein, you can see both are unique and required for consciousness. In the end, with much of existence, as philosophers, we are more often than not charged with the task of unraveling backward causation (in one instance, the why/how associated with finding meaning and purpose), and those intrinsic forces (of conscious beings/consciousness) that come along with it. Kind of analogous to music, someone created it then later on someone else figured it out (music theory or otherwise). And part of those mysteries relate to the unending force behind the will to embrace meaning, purpose and once again, one's own quality of life. An intrinsic or innate need of sorts, unique to sentient beings.

Anyway, you mentioned Paul Davies so I thought you would enjoy a kind of summary to our discussion. The fundamental impacts of observation, choice, self-awareness on a quantum scale, all partially speak to quality and meaning. The interminable will to seek purpose. And the metaphysical part is the emotive part (sentient Beings within the universe) driving it all, for which there is no escape. Life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being.

Thanks for the link to the Paul Davies video. The emphasis he gives to consciousness and your own point about 'quality' seems to me to point to the significance of consciousness as the central aspect of human experiences. The idea of consciousness an illusion is in the opposite direction as a way of undervaluing the nature of the inner world of experience and its intrinsic source of meaning. It is materialism, and with a slant towards undervaluing human meaning and worth. In a way, it is a specific ideology which could be used to say that human consciousness and feelings don't matter. As it is, the animal kingdom and other aspects have been undervalued through the mechanistic picture of Newtonian- Cartesian dualism. The idea of consciousness as an illusion may go even further as a means of suggesting that human beings can be seen as objects, and of insignifiant value.

Jack!

Yes, I'm glad you picked up on his use of the word "quality" as well as the philosophically equivalent term he cited "Qualia". And yes feelings ( portions of the Will among other's) do matter. As we briefly uncovered, feelings are the cause of Being (or 'not being' in the case of suicide, etc.). So the meta-physical 'thing' that occurs in consciousness has a primacy causal effect (i.e., the causational force that wills us to live and not die, to seek happiness, purpose, intentionality, ad nauseum) in our current state of Being.

What's kind of interesting (another rub), is the even Empiricist David Hume apparently recognized that primacy in his Treatise of Human Nature. When he infamously said ‘reason is the slave of the passions’ , and [ethical] decisions are grounded in [ethical] sentiment...."arguing that reason cannot be behind such [metaphysical] things from conscious existence.

"[Ethics-the force associated with sentient Beings] excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of [sentient Beings], therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."

But with respect to the OP and the use of the word-concept "illusion", I must conclude that for the material extremists, their use of that word 'illusion', seems to be just a euphemism for the meta-physical. Kind of a rhetorical nightmare of sorts (rhetorical device), not willing to acquiesce to the so-called truth in one's normal way of Being... LOL.

Hello again,
As far as I see it, what matters in life is the qualitative experiences, which is the reality of consciousness in the proces. It is not simply what is happening in life but how it is experienced. A person could be sitting on a deck chair on a sunny beach but feeling miserable or sheltering from the wind and rain in a cold hut, but enjoying this. The inner experience may be more important than the outer one in some ways.

I remember when I was assessing individuals' mental states in mental health nursing, it was not simply about looking at outer aspects of experiences, such as what time they got up and what they did during the day which was important. Behaviour was an important factor, but talking to the person, to explore their experiences, including thoughts and feelings was vital too. To ignore conscious experience seems a superficial approach to understanding the human being. To only consider the external aspects of experience could be seen as a big illusion.

The Hindus did go as far as suggesing that the outer world itself was an illusion, in the idea of maya. The world of experiences was seen as a fleeting sensory impressions, as if it were a dream. I can see some sense to this point of view because there is such a swiftness to sensory experiences that it does seem that, in some ways, they change so rapidly that they almost lack solidity. It is sometimes what a person makes of an experience in their own inner world which can be almost as important as the actual experience itself. I know that when I recall significant life events, including both positive and negative ones, it is often my own thoughts, alongside images and other sensory aspects of memories, which seem central.

To go to the point of seeing consciousness as an illusion or to see the experiences themselves as an illusion are the two extremes. Both matter in different ways. To see the outer world as illusory in the literal sense would be about becoming psychotic, and it is unlikely that Hindus would suggest that the outer world was complete fantasy. But, equally, to dismiss inner experience, as in consciousness, is a lopsided and atrophied picture of reality. As human beings, the world is not simply outer sequences, but involves human beings creating pictures of it as a basis for interaction with other beings and the environment as a conscious aspect of what it means to be a person.

[Sy Borg]

My revised point is much the same as before. It is that an information medium whether that be smells, sound waves, or silicon chips , is inert until along comes an intelligent animal that can learn information from some aspect of its environment.

There are now learning machines, though. Give them the right physical interface and they can readily use the information in the silicon chip.

Right. We are back to the problem of AI 'consciousness'. Obviously one doesn't want to make the Cartesian mistake of regarding sentient creatures as machines. Can an AI experience pain or joy? We will never know, and a humanoid robot can produce crocodile tears or convincing smiles and laughter.

Can a humanoid robot behave irrationally? I daresay it can be programmed to do so at random intervals.The machine can also be programmed, I suppose, to need to sleep and dream. The one thing an AI machine can't ever do is care about the whole environment as humans know wholeness, especially during a peak experience. Thus the AI machine can't be a Dasein who has a gestalt vision of the Whole. Sorry about the New-Agey tone of "Whole" but I can't think of a synonym.

Sentience is overrated. Humans reflexively overrate all of their strong points.

Humanlike sentience is almost certainly a transitory phase of matter, having only very recently appeared. It is absurd - even horrifying - to imagine that human sentience is the final, ultimate product of a universe of such scale, longevity and complexity.

In evolutionary terms, sentience - temporal awareness - provides a selection advantage. The human advantage over other species is a greater ability to learn from mistakes and predict future problems, and to more effectively pass that knowledge to future generations.

Human sentience has limitations, brought into sharp relief by its failure to operate sustainably. En masse humanity's behaviour has been not so dissimilar to a herd of overbreeding gazelles mindlessly grazing out their grasslands until they die out.

AI is basically a synthetic brain extension, interconnected with humans, and the connections are becoming deeper. At this stage it's a matter of humans being augmented by AI.

However, the Earth will crease to be habitable at some stage in the future. It is difficult and prohibitively expensive to send humans augmented by AI into space. So the roles reverse - AI augmented by humans. In time, the human component will be rationalised, perhaps limited to a small portion of a brain connected to AI. That would overcome the sentience problem.

It's a beautiful possibility - a brain fragment acting like mitochondria acts in a cell, being almost ubiquitously referred to as "the powerhouse of the cell". The brain would then be "the powerhouse of AI", being its source of motivation. It would ironic if that last bit of human brain driving a synthetic AI brain was the amygdala :)

[Belindi]

My revised point is much the same as before. It is that an information medium whether that be smells, sound waves, or silicon chips , is inert until along comes an intelligent animal that can learn information from some aspect of its environment.

There are now learning machines, though. Give them the right physical interface and they can readily use the information in the silicon chip.

Right. We are back to the problem of AI 'consciousness'. Obviously one doesn't want to make the Cartesian mistake of regarding sentient creatures as machines. Can an AI experience pain or joy? We will never know, and a humanoid robot can produce crocodile tears or convincing smiles and laughter.

Can a humanoid robot behave irrationally? I daresay it can be programmed to do so at random intervals.The machine can also be programmed, I suppose, to need to sleep and dream. The one thing an AI machine can't ever do is care about the whole environment as humans know wholeness, especially during a peak experience. Thus the AI machine can't be a Dasein who has a gestalt vision of the Whole. Sorry about the New-Agey tone of "Whole" but I can't think of a synonym.

Sentience is overrated. Humans reflexively overrate all of their strong points.

Humanlike sentience is almost certainly a transitory phase of matter, having only very recently appeared. It is absurd - even horrifying - to imagine that human sentience is the final, ultimate product of a universe of such scale, longevity and complexity.

In evolutionary terms, sentience - temporal awareness - provides a selection advantage. The human advantage over other species is a greater ability to learn from mistakes and predict future problems, and to more effectively pass that knowledge to future generations.

Human sentience has limitations, brought into sharp relief by its failure to operate sustainably. En masse humanity's behaviour has been not so dissimilar to a herd of overbreeding gazelles mindlessly grazing out their grasslands until they die out.

AI is basically a synthetic brain extension, interconnected with humans, and the connections are becoming deeper. At this stage it's a matter of humans being augmented by AI.

However, the Earth will crease to be habitable at some stage in the future. It is difficult and prohibitively expensive to send humans augmented by AI into space. So the roles reverse - AI augmented by humans. In time, the human component will be rationalised, perhaps limited to a small portion of a brain connected to AI. That would overcome the sentience problem.

It's a beautiful possibility - a brain fragment acting like mitochondria acts in a cell, being almost ubiquitously referred to as "the powerhouse of the cell". The brain would then be "the powerhouse of AI", being its source of motivation. It would ironic if that last bit of human brain driving a synthetic AI brain was the amygdala

I get it, all you describe. You are very explicit, and your description is entirely credible. One thing: are amygdalas evolved to control moral motivation?

Unwittingly perhaps, concealed in your explanation is sadness. Can an AI feel pity for the transience of itself, gazelles, or biological humans? Can the AI feel happy that he has been a good boy? For those feelings to happen there would have to be programmed at least the moral sense that close relations and friends matter more to the amygdala than himself, perhaps extending to universal care for others more than self.

[SteveKlinko]

Can an AI feel pity for the transience of itself, gazelles, or biological humans? Can the AI feel happy that he has been a good boy? For those feelings to happen there would have to be programmed at least the moral sense that close relations and friends matter more to the amygdala than himself, perhaps extending to universal care for others more than self.

I think you have posed questions like these before. There is no possible way to Program such Feelings with Software. Why would you even think there is a possibility of that or are these always rhetorical questions for you? The Machine would need to Connect with Conscious Space in order to Feel such things.

[JackDaydream]

My revised point is much the same as before. It is that an information medium whether that be smells, sound waves, or silicon chips , is inert until along comes an intelligent animal that can learn information from some aspect of its environment.

There are now learning machines, though. Give them the right physical interface and they can readily use the information in the silicon chip.

Right. We are back to the problem of AI 'consciousness'. Obviously one doesn't want to make the Cartesian mistake of regarding sentient creatures as machines. Can an AI experience pain or joy? We will never know, and a humanoid robot can produce crocodile tears or convincing smiles and laughter.

Can a humanoid robot behave irrationally? I daresay it can be programmed to do so at random intervals.The machine can also be programmed, I suppose, to need to sleep and dream. The one thing an AI machine can't ever do is care about the whole environment as humans know wholeness, especially during a peak experience. Thus the AI machine can't be a Dasein who has a gestalt vision of the Whole. Sorry about the New-Agey tone of "Whole" but I can't think of a synonym.

Sentience is overrated. Humans reflexively overrate all of their strong points.

Humanlike sentience is almost certainly a transitory phase of matter, having only very recently appeared. It is absurd - even horrifying - to imagine that human sentience is the final, ultimate product of a universe of such scale, longevity and complexity.

In evolutionary terms, sentience - temporal awareness - provides a selection advantage. The human advantage over other species is a greater ability to learn from mistakes and predict future problems, and to more effectively pass that knowledge to future generations.

Human sentience has limitations, brought into sharp relief by its failure to operate sustainably. En masse humanity's behaviour has been not so dissimilar to a herd of overbreeding gazelles mindlessly grazing out their grasslands until they die out.

AI is basically a synthetic brain extension, interconnected with humans, and the connections are becoming deeper. At this stage it's a matter of humans being augmented by AI.

However, the Earth will crease to be habitable at some stage in the future. It is difficult and prohibitively expensive to send humans augmented by AI into space. So the roles reverse - AI augmented by humans. In time, the human component will be rationalised, perhaps limited to a small portion of a brain connected to AI. That would overcome the sentience problem.

It's a beautiful possibility - a brain fragment acting like mitochondria acts in a cell, being almost ubiquitously referred to as "the powerhouse of the cell". The brain would then be "the powerhouse of AI", being its source of motivation. It would ironic if that last bit of human brain driving a synthetic AI brain was the amygdala

I am a little disturbed by the idea of going beyond sentience and query it being 'a beautiful possibility'. I am not sure what purpose non sentient beings would have. Part of being human involves having an animal side, which some may see as inferior, but can be viewed more as being creatures fundamentally. If at some point the earth became uninhabitable by living beings but non sentient machines were still in charge, I wonder if they would serve any purpose because if they had no feelings. In some ways, it could be argued that they had consciousness but if they had no feelings they would be more like empty shells, just like machines.

[3017Metaphysician]

My revised point is much the same as before. It is that an information medium whether that be smells, sound waves, or silicon chips , is inert until along comes an intelligent animal that can learn information from some aspect of its environment.

There are now learning machines, though. Give them the right physical interface and they can readily use the information in the silicon chip.

Right. We are back to the problem of AI 'consciousness'. Obviously one doesn't want to make the Cartesian mistake of regarding sentient creatures as machines. Can an AI experience pain or joy? We will never know, and a humanoid robot can produce crocodile tears or convincing smiles and laughter.

Can a humanoid robot behave irrationally? I daresay it can be programmed to do so at random intervals.The machine can also be programmed, I suppose, to need to sleep and dream. The one thing an AI machine can't ever do is care about the whole environment as humans know wholeness, especially during a peak experience. Thus the AI machine can't be a Dasein who has a gestalt vision of the Whole. Sorry about the New-Agey tone of "Whole" but I can't think of a synonym.

Sentience is overrated. Humans reflexively overrate all of their strong points.

Humanlike sentience is almost certainly a transitory phase of matter, having only very recently appeared. It is absurd - even horrifying - to imagine that human sentience is the final, ultimate product of a universe of such scale, longevity and complexity.

In evolutionary terms, sentience - temporal awareness - provides a selection advantage. The human advantage over other species is a greater ability to learn from mistakes and predict future problems, and to more effectively pass that knowledge to future generations.

Human sentience has limitations, brought into sharp relief by its failure to operate sustainably. En masse humanity's behaviour has been not so dissimilar to a herd of overbreeding gazelles mindlessly grazing out their grasslands until they die out.

AI is basically a synthetic brain extension, interconnected with humans, and the connections are becoming deeper. At this stage it's a matter of humans being augmented by AI.

However, the Earth will crease to be habitable at some stage in the future. It is difficult and prohibitively expensive to send humans augmented by AI into space. So the roles reverse - AI augmented by humans. In time, the human component will be rationalized, perhaps limited to a small portion of a brain connected to AI. That would overcome the sentience problem.

It's a beautiful possibility - a brain fragment acting like mitochondria acts in a cell, being almost ubiquitously referred to as "the powerhouse of the cell". The brain would then be "the powerhouse of AI", being its source of motivation. It would ironic if that last bit of human brain driving a synthetic AI brain was the amygdala

SB!

Really, how is that possible? Please elaborate if you are able. I would submit, even Empiricist David Hume recognized the primacy of human emotion. Feelings are what drive and cause human behavior, even one's participation in this forum.

Hence, the fundamental questions could be: what is causing human's to participate in philosophical inquiry and discussion? Is it curiosity and wonderment? And if it is, what is its purpose, to feel good about a subject matter? To acquire knowledge for what purpose? For a better/worse quality of life? For an enhanced level of self-awareness?

Sorry for the questions, but those answers would speak to quality over quantity, and some-thing more that is having a causal effect beyond the just the material.

Then, the next philosophical question(s) about that thing-in-itself (we call feelings/sentience) is, are things like our sense of wonderment, curiosity, and abstract intellectualizing and/or reasoning exclusively physical? if so, how? Is intellectualizing the abstract laws of gravity required for survival in the jungle too (no pun intended), I wonder? And what is mathematics itself, a material thing?

Kind of like sex, sentience matters. LOL

[The Beast]

It is in the objective realm that genes mutate and that over 40000 years of mutations may not render obvious differences but over 200000 years might be the difference of species. If there was a mutation that divided the species, it was the formation of language in the communication of knowledge and the following introduction of the written form. It hasn’t been that long. The observed individual and societal object of knowledge directs survival opportunities. The most logical conclusion to the growing body of knowledge must be an increment in the understanding. In a POV the mutation of language did not happen in a 30 sec upload to understand the metaphor of a chip. It may be in the support of the understanding where the chiasm occurs. We are human or a species mutated from another form that mutated from another form… it would be logical that we are going to mutate again and (if we survive) many more after. I may become junk DNA and way into the future it may be that only 40% of the evolved human can be recognized in the present code just as lowly bacteria is now. One noticeable difference is the evolving powers of Society considering war. The Romans will show the riches of others to go and prey. Now it is the Evil Empire we must fight. It is the difference of the understanding. Mine is hoping that the demigods of the future consider us differently from what we think of bacteria although we don’t eat it. I imagine future consciousness in the sensing of reality in a bigger manifold tapping into the Universal knowledge by translating its telemetry in a method of mind. Finally. My exploration into the concept of consciousness is one of the evolution and growth of the manifold. IMO the manifold was in the beginning equated with being alive.

[Sy Borg]

There are now learning machines, though. Give them the right physical interface and they can readily use the information in the silicon chip.

Right. We are back to the problem of AI 'consciousness'. Obviously one doesn't want to make the Cartesian mistake of regarding sentient creatures as machines. Can an AI experience pain or joy? We will never know, and a humanoid robot can produce crocodile tears or convincing smiles and laughter.

Can a humanoid robot behave irrationally? I daresay it can be programmed to do so at random intervals.The machine can also be programmed, I suppose, to need to sleep and dream. The one thing an AI machine can't ever do is care about the whole environment as humans know wholeness, especially during a peak experience. Thus the AI machine can't be a Dasein who has a gestalt vision of the Whole. Sorry about the New-Agey tone of "Whole" but I can't think of a synonym.

Sentience is overrated. Humans reflexively overrate all of their strong points.

Humanlike sentience is almost certainly a transitory phase of matter, having only very recently appeared. It is absurd - even horrifying - to imagine that human sentience is the final, ultimate product of a universe of such scale, longevity and complexity.

In evolutionary terms, sentience - temporal awareness - provides a selection advantage. The human advantage over other species is a greater ability to learn from mistakes and predict future problems, and to more effectively pass that knowledge to future generations.

Human sentience has limitations, brought into sharp relief by its failure to operate sustainably. En masse humanity's behaviour has been not so dissimilar to a herd of overbreeding gazelles mindlessly grazing out their grasslands until they die out.

AI is basically a synthetic brain extension, interconnected with humans, and the connections are becoming deeper. At this stage it's a matter of humans being augmented by AI.

However, the Earth will crease to be habitable at some stage in the future. It is difficult and prohibitively expensive to send humans augmented by AI into space. So the roles reverse - AI augmented by humans. In time, the human component will be rationalized, perhaps limited to a small portion of a brain connected to AI. That would overcome the sentience problem.

It's a beautiful possibility - a brain fragment acting like mitochondria acts in a cell, being almost ubiquitously referred to as "the powerhouse of the cell". The brain would then be "the powerhouse of AI", being its source of motivation. It would ironic if that last bit of human brain driving a synthetic AI brain was the amygdala :)

SB!

Really, how is that possible? Please elaborate if you are able. I would submit, even Empiricist David Hume recognized the primacy of human emotion. Feelings are what drive and cause human behavior, even one's participation in this forum.

Hence, the fundamental questions could be: what is causing human's to participate in philosophical inquiry and discussion? Is it curiosity and wonderment? And if it is, what is its purpose, to feel good about a subject matter? To acquire knowledge for what purpose? For a better/worse quality of life? For an enhanced level of self-awareness?

Sorry for the questions, but those answers would speak to quality over quantity, and some-thing more that is having a causal effect beyond the just the material.

Then, the next philosophical question(s) about that thing-in-itself (we call feelings/sentience) is, are things like our sense of wonderment, curiosity, and abstract intellectualizing and/or reasoning exclusively physical? if so, how? Is intellectualizing the abstract laws of gravity required for survival in the jungle too (no pun intended), I wonder? And what is mathematics itself, a material thing?

Kind of like sex, sentience matters. LOL

Metaphysician!

I missed you, darling, it's been too long! :lol:

Seriously, of course sentience matters - to us. Humans care very deeply and sincerely about themselves. Not so much the rest of reality. So, in the eyes of most of humanity, it is a grand monolithic tower of sentience among some crappy stuff that's occasionally useful. The "crappy stuff" here refers to animals of varying sentience, with some being highly aware, plants and the ecosystems they form, rocks, minerals, planets, stars, space. You know, non-sentient garbage that's worth nary a second thought ...

I think in almost the opposite way, that humanity is as subject to environmental forces as any other species, interpreting their predictably controlled behaviours as transcending nature, just because they can perceive the passage of time better than other animals. It should be noted that some animals see, smell, hear and feel more keenly than humans do. As it turns out, these abilities have proved to be less potent than a strong perception of passing time, that includes relatively stimulus-free memory recall and future projections.

The idea that the journey from plasma, to rock, to complex chemistry, to life, to sentience, to technological intelligence stops with humans in the 21st century relies on the assumption that humans have peaked and are soon to blast themselves back into the stone age.

Assuming that human progress continues on, then sentience and technological intelligence are not the end of the line. Just as the first microbes emerged from non-living chemical metabolisms and just as sentience emerged from brainless life, there will be an emergence than transcends sentience. Just as a sentient being is alive, a post-sentience being will be sentient. However, it will have capabilities - a capacity to accurately (and helpfully) perceive the nature of reality more deeply that today's sentient beings can ever comprehend. It would be like trying to teach quantum mechanics to a dolphin.

So I see sentience as part of a continuum rather than the universe's Holy Grail.

[JackDaydream]

Right. We are back to the problem of AI 'consciousness'. Obviously one doesn't want to make the Cartesian mistake of regarding sentient creatures as machines. Can an AI experience pain or joy? We will never know, and a humanoid robot can produce crocodile tears or convincing smiles and laughter.

Can a humanoid robot behave irrationally? I daresay it can be programmed to do so at random intervals.The machine can also be programmed, I suppose, to need to sleep and dream. The one thing an AI machine can't ever do is care about the whole environment as humans know wholeness, especially during a peak experience. Thus the AI machine can't be a Dasein who has a gestalt vision of the Whole. Sorry about the New-Agey tone of "Whole" but I can't think of a synonym.

Sentience is overrated. Humans reflexively overrate all of their strong points.

Humanlike sentience is almost certainly a transitory phase of matter, having only very recently appeared. It is absurd - even horrifying - to imagine that human sentience is the final, ultimate product of a universe of such scale, longevity and complexity.

In evolutionary terms, sentience - temporal awareness - provides a selection advantage. The human advantage over other species is a greater ability to learn from mistakes and predict future problems, and to more effectively pass that knowledge to future generations.

Human sentience has limitations, brought into sharp relief by its failure to operate sustainably. En masse humanity's behaviour has been not so dissimilar to a herd of overbreeding gazelles mindlessly grazing out their grasslands until they die out.

AI is basically a synthetic brain extension, interconnected with humans, and the connections are becoming deeper. At this stage it's a matter of humans being augmented by AI.

However, the Earth will crease to be habitable at some stage in the future. It is difficult and prohibitively expensive to send humans augmented by AI into space. So the roles reverse - AI augmented by humans. In time, the human component will be rationalized, perhaps limited to a small portion of a brain connected to AI. That would overcome the sentience problem.

It's a beautiful possibility - a brain fragment acting like mitochondria acts in a cell, being almost ubiquitously referred to as "the powerhouse of the cell". The brain would then be "the powerhouse of AI", being its source of motivation. It would ironic if that last bit of human brain driving a synthetic AI brain was the amygdala

SB!

Really, how is that possible? Please elaborate if you are able. I would submit, even Empiricist David Hume recognized the primacy of human emotion. Feelings are what drive and cause human behavior, even one's participation in this forum.

Hence, the fundamental questions could be: what is causing human's to participate in philosophical inquiry and discussion? Is it curiosity and wonderment? And if it is, what is its purpose, to feel good about a subject matter? To acquire knowledge for what purpose? For a better/worse quality of life? For an enhanced level of self-awareness?

Sorry for the questions, but those answers would speak to quality over quantity, and some-thing more that is having a causal effect beyond the just the material.

Then, the next philosophical question(s) about that thing-in-itself (we call feelings/sentience) is, are things like our sense of wonderment, curiosity, and abstract intellectualizing and/or reasoning exclusively physical? if so, how? Is intellectualizing the abstract laws of gravity required for survival in the jungle too (no pun intended), I wonder? And what is mathematics itself, a material thing?

Kind of like sex, sentience matters. LOL

Metaphysician!

I missed you, darling, it's been too long!

Seriously, of course sentience matters - to us. Humans care very deeply and sincerely about themselves. Not so much the rest of reality. So, in the eyes of most of humanity, it is a grand monolithic tower of sentience among some crappy stuff that's occasionally useful. The "crappy stuff" here refers to animals of varying sentience, with some being highly aware, plants and the ecosystems they form, rocks, minerals, planets, stars, space. You know, non-sentient garbage that's worth nary a second thought ...

I think in almost the opposite way, that humanity is as subject to environmental forces as any other species, interpreting their predictably controlled behaviours as transcending nature, just because they can perceive the passage of time better than other animals. It should be noted that some animals see, smell, hear and feel more keenly than humans do. As it turns out, these abilities have proved to be less potent than a strong perception of passing time, that includes relatively stimulus-free memory recall and future projections.

The idea that the journey from plasma, to rock, to complex chemistry, to life, to sentience, to technological intelligence stops with humans in the 21st century relies on the assumption that humans have peaked and are soon to blast themselves back into the stone age.

Assuming that human progress continues on, then sentience and technological intelligence are not the end of the line. Just as the first microbes emerged from non-living chemical metabolisms and just as sentience emerged from brainless life, there will be an emergence than transcends sentience. Just as a sentient being is alive, a post-sentience being will be sentient. However, it will have capabilities - a capacity to accurately (and helpfully) perceive the nature of reality more deeply that today's sentient beings can ever comprehend. It would be like trying to teach quantum mechanics to a dolphin.

So I see sentience as part of a continuum rather than the universe's Holy Grail.

I have just read your reply to 3017Metaphysician (and I am glad he is back too, because I missed him a lot).
However, the trouble which I am having is that the idea of these super conscious non-sentients seems like spirituality back to front. That is because there is the idea of human beings achieving heightened states of consciousness but that is about transformation I would have thought, not about beings created by humans who have no sentience because, surely, that would be like beings who are only artificial forms rather than living ones. It seems almost like saying that David Bowie is still alive because he is singing through the record or CD player. The recording is information stored rather than the same as the living person singing in person. As far as understand, without sentience a being a is not alive.

However, it gets more complicated if one thinks of the concept of souls or spirits in relation to life and consciousness. Generally, it is often seen as problematic to think of disembodied forms of consciousness, which is one of the arguments against life after death. With the idea of these superbeings it seems like they would have bodies, but surely something would be missing.

It seems like the myth of the fall of the angels in reverse. Would these 'supergods'really be superior, like supergods or just hollow imitations at the end of life, like a shadowy resurrection of the dead. I am trying to think the idea through seriously, not simply mock it, but I am not convinced that it would be the genuine evolution of consciousness, in the form of higher potential. That is because, without sentient beings, who would experience it? It would be like the rocks or the trees or the stars, which for all we know could have some kind of cosmic intelligence which cannot be perceived from our anthropocentric picture of what is consciousness.

[Sy Borg]

However, the trouble which I am having is that the idea of these super conscious non-sentients seems like spirituality back to front. That is because there is the idea of human beings achieving heightened states of consciousness but that is about transformation I would have thought, not about beings created by humans who have no sentience because, surely, that would be like beings who are only artificial forms rather than living ones. It seems almost like saying that David Bowie is still alive because he is singing through the record or CD player. The recording is information stored rather than the same as the living person singing in person. As far as understand, without sentience a being a is not alive.

However, it gets more complicated if one thinks of the concept of souls or spirits in relation to life and consciousness. Generally, it is often seen as problematic to think of disembodied forms of consciousness, which is one of the arguments against life after death. With the idea of these superbeings it seems like they would have bodies, but surely something would be missing.

It seems like the myth of the fall of the angels in reverse. Would these 'supergods'really be superior, like supergods or just hollow imitations at the end of life, like a shadowy resurrection of the dead. I am trying to think the idea through seriously, not simply mock it, but I am not convinced that it would be the genuine evolution of consciousness, in the form of higher potential. That is because, without sentient beings, who would experience it? It would be like the rocks or the trees or the stars, which for all we know could have some kind of cosmic intelligence which cannot be perceived from our anthropocentric picture of what is consciousness.

You appear to be arguing that there cannot possibly be a more aware state of being than human sentience. That is a very human attitude - the idea that the universe has peaked after 13.8 billion years and that no more impressive entity is possible than the oh-so-sentient humans (who are far less sentient than they imagine). .

If you see humans as hollow imitations of apes, then I suppose you would see whatever comes next to be a hollow imitation of humans. Gains always come at a price, which is why adults tend to be less spontaneous and sweetly innocent than they were as children. It's why adult humans tend to be less loyal and trustworthy than their companion animals.

[JackDaydream]

However, the trouble which I am having is that the idea of these super conscious non-sentients seems like spirituality back to front. That is because there is the idea of human beings achieving heightened states of consciousness but that is about transformation I would have thought, not about beings created by humans who have no sentience because, surely, that would be like beings who are only artificial forms rather than living ones. It seems almost like saying that David Bowie is still alive because he is singing through the record or CD player. The recording is information stored rather than the same as the living person singing in person. As far as understand, without sentience a being a is not alive.

However, it gets more complicated if one thinks of the concept of souls or spirits in relation to life and consciousness. Generally, it is often seen as problematic to think of disembodied forms of consciousness, which is one of the arguments against life after death. With the idea of these superbeings it seems like they would have bodies, but surely something would be missing.

It seems like the myth of the fall of the angels in reverse. Would these 'supergods'really be superior, like supergods or just hollow imitations at the end of life, like a shadowy resurrection of the dead. I am trying to think the idea through seriously, not simply mock it, but I am not convinced that it would be the genuine evolution of consciousness, in the form of higher potential. That is because, without sentient beings, who would experience it? It would be like the rocks or the trees or the stars, which for all we know could have some kind of cosmic intelligence which cannot be perceived from our anthropocentric picture of what is consciousness.

You appear to be arguing that there cannot possibly be a more aware state of being than human sentience. That is a very human attitude - the idea that the universe has peaked after 13.8 billion years and that no more impressive entity is possible than the oh-so-sentient humans (who are far less sentient than they imagine). .

If you see humans as hollow imitations of apes, then I suppose you would see whatever comes next to be a hollow imitation of humans. Gains always come at a price, which is why adults tend to be less spontaneous and sweetly innocent than they were as children. It's why adult humans tend to be less loyal and trustworthy than their companion animals.

I definitely don't see human beings as hollow imitations of apes at all. It is not that I think that human beings are necessarily the highest possible developments of evolution. My query is more about artificial intelligence as being the next step along the route to higher states of awareness. It is not because it is not 'natural' but because I am not sure that they would be 'alive' in the sense that life is considered. What quality of life would such beings have?

It is not that I am wishing to rule out all possible consideration of artificial life, but what would be the purpose, because without feelings these beings would not have an internal world? They would not be able to fantasise or dream, and they would not be able to reflect because that is connected to experience related to the senses. The philosophy of mindfulness is about being aware of the senses, in relation to sentience. So, without sentience it seems likely that consciousness would be mindless in terms of qualitative awareness.

When one thinks of enlightened beings, like the Buddha, he did have emotions but achieved mastery of these rather than being designed with no emotional life at all. It was his awareness of suffering which led him along his spiritual quest. Such mastery is the opposite to beings with a robotic consciousness. I don't see how the artificial forms could have any awareness other than like some robotic kind without an inner world based on past experience related to sentience.

This does go back to the philosophy of transhumanism and I am wary of the political agenda. At this stage, I am not convinced that a gradual phasing out of sentience is equivalent to progression of consciousness. It is also questionable whether such forms of conscious beings could exist if all living beings had become extinct. I am worried that it is about the preservation and interests of the power elite in a world of diminishing resources.

[Sy Borg]

My query is more about artificial intelligence as being the next step along the route to higher states of awareness. It is not because it is not 'natural' but because I am not sure that they would be 'alive' in the sense that life is considered. What quality of life would such beings have?

It is not that I am wishing to rule out all possible consideration of artificial life, but what would be the purpose, because without feelings these beings would not have an internal world? They would not be able to fantasise or dream, and they would not be able to reflect because that is connected to experience related to the senses. The philosophy of mindfulness is about being aware of the senses, in relation to sentience. So, without sentience it seems likely that consciousness would be mindless in terms of qualitative awareness.

When one thinks of enlightened beings, like the Buddha, he did have emotions but achieved mastery of these rather than being designed with no emotional life at all. It was his awareness of suffering which led him along his spiritual quest. Such mastery is the opposite to beings with a robotic consciousness. I don't see how the artificial forms could have any awareness other than like some robotic kind without an inner world based on past experience related to sentience.

This does go back to the philosophy of transhumanism and I am wary of the political agenda. At this stage, I am not convinced that a gradual phasing out of sentience is equivalent to progression of consciousness. It is also questionable whether such forms of conscious beings could exist if all living beings had become extinct. I am worried that it is about the preservation and interests of the power elite in a world of diminishing resources.

Jack, consider this earlier post:

AI is basically a synthetic brain extension, interconnected with humans, and the connections are becoming deeper. At this stage it's a matter of humans being augmented by AI.

However, the Earth will crease to be habitable at some stage in the future. It is difficult and prohibitively expensive to send humans augmented by AI into space. So the roles reverse - AI augmented by humans. In time, the human component will be rationalised, perhaps limited to a small portion of a brain connected to AI. That would overcome the sentience problem.

It's a beautiful possibility - a brain fragment acting like mitochondria acts in a cell, being almost ubiquitously referred to as "the powerhouse of the cell". The brain would then be "the powerhouse of AI", being its source of motivation. It would ironic if that last bit of human brain driving a synthetic AI brain was the amygdala.

There is a melding between H. sapiens and its technology. The relationship is becoming ever deeper, and how deep this relationship becomes is unknown. Ultimately, a sentient, motivated being in space would probably retain the motivating aspects of the brain, but linked in with extremely enhanced mental (and physical) abilities. A sentience with enough control over itself to induce sleep at will would be essential in long haul space travel for sanity's sake. The capacity to link into idyllic (but otherwise realistic) immersive virtual worlds would also be an essential survival capability for long haul space crew.

[The Beast]

What would be the illusion?.
It is true that it may be a role for the chip if a possible/desirable role of neutrality is built in the design of the code or the AI nature. A referee to find pivotal gender demonstrations of the unconscious that need it battle. It is my understanding that the roles female and male are partly innate or written in the genetic code. What is true is that some species like hyenas have it differently. In an extrapolation, the thought is that generational learning and experience has a role in future generations. To me the essential gender philosophy pivots in the love vs power conscious relation. At the unconscious level there is the switch of leaving the toilet seat up to mean the forces of the unconscious or the destruction of the “male ego” as in the terminology. The semantics may vary accordingly.

[Belindi]

Humans are no more or less sentient than other animal species that have memories of sensations.