Philosophy Discussion Forums

Belindi wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 1:36 pm Humans are no more or less sentient than other animal species that have memories of sensations.

Of course, it is true that there is not any difference in sentience of any beings, even if it the nature of consciousnessi is variable. However, the loss of sentience is something which is more or less unknown at the present time with artificial intelligence ushering in that possibility. The idea of beings which lack any sentience would raise the question as to whether they are simply machines.

As for the blending of person and machines it is hard to know what will be achieved and what the consequences will be, and whose interests they will serve. It does seem that it could give rise to all kinds of science fiction scenarios or of beings like the socalled Nephilim race, who were meant to be a blend of superbeings who reproduced with other beings. Some of the intricacies in the evolution and origins of human consciousness are not known fully, and shrouded in mystery. It may be this applies to the future of human consciousness and forms beyond this too.

The Beast wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 8:19 am 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.

TB!

In short, I think the 'illusion' is for those who 'feel' the need to deny the metaphysical qualities of conscious existence. (I think there was a pun there somewhere ) Philosophically of course, among other things, consciousness has both quality and quantity to its existence. The [one] question there becomes, which one takes primacy in cognition, and the will to be, live or die.

3017: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the brain substance would not yield any meaningful details as to the metaphysical composition nor any of the mind methods producing them. I do suspect your use of the terminology, but these are reserved words in chemistry. The qualitative and quantitative analysis might yield steady quantities in an inert brain but in living tissue it is a spectrum of metabolic reactions. In a given moment, the mechanisms of activity can only tell us what (for example) is happening during REM sleep but not what the dreams/contents are. In any case, “mathematical” modeling has been done. The journal of biological psychiatry has extensive material. I could imagine an extended use as metaphysical qualitative and quantitative analysis and their relationships. IMO it is more than Freud and his sexual identities and more in the relationships of Epicurean or Stoic natures. IMO the unphilosophical mind tends to be Epicurean. However, there are learned contents of empirical nature provided by Society which possibly allows the generational metaphysical swapping. It may be important for the understanding. It is (to use your perspective) that in my opinion evolution is the relationship between chemical analysis and metaphysical analysis.

The Beast wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 8:48 pm 3017: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the brain substance would not yield any meaningful details as to the metaphysical composition nor any of the mind methods producing them. I do suspect your use of the terminology, but these are reserved words in chemistry. The qualitative and quantitative analysis might yield steady quantities in an inert brain but in living tissue it is a spectrum of metabolic reactions. In a given moment, the mechanisms of activity can only tell us what (for example) is happening during REM sleep but not what the dreams/contents are. In any case, “mathematical” modeling has been done. The journal of biological psychiatry has extensive material. I could imagine an extended use as metaphysical qualitative and quantitative analysis and their relationships. IMO it is more than Freud and his sexual identities and more in the relationships of Epicurean or Stoic natures. IMO the unphilosophical mind tends to be Epicurean. However, there are learned contents of empirical nature provided by Society which possibly allows the generational metaphysical swapping. It may be important for the understanding. It is (to use your perspective) that in my opinion evolution is the relationship between chemical analysis and metaphysical analysis.

TB! Thank you.

Just a few house keeping matters as it relates to the distinctions between quality and quantity:

Logical concepts associated with Quality:

1. qualia
2. sentience
3. metaphysics
4. innate/inrinsic
5. a priori
6. transcendental
7. the Will
8. mathematics
9. subjects and objects (more subjects than objects)
8. there are more

Logical concepts associated with Quantity:

1. mathematics
2. emergence
3. genetically coded information
4. subjects and objects (more objects than subjects)
5. a posteriori
6. metaphysics (mathematics)
7. evolution
8. things-in-themselves (what happened before the big bang and what caused Singularity and where did it come from)
9. there are more


As a 'co-existence' of some of those, the Stephen Hawking aonce sked: 'what breaths fire into the equations?' Hence one interpretation would be, how can the metaphysical become physical, and how can the physical become metaphysical. In other words, how does the objective become subjective ex nihilo or otherwise (conscious existence)?

As discussed elsewhere:


4. Process Philosophy (or process theology) similar to the theories of the Morphic Resonance model where there is both a fixed cause (determinism) to all living matter through genetically coded information, yet an open system that allows for random mutations/creativity in nature (uncertainty in Quantum physics)?

5. As discussed in Metaphysics, is the World as Will (Schopenhauer) another philosophical theory that posits an analogous energy field that somehow 'breaths fire into the equations' ala Stephen Hawking?



What I am fascinated with is human causation (what causes a human to want, need, act or be). If sentience takes primacy in behavioral systems, then it seems the metaphysical qualitative features of consciousness (Qualia) is the cause for all human purpose, meaning, intention, and the will to live, die be happy or sad ad nauseum... .

It is a long list but not helpful to my understanding. This is why: first item of quality is qualia. If this is a content or perception, then it is related to the area of the brain receiving the signal. It is logical that the quality of the qualia has to do with the quantity and quality of the assigned area by evolution. In addition, we cannot assume quality because of quantity. That is, the area may be big because of many other extrinsic factors many of which are unknown. Would you consider education? I would consider a baseline. This is similar to a lathe machine evolving to the present. The setup is the education. The feeding is the exposure to sensation and the finish part is the expression of the sensation. The quality of the part has to do with the quality of the machine and the quantity of power; the education of the setup person and perhaps the quality and capabilities of the material/sensation.
Quote:
“ What I am fascinated with is human causation (what causes a human to want, need, act or be). If sentience takes primacy in behavioral systems, then it seems the metaphysical qualitative features of consciousness (Qualia) is the cause for all human purpose, meaning, intention, and the will to live, die be happy or sad ad nauseum... .”

The use of “metaphysical qualitative features of consciousness” is congruent with my understanding. However, it is a very extended meaning and does not address belief unless it is all coated with the essence that makes it all possible. Maybe superior quality?

The Beast wrote: ↑May 24th, 2022, 1:03 pm It is a long list but not helpful to my understanding. This is why: first item of quality is qualia. If this is a content or perception, then it is related to the area of the brain receiving the signal. It is logical that the quality of the qualia has to do with the quantity and quality of the assigned area by evolution. In addition, we cannot assume quality because of quantity. That is, the area may be big because of many other extrinsic factors many of which are unknown. Would you consider education? I would consider a baseline. This is similar to a lathe machine evolving to the present. The setup is the education. The feeding is the exposure to sensation and the finish part is the expression of the sensation. The quality of the part has to do with the quality of the machine and the quantity of power; the education of the setup person and perhaps the quality and capabilities of the material/sensation.
Quote:
“ What I am fascinated with is human causation (what causes a human to want, need, act or be). If sentience takes primacy in behavioral systems, then it seems the metaphysical qualitative features of consciousness (Qualia) is the cause for all human purpose, meaning, intention, and the will to live, die be happy or sad ad nauseum... .”

The use of “metaphysical qualitative features of consciousness” is congruent with my understanding. However, it is a very extended meaning and does not address belief unless it is all coated with the essence that makes it all possible. Maybe superior quality?

TB!

To your first point, this may/may not provide the level of detail necessary for discourse on the subject matter:

...four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia.[2] According to these, qualia are:

ineffable – they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any means other than direct experience.
intrinsic – they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
private – all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
directly or immediately apprehensible by consciousness – to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.
If qualia of this sort exist, then a normally sighted person who sees red would be unable to describe the experience of this perception in such a way that a listener who has never experienced color will be able to know everything there is to know about that experience. Though it is possible to make an analogy, such as "red looks hot", or to provide a description of the conditions under which the experience occurs, such as "it's the color you see when light of 700-nm wavelength is directed at you", supporters of this kind of qualia contend that such a description is incapable of providing a complete description of the experience.

In short, I think the material extremists would be challenged to provide a meaningful explanation (a 'complete' explanation) of that kind of 'quality' from not only consciousness, but evolutionary inert matter (i.e., cosmic Singularity, etc.).

Speaking of evolution, quick question if I may: with respect to quality, in your opinion, have the sentient qualities of the mind, most notably love, evolved since first apperceived or cognized? If it has, in what way do you think? (Arguably, love is the so-called greatest most universal feeling known to humans.)

I am considering the descripted properties. However, it is in the format of metaphysical qualitative analysis that I see a relationship with the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the areas of the brain involved. Since we are using the qualia terminology, I might consider chemistry as an indicator under Love, faith, and other emotional states. It may imply a reagent influencing the quality and possibly quantity of the method of qualia. “Faith is a passion” Kierkegaard. Reagents may provide clues as to the peripersonal state and resulting qualia being transformed in the personal state to conscious content. So, in the case of passion the conscious content may start with “in love” …of course natural reagents and not alcohol.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 2:19 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 1:36 pm Humans are no more or less sentient than other animal species that have memories of sensations.

Of course, it is true that there is not any difference in sentience of any beings, even if it the nature of consciousnessi is variable. However, the loss of sentience is something which is more or less unknown at the present time with artificial intelligence ushering in that possibility. The idea of beings which lack any sentience would raise the question as to whether they are simply machines.

As for the blending of person and machines it is hard to know what will be achieved and what the consequences will be, and whose interests they will serve. It does seem that it could give rise to all kinds of science fiction scenarios or of beings like the socalled Nephilim race, who were meant to be a blend of superbeings who reproduced with other beings. Some of the intricacies in the evolution and origins of human consciousness are not known fully, and shrouded in mystery. It may be this applies to the future of human consciousness and forms beyond this too.

I agree.
The unspoken cause of this exchange between you and me, and Metaphysician's too, is "what are we to do about it?" or "how does this concern me?"

More than a question of empirical fact, it's all about our orientation towards the future. Robots and biological species that possess the memory function are future -oriented , thus accounting for the unity of consciousness in individuals. However unity of consciousness throughout a remembered life does not explain sympathy. Only sentience explains sympathy.

Morality underwent a profound historical change from virtue ethics to universal ethics mediated largely by the politicising of Christianity. If cultural records don't disappear, perhaps like the culture of the Uyghurs is being disappeared by the Chinese, the cultural effects of Christianity, including universalist ethics,will remain.

It's true that power to live and thrive is the motivation. But power is not necessarily a right-wing misreading of Nietzsche or Schopenhauer. Power can be redirected from limited good towards universal good. It's only sentience that enables perception of good.

As I said before, human kind is not the only biological species that is sentient

The Alchemist pursue the substance of wisdom and the philosopher the state of Ataraxia. There is another group that goes after Kundalini. In any case before you get there you must bath the qualia with the reagent of non-conformist. It is the way for any mind method improvement. ‘As you are’ is a different reagent.

Belindi wrote: ↑May 25th, 2022, 6:31 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 2:19 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 1:36 pm Humans are no more or less sentient than other animal species that have memories of sensations.

Of course, it is true that there is not any difference in sentience of any beings, even if it the nature of consciousnessi is variable. However, the loss of sentience is something which is more or less unknown at the present time with artificial intelligence ushering in that possibility. The idea of beings which lack any sentience would raise the question as to whether they are simply machines.

As for the blending of person and machines it is hard to know what will be achieved and what the consequences will be, and whose interests they will serve. It does seem that it could give rise to all kinds of science fiction scenarios or of beings like the socalled Nephilim race, who were meant to be a blend of superbeings who reproduced with other beings. Some of the intricacies in the evolution and origins of human consciousness are not known fully, and shrouded in mystery. It may be this applies to the future of human consciousness and forms beyond this too.

I agree.
The unspoken cause of this exchange between you and me, and Metaphysician's too, is "what are we to do about it?" or "how does this concern me?"

More than a question of empirical fact, it's all about our orientation towards the future. Robots and biological species that possess the memory function are future -oriented , thus accounting for the unity of consciousness in individuals. However unity of consciousness throughout a remembered life does not explain sympathy. Only sentience explains sympathy.

Morality underwent a profound historical change from virtue ethics to universal ethics mediated largely by the politicising of Christianity. If cultural records don't disappear, perhaps like the culture of the Uyghurs is being disappeared by the Chinese, the cultural effects of Christianity, including universalist ethics,will remain.

It's true that power to live and thrive is the motivation. But power is not necessarily a right-wing misreading of Nietzsche or Schopenhauer. Power can be redirected from limited good towards universal good. It's only sentience that enables perception of good.

As I said before, human kind is not the only biological species that is sentient

Belindi!

I just wanted to reach-out and express appreciation toward that level of awareness, if you will. In other words, you get it (among other's).

Too, ironically enough, when you and SB were talking about AI/DI, I had just caught something on Public broadcast about the limitations of same and where it might go in the future. I think the mysterious (among others) thing's that won't be doable are robots possessing an autonomous Will (sentient desires beyond what's been programmed). There are already problems with data consumption and an unsatiating need for data input that will preclude any kind of real human cloning....but that's just my take... .

Perhaps we should feel privileged or special, in some strange way, that we have this autonomous energy (the Will) force that allows for and causes not only propagation of our species (for better of worse lol), but truly a discovery and uncovery of Being. A certain level of excitement that only comes from feelings and peak experiences to say the least... . A feeling that each day one can appreciate one's own Being (feeling great to be alive) particularly in a society that values the virtues of freedom.

Anyway, I wonder how the material extremists captures the logic associated with such human wants and needs and purpose... (?). I know I've been brow-beating them, but this notion (their notion) of 'illusion' only makes sense or seems consistent with the meta-physical or immaterial qualities of human phenomena/consciousness. Kind of self refuting...

Kind of like saying if loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right. Hence, 'illusion' might be a good thing

Belindi wrote: ↑May 25th, 2022, 6:31 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 2:19 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 1:36 pm Humans are no more or less sentient than other animal species that have memories of sensations.

Of course, it is true that there is not any difference in sentience of any beings, even if it the nature of consciousnessi is variable. However, the loss of sentience is something which is more or less unknown at the present time with artificial intelligence ushering in that possibility. The idea of beings which lack any sentience would raise the question as to whether they are simply machines.

As for the blending of person and machines it is hard to know what will be achieved and what the consequences will be, and whose interests they will serve. It does seem that it could give rise to all kinds of science fiction scenarios or of beings like the socalled Nephilim race, who were meant to be a blend of superbeings who reproduced with other beings. Some of the intricacies in the evolution and origins of human consciousness are not known fully, and shrouded in mystery. It may be this applies to the future of human consciousness and forms beyond this too.

I agree.
The unspoken cause of this exchange between you and me, and Metaphysician's too, is "what are we to do about it?" or "how does this concern me?"

More than a question of empirical fact, it's all about our orientation towards the future. Robots and biological species that possess the memory function are future -oriented , thus accounting for the unity of consciousness in individuals. However unity of consciousness throughout a remembered life does not explain sympathy. Only sentience explains sympathy.

Morality underwent a profound historical change from virtue ethics to universal ethics mediated largely by the politicising of Christianity. If cultural records don't disappear, perhaps like the culture of the Uyghurs is being disappeared by the Chinese, the cultural effects of Christianity, including universalist ethics,will remain.

It's true that power to live and thrive is the motivation. But power is not necessarily a right-wing misreading of Nietzsche or Schopenhauer. Power can be redirected from limited good towards universal good. It's only sentience that enables perception of good.

As I said before, human kind is not the only biological species that is sentient

Thanks for your reply and I am glad that you as well as 3017Metaphysician can see the problem of non sentient beings. The topic does seem to be a major one though because I have seen so many new books focusing on artificial intelligence, including David Chalmers' 'Reality+'. The problem with beings who lack sentience would be that they would lack any kind of connections emotionally. They might have a certain precision or accuracy but they would be cut off from the emotional side of life which stems from the sensory experiences of reality, shared by humans and animals.

One aspect which I was also thinking about here is the concept of 'soul', which may have almost faded out of use, replaced by the concept of the self. It was spoken of by the ancients and I was brought up to believe in the idea of souls. I am sure that there are certain problems with the idea, which may have involved a certain dualism, but, on some level I think that the idea of a soul has some meaning and is used by writers, such as the transpersonal writer, 'Thomas Moore', who wrote, 'Care of the Soul'.

The reason why I think that the concept of soul is still useful to some extent is because it conveys the idea of sentience, even in the use of the term soul music. Iin the use of the word soul, some people argued that animals didn't have souls which may have led to the belief that humans could exploit them. In the same way, the idea of the humans not having "soul' or sentience does seem to be a possible ideology which would allow for dehumanization, or treating people as means rather than ends.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 25th, 2022, 12:37 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑May 25th, 2022, 6:31 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 2:19 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 1:36 pm Humans are no more or less sentient than other animal species that have memories of sensations.

Of course, it is true that there is not any difference in sentience of any beings, even if it the nature of consciousnessi is variable. However, the loss of sentience is something which is more or less unknown at the present time with artificial intelligence ushering in that possibility. The idea of beings which lack any sentience would raise the question as to whether they are simply machines.

As for the blending of person and machines it is hard to know what will be achieved and what the consequences will be, and whose interests they will serve. It does seem that it could give rise to all kinds of science fiction scenarios or of beings like the socalled Nephilim race, who were meant to be a blend of superbeings who reproduced with other beings. Some of the intricacies in the evolution and origins of human consciousness are not known fully, and shrouded in mystery. It may be this applies to the future of human consciousness and forms beyond this too.

I agree.
The unspoken cause of this exchange between you and me, and Metaphysician's too, is "what are we to do about it?" or "how does this concern me?"

More than a question of empirical fact, it's all about our orientation towards the future. Robots and biological species that possess the memory function are future -oriented , thus accounting for the unity of consciousness in individuals. However unity of consciousness throughout a remembered life does not explain sympathy. Only sentience explains sympathy.

Morality underwent a profound historical change from virtue ethics to universal ethics mediated largely by the politicising of Christianity. If cultural records don't disappear, perhaps like the culture of the Uyghurs is being disappeared by the Chinese, the cultural effects of Christianity, including universalist ethics,will remain.

It's true that power to live and thrive is the motivation. But power is not necessarily a right-wing misreading of Nietzsche or Schopenhauer. Power can be redirected from limited good towards universal good. It's only sentience that enables perception of good.

As I said before, human kind is not the only biological species that is sentient

Thanks for your reply and I am glad that you as well as 3017Metaphysician can see the problem of non sentient beings. The topic does seem to be a major one though because I have seen so many new books focusing on artificial intelligence, including David Chalmers' 'Reality+'. The problem with beings who lack sentience would be that they would lack any kind of connections emotionally. They might have a certain precision or accuracy but they would be cut off from the emotional side of life which stems from the sensory experiences of reality, shared by humans and animals.

One aspect which I was also thinking about here is the concept of 'soul', which may have almost faded out of use, replaced by the concept of the self. It was spoken of by the ancients and I was brought up to believe in the idea of souls. I am sure that there are certain problems with the idea, which may have involved a certain dualism, but, on some level I think that the idea of a soul has some meaning and is used by writers, such as the transpersonal writer, 'Thomas Moore', who wrote, 'Care of the Soul'.

The reason why I think that the concept of soul is still useful to some extent is because it conveys the idea of sentience, even in the use of the term soul music. Iin the use of the word soul, some people argued that animals didn't have souls which may have led to the belief that humans could exploit them. In the same way, the idea of the humans not having "soul' or sentience does seem to be a possible ideology which would allow for dehumanization, or treating people as means rather than ends.

Jack!

You hit on an important topic (one of many of course) about the subject-object dynamic. You uncovered some of the so-called deficiencies associated with dichotomization of one's world view. In this case, when you refer to removing the subject's phenomenal experiences or otherwise (sentience, will, soul, etc. etc.), you effectively objectify them. You make them just one half of a whole.

In that context, we know that objectification of humans is not typically a virtue... . And so quite simply, we have to have a wholistic view towards our concepts of consciousness. In this case, be it both material and immaterial. In some ways, almost a pragmatic approach...

Jack said: " One aspect which I was also thinking about here is the concept of 'soul', which may have almost faded out of use, replaced by the concept of the self. It was spoken of by the ancients, and I was brought up to believe in the idea of souls. I am sure that there are certain problems with the idea, which may have involved a certain dualism, but on some level, I think that the idea of a soul has some meaning and is used by writers, such as the transpersonal writer, 'Thomas Moore', who wrote, 'Care of the Soul'."
and also said:
"The reason why I think that the concept of soul is still useful to some extent is because it conveys the idea of sentience, even in the use of the term soul music. Iin the use of the word soul, some people argued that animals didn't have souls which may have led to the belief that humans could exploit them. In the same way, the idea of the humans not having "soul' or sentience does seem to be a possible ideology which would allow for dehumanization, or treating people as means rather than ends."

“Man was created to praise, do reverence to and serve God our Lord and thereby to save his soul” Ignatius Loyola.
This was paraphrase by C.G. Jung to:
" Recognized that man’s consciousness was created to the end that it may:
Recognized its descent from a higher unity.
Pay due and careful regard to this source.
Execute its commands intelligently and responsibly; and thereby afford the psyche as a whole the optimum degree of life and development."
In paraphrasing Loyola, Jung said psyche to mean the soul, mind, or spirit. But it is in the symbolism that we find the Goddess psyche as being born mortal.

...thanks all! Please don't let me curtail the dialogue. I've been inspired by some of the philosophy in this thread. It's funny (arguably, kind of like writing music, inventing a product, problem solving, truly novel ideas, etc.) that talking through things can uncover some other philosophies not previously anticipated. Certainly, to many of us that is nothing new under the sun, provided one keeps an open mind of course... .

To this end, I'm considering doing a new thread called something like: 'the Pragmatist view of Epistemology and Metaphysics'. Alternatively, I was compelled earlier to do a thread on humanistic causation (taking the lead from many including David Hume) wherein I agreed with his notion (in paraphrase) that all human behavior starts with a feeling about a some-thing (a meta-physical phenomena) instead of cognizing (Kantian) pure reason or logic. But Hume went further and seems to believe feeling takes primacy in cognition-no exceptions taken. Kant of course, believed something similar in his analysis of the a priori, innate nature of human intuition and transcendental inquiry... .

Nevertheless, I don't think there would be much debate, mystery or novelty there (see even Schopenhauer the World as Will, etc. etc.) since I think it's primarily existential in nature-it just is. And so through our discussions herein, I discovered how the simple concept (shame on me) of Pragmatism can go much deeper into the analysis of different realities. As a simple example/teaser, the undersigned quote from James speaks that epistemic and metaphysical phenomena... . Too, this might further uncover some of the mystery relative to the subject-object dynamic. Almost a subconscious phenomena. So, if any of you embrace existential, post-modernism or continental philosophy, stay tuned!!

As you were!

3017:
It may seem like a digression, but paraphrasing must be addressed as a method of mind. Or what Kant said were the operation of mind. In another way, I could concentrate on the method of paraphrasing and disregard the content. It is two different things. I could theorize that matter paraphrases in the language of chemistry and so does DNA. So, I could classify this inquiry in a “metaphysical analysis” as a source of a priori cognition. Moreover, paraphrasing may be a cosmical conception, meaning that Nature is interested, and our freedom proposes it.