Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can man mechanically recreate consciousness?

Rate this topic


LadyAttis

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree with her position on an objective reality and the sense perception and reason. But I really disagree with her view on ethics in that she draws flawed conclusions on things such as homosexuality and other things in a similar vein. Also, her disregard of the work of psychologists and physicists alike is something I would call questionable since she has never, nor Peikoff or Kelley substantiated any flaws in the currently known facts about the human animal or the physical world[like QM and Relativity[sR and GR]]. I think these are near fatal flaws unless someone tries to rectify them.

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, just because I don't agree with her on those points doesn't mean I haven't read her essays or books. I have read what I can find and she's smart but a bit off. Course I think Max Stirner is smart but a bit off. I do not follow anyone's particular position religiously apart from my own views on life. I think in the end I have to figure things out for myself.

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Rand ever done any experiments? What about case studies? Any statistical research like surveys? To my knowledge she was a brilliant writer and even poet but no scientist.

Ayn Rand hasn't done any experiments on her own, but she did use the results of the experiments (which other people had preformed) to come up with her theories.

As for the statistical research:

Statistical "research" is not research at all. Today it has been given too much credit and many people rely on statistics, while by default it is not reliable at all. Certainly SOME statistical data can come in handy (such as Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics in quantum mechanics which only needs to calculate the total energy of all the particles in certain energy bands), but statistics cannot tell you anything about an individual, let alone his consciousness, volition, etc. Just as you can't know what energy the specified electron will have in a semiconductor on a given temperature (because the calculation is purely statistical), so you can't find out anything about a specific individual or the principles which guide that individual from a statistical survey preformed on hundreds or thousands of people. Psychology is said by psychologists to be an exact science because it derives its conclusions from a vast amount of data. I was required to know that by heart at high school. Yet only a few months ago I realized what a fraud that is when I began studying electronics at university. You can't deduce a definite/absolute conclusion about one part of an amalgam that is provided to you by statistical surveys. Psychology does that and as such, it cannot be called scientific - because its method is unscientific. I agree that experiments are scientific, but a science to be a valid science, every part of it must use scientifc method to reach conclusions. Deriving conclusions from statistical data is psychology's black hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with her position on an objective reality and the sense perception and reason. But I really disagree with her view on ethics in that she draws flawed conclusions on things such as homosexuality and other things in a similar vein. Also, her disregard of the work of psychologists and physicists alike is something I would call questionable since she has never, nor Peikoff or Kelley substantiated any flaws in the currently known facts about the human animal or the physical world[like QM and Relativity[sR and GR]]. I think these are near fatal flaws unless someone tries to rectify them.

-- Bridget

You may be up-to-date with research in psychology, but physics you clearly know nothing about. What I mean to say is - physicists themselves agree that either or both of the major theories (relativity and quantuum mechanics) are incorrect. For a philosopher to see this without even knowing anything about physics to me is just another evidence that the philosophy is valid, or that at least its metaphysics is valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand hasn't done any experiments on her own, but she did use the results of the experiments (which other people had preformed) to come up with her theories.

What theories did Ayn Rand develop that were based on scientific experiments?

Do you mean philosophical theories such as her theory of concept formation?

I am asking because I believe it would be a contradiction to say that a philosopher can reach philosophical conclusions using scientific experiments. ("Scientific" here refers to the specialized sciences such as physics or botany.)

Scientific experiments are a method of the specialized sciences. Philosophers use no specialized methods. Philosophers use the methods that are available to anyone, anywhere, at any time: observation, thinking, and logic. That approach is part of what makes philosophy what it is: the universal science.

At least three things define a science: its methods, its object of study, and its purpose.

1. Philosophy's methods are the ones just named: looking, thinking, and validating.

2. Philosophy's object of study is the world in general (ontology), how we can know anything (epistemology), what we should do about what we know (ethics), how we should organize ourselves to achieve ethical goals (politics), and how we can grasp the meaning of all this at once, in a manner suitable to the nature of our minds (esthetics).

3. Further, philosophy's results apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times as a guide to living. Accordingly, philosophy's product, so to speak, is wisdom -- not "science" in the conventional sense of that term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What theories did Ayn Rand develop that were based on scientific experiments?

Do you mean philosophical theories such as her theory of concept formation?

I am asking because I believe it would be a contradiction to say that a philosopher can reach philosophical conclusions using scientific experiments. ("Scientific" here refers to the specialized sciences such as physics or botany.)

Scientific experiments are a method of the specialized sciences. Philosophers use no specialized methods. Philosophers use the methods that are available to anyone, anywhere, at any time: observation, thinking, and logic. That approach is part of what makes philosophy what it is: the universal science.

At least three things define a science: its methods, its object of study, and its purpose.

1. Philosophy's methods are the ones just named: looking, thinking, and validating.

2. Philosophy's object of study is the world in general (ontology), how we can know anything (epistemology), what we should do about what we know (ethics), how we should organize ourselves to achieve ethical goals (politics), and how we can grasp the meaning of all this at once, in a manner suitable to the nature of our minds (esthetics).

3. Further, philosophy's results apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times as a guide to living.

I just read in OPAR that AR had, by the end of her life, began to do more research in the field of epistemology, specifically - concept formation and formulating definitions. Leonard Peikoff mentions that she used some of the information from psychology and also mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read in OPAR that AR had, by the end of her life, began to do more research in the field of epistemology, specifically - concept formation and formulating definitions. Leonard Peikoff mentions that she used some of the information from psychology and also mathematics.

I have several observations.

(1) "Research" in epistemology uses the standard tools of philosophy, not of a specialized science.

(2) Anything a philosopher might learn from a specialized science such as math or psychology (to the extent that the latter really is a science) might be stimulants to thought. They cannot be proofs.

For example, a philosopher might study algebra and observe her own thought processes while doing so, and then abstract universal conclusions from her observations (introspections, in this case). That is a far cry from basing philosophy on a specialized science.

Another illustration might be the "crow principle." It -- as a principle applying to men -- is observable without any knowledge of ornithological experiments with crows. The supposed crow experiment -- with real crows -- would make a colorful illustration, but it is not a proof that the principle applies to men. Philosophy, to be valid, must be based on proofs accessible to all men, everywhere, at all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be up-to-date with research in psychology, but physics you clearly know nothing about. What I mean to say is - physicists themselves agree that either or both of the major theories (relativity and quantuum mechanics) are incorrect. For a philosopher to see this without even knowing anything about physics to me is just another evidence that the philosophy is valid, or that at least its metaphysics is valid.

Actually no physicist has ever said GR/SR and QM/QED/QCD[family of quantum theories] were ever wrong. I would like you to post the references to that. Not even David Bohm, which he was a bit off in my opinion, never ever said those two theories were wrong. We use QED[Quantum Electrodynamics] everyday in circuitry and etc. I know this especially since I'm a CompSci Major. You really really painted a very broad and skewed image of physics, sir. I would suggest you get your references in order. Because I consider not only what you said to be slanderous to my person but slanderous to the body of work in physics. Stand and deliver.

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand hasn't done any experiments on her own, but she did use the results of the experiments (which other people had preformed) to come up with her theories.

As for the statistical research:

Statistical "research" is not research at all. Today it has been given too much credit and many people rely on statistics, while by default it is not reliable at all. Certainly SOME statistical data can come in handy (such as Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics in quantum mechanics which only needs to calculate the total energy of all the particles in certain energy bands), but statistics cannot tell you anything about an individual, let alone his consciousness, volition, etc. Just as you can't know what energy the specified electron will have in a semiconductor on a given temperature (because the calculation is purely statistical), so you can't find out anything about a specific individual or the principles which guide that individual from a statistical survey preformed on hundreds or thousands of people. Psychology is said by psychologists to be an exact science because it derives its conclusions from a vast amount of data. I was required to know that by heart at high school. Yet only a few months ago I realized what a fraud that is when I began studying electronics at university. You can't deduce a definite/absolute conclusion about one part of an amalgam that is provided to you by statistical surveys. Psychology does that and as such, it cannot be called scientific - because its method is unscientific. I agree that experiments are scientific, but a science to be a valid science, every part of it must use scientifc method to reach conclusions. Deriving conclusions from statistical data is psychology's black hole.

Sir, you haven't studied statistics and methodologies at university by that tone of voice. You're flat out wrong. Statistical data is necessary for ANY EXPERIMENT. You must know if your experiment is statistically 'significant', meaning it is due to chance or non-chance. I really really think you need to post your sources. Because it seems your data is way off. Not only have you slandered a body of work in physics. You're slandering psychology and its use of methodologies in experiments without verify your claims. You use a broad brush to paint your views onto fields you seem not to know diddle about. If you can't get back to the core topic of this thread; AI's and how we should treat them if they get to the level of intelligence as we are..., then maybe I should ask a Moderator to lock the thread.

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moderators here generally don't lock threads just because the thread starter doesn't like the direction the thread is going.

Um Behaviorism of BF Skinner and Ed Thorndike is scientific by default. You really need to read up on the basics of Psychology. There's two major fields of study. 1. Behaviorism[instead of trying to figure out the thought processes of an organism, a behaviorist tries to figure out how an organism responds to stimulus...this eventually lead to...]

Behaviorism is UNscientific by default because it ignores the nature of the entities being studied. Human beings are conscious and volitional; if you try to study them by assuming they function only by automatic responses to stimuli you get nowhere. It would be like trying to study auto mechanics by assuming that cars are conscious and decide for themselves where they want to go.

As for the AI question, IF you could make an AI that had the same rational and volitional properties as humans, then it would (in my opinion) deserve to have the same rights as humans. However, there is no evidence to suggest this will be possible any time soon, if ever, so there is not much point in speculating about it. I suggest you look up some of the old existing threads on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moderators here generally don't lock threads just because the thread starter doesn't like the direction the thread is going.

Behaviorism is UNscientific by default because it ignores the nature of the entities being studied. Human beings are conscious and volitional; if you try to study them by assuming they function only by automatic responses to stimuli you get nowhere. It would be like trying to study auto mechanics by assuming that cars are conscious and decide for themselves where they want to go.

As for the AI question, IF you could make an AI that had the same rational and volitional properties as humans, then it would (in my opinion) deserve to have the same rights as humans. However, there is no evidence to suggest this will be possible any time soon, if ever, so there is not much point in speculating about it. I suggest you look up some of the old existing threads on this topic.

It's not really unscientific. It's merely a pattern to go by in how to approach behavior. You have to remember, BF Skinner and company had no MRI's, and had to deal with the fights in Europe over Functionalism vs Structuralism in the prior century[19th for them]. So all in all, their work isn't refuted by anyone in the field. What is refuted that all actions of an entity are purely action/reaction. It wasn't until the Cognitive Revolution that we get the psychology we have today. But remember, the advent of AI started parallel of the Cognitive Revolution. They thought the brain was some sort of mental blackbox and would be easy to mimic. Of course we know where that lead. The current work in AI is to know how the senses play in the role of actions. Not necessarily volitional thinking but the core system by which volitional thinking derives its base. To ignore this significant portion in the study of AI is to ignore the natural basis of the human brain. It's not as special as we assume and it's not inferior either. And eventually we will form a system of computer language/logic that will give us the means to study further into the higher functions of the human brain. I just think to ignore this is to rationalize and not really study or think[objectively] on the issue.

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with her position on an objective reality ...

Since you have yet to answer my question to you as to exactly what you mean by "objective," and since you have made statements, such as "Introspection isn't objective," which make me doubt that you have any real grasp of what objectivity means in Objectivism, I take your above stated agreement with a large grain of salt. As several knowledgeable people have elsewhere noted, when you grasp the concept of "objectivity" you will have grasped the reason that Ayn Rand chose to name her philosophy Objectivism.

Also, her disregard of the work of psychologists and physicists alike is something I would call questionable since she has never, nor Peikoff or Kelley substantiated any flaws in the currently known facts about the human animal or the physical world[like QM and Relativity[sR and GR]].

Since you are demonstrably ignorant of what Ayn Rand wrote on these subjects, as well as demonstrably ignorant of these subjects yourself, you are hardly qualified to make such an absurd judgment.

I think these are near fatal flaws unless someone tries to rectify them.

I agree that there are some "near fatal flaws" demonstrated here, but not for the same person you had in mind. Your remarks on this thread have been characterized by an apparent inability to directly address the issues and challenges presented to you, combined with an apparent ignorance for the positions you hold as well as oppose, along with grandiose and sweeping statements unsupported by actual reference or fact. When this is all combined with a style of writing so lacking in proper grammatical structure, and a presentation of ideas so muddled to border on incomprehensibility, this is an expression of your own flaws, not flaws of Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, just because I don't agree with her on those points doesn't mean I haven't read her essays or books.

If in fact you have read Ayn Rand's essays and books, then I would have to say you have comprehended very little. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unaware of basic ideas and principles that form core elements of Objectivism. I suspect that it is not so much that you disagree, but rather that you do not understand.

I have read what I can find and she's smart but a bit off.
And are we to consider the quality of your writings here as an example of a contrast, an example of being a bit on?

Course I think Max Stirner is smart but a bit off. I do not follow anyone's particular position religiously apart from my own views on life. I think in the end I have to figure things out for myself.

We all have to figure things out for ourselves, but at this point I would say you have a long way to go. For someone with such a belligerent and judgmental attitude, you are remakably ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you have yet to answer my question to you as to exactly what you mean by "objective," and since you have made statements, such as "Introspection isn't objective," which make me doubt that you have any real grasp of what objectivity means in Objectivism, I take your above stated agreement with a large grain of salt. As several knowledgeable people have elsewhere noted, when you grasp the concept of "objectivity" you will have grasped the reason that Ayn Rand chose to name her philosophy Objectivism.

So I have to define the word objective for you now? Come on, this isn't a definition fight. If you want to make a definitions fight, find someone else. You full well know what the word objective means. If I hit a wall, then I'll bust my knuckles, thats objective. If I shoot a person in the head, they'll die, that's also objective. Introspection cannot be objective because it's an internalized event with no outside frame of reference. For anything to be objective, it must be tied to another series of events besides itself. Basically it must have context. Like a word, by itself it has no meaning but when you write a whole sentance of words that all follow an agreed upon set of rules[grammar and syntax] then you have context to that word. I really don't think you, yourself, understand the issue of objectively and reality.

So if introspection is objective, is a hallucination objective as well?

Since you are demonstrably ignorant of what Ayn Rand wrote on these subjects, as well as demonstrably ignorant of these subjects yourself, you are hardly qualified to make such an absurd judgment.
Qualified? Now now, this is classic authoritarian fallacy right there. I must be a Philosophy major versed in everything Rand wrote, spoke and etc? And same with her detractors? That's absurb more than my position. I make opinions, sir, not authoritive claims, unless it's on a particular position I'm more versed than often. I suggest you do the same yourself.

I agree that there are some "near fatal flaws" demonstrated here, but not for the same person you had in mind. Your remarks on this thread have been characterized by an apparent inability to directly address the issues and challenges presented to you, combined with an apparent ignorance for the positions you hold as well as oppose, along with grandiose and sweeping statements unsupported by actual reference or fact. When this is all combined with a style of writing so lacking in proper grammatical structure, and a presentation of ideas so muddled to border on incomprehensibility, this is an expression of your own flaws, not flaws of Ayn Rand.

And you haven't made any fallacies yourself? Hmmm, I think this is the pot calling the kettle black. I really don't think you have any sense of what you're talking about or you would have made some definitive claims with references by now. You claim I make sweeping statements, but you and Source have made the most libelous remarks about various scientific fields that I haven't seen since being on a fundumentalist Christian forum. I think you really need to stick to the topic I posted, which is AI's and their treatment. Thankyou.

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no physicist has ever said GR/SR and QM/QED/QCD[family of quantum theories] were ever wrong.

This is patently false. For instance, the entire PPN formalism was originated by GR expert Kenneth Nordtvedt in 1968, and expanded by GR guru Clifford M. Will and others, in order to have a common framework to test GR and alternative gravitational theories. This formalism remains as a key element in gravitational experimentation today. See Clifford M. Will, Theory and experiment in gravitational physics, Cambridge University Press, 1993. If you actually read the physics literature, instead of making such ignorant dogmatic statements, you would find hundreds of journal papers in gravitational physics on this. You are clearly unaware of the literature in the field.

We use QED[Quantum Electrodynamics]everyday in circuitry and etc.

And who exactly is this "we" you refer to? If you intend to include yourself as the "we" who use QED, I would be willing to bet that you are fundamentally ignorant of the subject on any technical level.

I know this especially since I'm a CompSci Major.
Oh, I see. You are a computer science major, and that qualifies you to pontificate on physics. :) Well, I will give you this much: you are consistent. It is not just philosophy and Objectivism that you make ignorant judgments about.

Because I consider not only what you said to be slanderous to my person but slanderous to the body of work in physics.

The world of physics will fare much better if you did not pretend to be its defender against what you ignorantly consider slander. With friends like these ... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is patently false. For instance, the entire PPN formalism was originated by GR expert Kenneth Nordtvedt in 1968, and expanded by GR guru Clifford M. Will and others, in order to have a common framework to test GR and alternative gravitational theories. This formalism remains as a key element in gravitational experimentation today. See Clifford M. Will, Theory and experiment in gravitational physics, Cambridge University Press, 1993. If you actually read the physics literature, instead of making such ignorant dogmatic statements, you would find hundreds of journal  papers in gravitational physics on this. You are clearly unaware of the  literature in the field.

Um no. You're the one that doesn't have anything on the literature in the field. If GR/SR are wrong, why do we verify it in experiments everyday? The last work on it was with alteration of the constant of C in a given medium. They verified many interesting things such as the issue of communication pass C in a given medium. But you wouldn't know about that would you? ;)

And who exactly is this "we" you refer to? If you intend to include yourself as the "we" who use QED, I would be willing to bet that you are fundamentally ignorant of the subject on any technical level.
Um I actually read Feynman's paper on QED, it's a very commonly printed paper in book form. Most of what he stated dealt with issues of sum of all histories of a given photon to explain the odd nature of a photon[its uncertainty]. So if I don't know all that much about QED why am I damned good on referencing that? What about Probability Amplitudes and how he uses them to explain sum-of-all-histories? Now now, is this a 'measuring' contest, because that's what I smell, a whole lot of testosterone.

Oh, I see. You are a computer science major, and that qualifies you to pontificate on physics.  :) Well, I will give you this much: you are consistent. It is not just philosophy and Objectivism that you make ignorant judgments about.

The world of physics will fare much better if you did not pretend to be its defender against what you ignorantly consider slander. With friends like these ...  :(

So you want to not reference your claims?

And again with the authoritarian fallacy!

Look, there is

1. No such thing as special knowledge or gnosis. If I wanted to debate special 'knowledge' I'll talk to a Christian/Muslim apologist, thankyou. So I suggest you stay on topic.

2. Authority can only go so far, I think you be best to read about how Authority is meaningless in the light of Reason. Go pick up Stirner's own book on this, The Ego and his own. ;)

3. You don't know as much as you claim you know about physics. If GR/SR is wrong, why is gravity lensing still correct? What about the SR predictions on the variance of c in given mediums? And what about QM's predictions on the atomic model? Not to mention Dirac's own application of GR to QM, predicting anti-matter which CERN and company experiment on almost everyday[they have anti-electron[positron] and anti-proton 'breeding' facilities on their campuses]. But I guess you really really think those people must be 'unscientific.'

But I as I stated before earlier, this is becoming a measuring contest, which has no basis in this thread since that was not the premise of this thread. I think you're acting a bit trollish in your behavior and cannot validate anything you state. You drop a couple things but never string it into the current issue of AI's, consciousness, and how AI's should be treated. I really wonder if I should just put you to my ignore list. Although I wouldn't like to since I'm not here to make enemies. But if you want to be agressive and trollish, then I'll be ablidged to counter with silence.

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speicher,

I absolutely love reading your posts because of your insight and clarity. This might be a bit off topic, but why keep responding to this guy? He's obviously ignorant and an outright troll. At first it was slightly amusing, but now its almost insulting to see someone as yourself dealing with this "Bridget" person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though many of us here, being objective in thought or full-blown Objectivists wouldn't consider harming another entity unless it becomes a clear and present threat to our persons ...

I don't follow your assumption here.

There are a lot of "entities" that I would "harm," even though they are not "clear and present threats to my person." For instance, I would kill a cow or other animal for food--maybe a trophy even.

Can you clarify your statement? Are you some kind of animal or entity rights activist? Is it okay if I fish in the ocean and "harm" those fish entities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Introspection cannot be objective because it's an internalized event with no outside frame of reference.

And you wonder why I say that you, along with most every psychological theory, have no idea at all about the nature of consciousness? :)

Qualified? Now now, this is classic authoritarian fallacy right there. I must be a Philosophy major versed in everything Rand wrote, spoke and etc? And same with her detractors? That's absurb more than my position.

Please make a greater effort to read and grasp what is written. I did not say that you need to be a "Philosophy major" to make such judgments, only that you not be ignorant of the subject on which you judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um no. You're the one that doesn't have anything on the literature in the field.

I just gave you the standard reference in experimental gravitation, one which details the PPN formalism designed to test not just GR but alternative theories of gravitation.

If GR/SR are wrong, why do we verify it in experiments everyday?

First, I am not claiming that standard relativity is wrong. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your claim that "no physicist has ever said GR/SR ... were ever wrong." Your claim is just silly and demonstrates your ignorance.

Second, the reason the PPN formalism was developed is because there are a broad range of alternative gravitational theories that make the same predictions as general relativity for experiments that, at any given time, have been performed, but make different predictions for experiments yet to be performed. The PPN framework is the means that we use to separate out viable theories as technological developments make more precise measurements possible. It is almost forty years now that the PPN formalism has been used and general relativity has never been falsified but some other theories have been ruled out. Many others remain.

But, even more generally, you just do not seem to know or grasp that there are many theories that share the same mathematical formalism, and make the same experimental predictions, but are completely different physical theories. For instance, special relativity is experimentally indistinguishable from Lorentz' electron theory, but they represent two entirely different physical theories. Off the top of my head I could name a dozen different quantum theories that make the same (current) experimental predictions, but they represent entirely different physical approaches. Likewise there are entire groups of gravitational theories that are indistinguishable from general relativity by current experimental methods, but they all represent different physical theories. All these are viable theories and since they all contradict each other, they all cannot be correct.

So, when you say "You don't know as much as you claim you know about physics. If GR/SR is wrong, why is gravity lensing still correct?", you are just demonstrating your ignorance of current physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speicher,

I absolutely love reading your posts because of your insight and clarity.  This might be a bit off topic, but why keep responding to this guy?  He's obviously ignorant and an outright troll.  At first it was slightly amusing, but now its almost insulting to see someone as yourself dealing with this "Bridget" person.

First, it gives me a chance to make some interesting points that I would not otherwise have cause to make. Second, I have always been fascinated by those who exhibit the combination of strong judgments made out of sheer ignorance. If I thought that he/she was a troll, I would not have continued to respond. But I do, at times, enjoy peeling away the layers of ignorance. And third, I am gradually cutting text from the replies, rapidly spiralling down to zero.

But, thanks for your kind words and implied suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...