Occam's razor and consciousness

[jeffl]

Consciousness, as an emergent property of complex systems, is not a simple phenomenon. Evolution did not move in a straight line toward intellectual perception in the human animal; and it might be that the intellectual product of consciousness might be attainable by some simpler mechanism that itself skirts the dynamics necessary to be considered actually conscious. This is why i don't think the Turing test is up to the task. This is also why i think it's possible for the human animal to evolve toward an intellectual but non-conscious creature; and it would be a shame if that happened in a manipulative context. And also why Occam's razor should not be too quickly applied to the potential ground of conscious perception.

It's like we start out conscious but not intellectual, so we need ritual; and then we get intellectual and tradition becomes a danger, as it provides an opportunity to evolve away from conscious freedom.

[tman_ndsu08]

I can easily see how something that doesn't pass the turing test could be not only conscious, but highly intellectual.

Computers, an obvious example.

[MerlinsByte]

Merlin writes...Merlin writes...I thought the Turing test was for intelligence only?(http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/test.html )

How would one know by the Turing test if something or someone, or somthing, was self-aware/conscious?

If you are talking to a device it may just be programmed to say it was self-aware there would be no way to prove this, at least in the Parameters of the Turing test.

mb

[tman_ndsu08]

My mistake I thought the turing test was a test to see if it was biologically alive or not.

[Mia]

MB, why do you always say "Merlin writes..." at the beginning of your posts? We know it's you

[MerlinsByte]

MB, why do you always say "Merlin writes..." at the beginning of your posts? We know it's you

mb writes...ahhh'... two reasons Mia, the first is dumb habit, the second is for clarification. Its difficult when the other posts that don't use quote brackets etc. I've been misquoted a few times or words that aren't mine appear out of my mouth it seems. I also put BY MIA....inside the quote brackets for the same reason. Its time consuming but helps the other forum members respond and keep up with a myriad of responses and counter responses.

....Is it irritating? I'm going use mb as its shorter and time is .. well that is yet to be discovered...; } >

mb

[Sonart]

Quote by: Jeffi It's like we start out conscious but not intellectual, so we need ritual; and then we get intellectual and tradition becomes a danger, as it provides an opportunity to evolve away from conscious freedom.

I think you have it exactly backwards. I think we're in an intellectual state most of the time... we have to be. We have to remain intellectually focused to survive in a dangerous, competitive world. All the radar's on; sight, sound, taste, our minds, all taking care of business. It's through ritual -- liturgy, chanting or singing, sometimes dance, prayer or meditation -- that we shed the intellectual concious into a state where the information from our senses is meaningless, where thought is banished. Rapture, Nivana, whatever you want to call it, you enter a conciousness beyond your own mind and body.

Some would call it being one with God. I think of it as an evolutionary survival mechanism.


.

[MerlinsByte]

mb writes...I feel that both of you (sonart and Jeffel) two thirds right. The other third is the child like thought. This is required from the first light of conscious/self-awareness to lights out at death. We won't need it(child like thinking) in the afterlife because we will be one (again).

Sonart why would you say that this is an evolutionary survival mechanism.?

I feel that love for one another would be a contemporary survival mechanism.

love easy to say hard to do ....well hard to do right if it includes eveyone on earth.

mb

[jeffl]

Quote by: Sonart I think we're in an intellectual state most of the time... we have to be. We have to remain intellectually focused to survive in a dangerous, competitive world. All the radar's on; sight, sound, taste, our minds, all taking care of business.

I agree. These are the individuating forces that compell us to follow our own, necessarily deluded world view. I think things are not as dangerous or competative as we are lead to believe.

It's through ritual -- liturgy, chanting or singing, sometimes dance, prayer or meditation -- that we shed the intellectual concious into a state where the information from our senses is meaningless, where thought is banished. Rapture, Nivana, whatever you want to call it, you enter a conciousness beyond your own mind and body.

Again, i agree. This is how things used to be for everyone operating in a viable community, as i see it. Doing good work; putting yourself into what you do for the sake of neighbor or king, perhaps.

Some would call it being one with God. I think of it as an evolutionary survival mechanism.

Why can't it be both? If the wages of sin is death; what, then, would be the best evolutionary survival mechanism?

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl Consciousness, as an emergent property of complex systems, is not a simple phenomenon. Evolution did not move in a straight line toward intellectual perception in the human animal; and it might be that the intellectual product of consciousness might be attainable by some simpler mechanism that itself skirts the dynamics necessary to be considered actually conscious. This is why i don't think the Turing test is up to the task. This is also why i think it's possible for the human animal to evolve toward an intellectual but non-conscious creature; and it would be a shame if that happened in a manipulative context. And also why Occam's razor should not be too quickly applied to the potential ground of conscious perception.

What does this post have to do with Ockham's razor? Did you just throw that in there to add what you presume to be gravitas to your post? My bet is that you don’t even know what Ockham’s razor is. Fact is there is no well accepted definition of the term. People just make up their own version to justify their own biases. It is yet more philosophical gibberish.

It's like we start out conscious but not intellectual, so we need ritual; and then we get intellectual and tradition becomes a danger, as it provides an opportunity to evolve away from conscious freedom.

What are you talking about? Are you presuming that a perfect intellect would have no choice? That would only be the case if that intellect possessed perfect knowledge. I suppose it never occurred to you that it is not possible for a perfect intellect to know if it has perfect knowledge. Thus it will most likely be forced or required at some time in its life to make a choice that in the end is either the result of unconscious desires, educated guess or random chance.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Mia MB, why do you always say "Merlin writes..." at the beginning of your posts? We know it's you

He can't help it. Crazy people usually refer to themselves in the third person.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

by starboy...He can't help it. Crazy people usually refer to themselves in the third person. Starboy

Merlin writes...Yes starboy you know that by your life experience. And thanks for the word salad response(s).



mb

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy What does this post have to do with Ockham's razor? Did you just throw that in there to add what you presume to be gravitas to your post?

I don't think i'm as political an animal as yourself, sb. I refer to Occam's razor because of a link posted by Asian-American that contained the following by John Bryant:

"As I pointed out in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts ("the Law of Parsimony")."

It got me thinking, hence the thread.

My bet is that you don’t even know what Ockham’s razor is.

My bet is you are once again lying. The reader is refered to the consciousness thread to observe the fact that sb is more aware of names than of content.

What are you talking about? Are you presuming that a perfect intellect would have no choice?

You have no idea what i presume.

That would only be the case if that intellect possessed perfect knowledge. I suppose it never occurred to you that it is not possible for a perfect intellect to know if it has perfect knowledge.

I can tell you i would not presume what it would be like to have perfect intellect; i'll let you handle that.

Thus it will most likely be forced or required at some time in its life to make a choice that in the end is either the result of unconscious desires, educated guess or random chance. Starboy

Good luck with that.:)

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl I don't think i'm as political an animal as yourself, sb. I refer to Occam's razor because of a link posted by Asian-American that contained the following by John Bryant: "As I pointed out in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts ("the Law of Parsimony")."

Only philosophers practice "scientific philosophy". Most scientists do not study philosophy at all. For most scientists the only philosophy course they take if any is some form of logic.

It got me thinking, hence the thread.My bet is you are once again lying. The reader is refered to the consciousness thread to observe the fact that sb is more aware of names than of content.

What does this have to do with my claim that you do not know what Ockham's razor is? Such an answer is a good indication that I am correct. You see if you knew what it was you would be able to state it authoritatively but you do not. Could it be because yet again you think gibberish passes for knowledge?

You have no idea what i presume.I can tell you i would not presume what it would be like to have perfect intellect; i'll let you handle that.Good luck with that.:)

Do you have a comprehension problem like Merlin? Notice the question marks in my sentences? Questions are not presumptions. But my guess is that you do not respond in a strait forward manner because if you did it would be made obvious that yet again you to not have the slightest notion of what you are talking about. But there is one big tip off as to your lack of intellectual honesty. The fact that you will not admit ignorance is a very big tip-off.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

Do you have a comprehension problem like Merlin? Notice the question marks in my sentences? Questions are not presumptions. But my guess is that you do not respond in a strait forward manner because if you did it would be made obvious that yet again you to not have the slightest notion of what you are talking about. But there is one big tip off as to your lack of intellectual honesty. The fact that you will not admit ignorance is a very big tip-off.

MERLIN writes...and this guy thinks its ME that has a problem. Hello starboy! look in a mirror and say...no forget it..

PS I agree with Jeffel.

mb

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy For most scientists the only philosophy course they take if any is some form of logic.

Seems they could do with a bit more epistemology.

What does this have to do with my claim that you do not know what Ockham's razor is?

Nothing in particular, except for the obvious.

Such an answer is a good indication that I am correct. You see if you knew what it was you would be able to state it authoritatively but you do not. Could it be because yet again you think gibberish passes for knowledge?

Yeah, look; there's an interesting article, a couple actually, in Scientific American Mind, Number 16, volume 1. One is on page 9, and it's called 'Zen Gamma;' in the consciousness thread, the neural vortecies and 'migrating neruoelectric complex' i refer to would give the results observed in the study. On page 7 there's an interesting article called 'Language Pathway Revealed.' The two articles together, and what i've suggested about the 'flash', are very suggestive. I'm the one who referenced Penrose, and demonstrated in the consciousness thread my understanding of the relevant issues. I will not spoon feed you.

Do you have a comprehension problem like Merlin?

Really sb; you are the one experiencing difficulty with the releveant subject matter, and so dance around the semantic greys of an as yet undefined dialectic.

Are you presuming that a perfect intellect would have no choice?

I made no mention of perfect intellect; why do you ask? Do you not see a difference between 'consciousness' and 'intellect?'

But my guess is that you do not respond in a strait forward manner because if you did it would be made obvious that yet again you to not have the slightest notion of what you are talking about.

'Guess,' is that like a presumption? I would presume that the reader can make the necessary connections between the terms 'occam's razor' and 'law of parsimony.' Also, I'm happy to answer any questions, semantic or otherwise, about how occam's razor relates to notions of 'grounded conscious perception,' from anyone else.

But there is one big tip off as to your lack of intellectual honesty. The fact that you will not admit ignorance is a very big tip-off. Starboy

Ya know, you might be right. Please, tell me more about what it's like to be a perfect intellect, uncle sb.

[jeffl]

Quote by: MerlinsByte PS I agree with Jeffel. mb

Thanks, MB.

[Starboy]

jeffl, I will make it simple for you.

What is Ockham's Razor and why does it have anything at all to do with science?

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy jeffl, I will make it simple for you. What is Ockham's Razor and why does it have anything at all to do with science? Starboy

I will make it simple for you. I find you offensive, and i am not compelled to respond to your posts directly.

Where i come from, Occam's razor is a common term used to represent the application of the law of parsimony to the determination of what is available for reasonable consideration.

The specific point of the thread is that an overzealous application could whittle the essence of consciousness away from the more economically practical 'intellect.' Scientists could look at 'intellect,' thinking they're seeing 'consciousness.'

More generally, the point would be to elucidate the nature of the arrogance trap that is physical being.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl I will make it simple for you. I find you offensive, and i am not compelled to respond to your posts directly.

This may come as no surprise to you but I find your juxtaposition of pseudo scientific gibberish very offensive.

Where i come from, Occam's razor is a common term used to represent the application of the law of parsimony to the determination of what is available for reasonable consideration.

And where I come from parsimony and/or Occam's Razor is nothing more than a bias. It has little to do with actual reality since over time explanations have been getting more complicated and not simpler so direct experience would indicate that parsimony and/or Occam's (Ockham's) razor are completely wrong.

The specific point of the thread is that an overzealous application could whittle the essence of consciousness away from the more economically practical 'intellect.' Scientists could look at 'intellect,' thinking they're seeing 'consciousness.'

What is the scientific difference between 'intellect' and 'consciousness'?

More generally, the point would be to elucidate the nature of the arrogance trap that is physical being.

More pseudo scientific gibberish - "elucidate the nature of the arrogance trap". My you are full of claptrap jeffl.

Starboy