The Mystery of the Human Psyche.

[Pathfinder]

When we seek answers to the mysteries of life, are we asking mindful, intellectual questions out of curiosity, or are we simply performing precognitive brain functions?

The human curiosity is an amazing thing given what it has accomplished that has separated us from the rest of the animal kingdom. To ponder existence and what powers to be have brought all of this about seems to be the key component to being human. And yet there are those that would suggest that all of our pondering is nothing more than random, natural brain function and that there is no such thing as human psyche or mind. They attempt to explain everything as biological function.

What are the arguments to this sort of thinking? Is there more to our curiosity than brain function?

[paulhanke]

... one of the first things I would note is that the branch of AI that seeks to understand mind (as opposed to creating engineered special-purpose intelligences) attempts to do so by reproducing mind on a silicon substrate ... so if mind can be reproduced on a silicon substrate, does that imply that mind is something distinct from any one particular substrate? ...

[Pathfinder]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... one of the first things I would note is that the branch of AI that seeks to understand mind (as opposed to creating engineered special-purpose intelligences) attempts to do so by reproducing mind on a silicon substrate ... so if mind can be reproduced on a silicon substrate, does that imply that mind is something distinct from any one particular substrate? ...

Okay lets take a look at this in greater detail Paul.

First of all, as in the other thread, mind needs to be exactly defined so we are all talking about the same thing. Just because someone duplicates or imitates the working of the brain does not mean they have created mind or consciousness. So what exactly is it that you are saying is being created on these silicone substrates? And try to avoid getting too technical and long winded for us who are not physicists.

It seems as though you are suggesting that there is a branch of artificial intelligence that has been developed who's sole purpose is in learning about the nuances of the human mind. Is this correct?

[Caroline]

Havent we already a thread started on this by Ody Pathfinder? How come you just didn't pick that one up only there's no point in duplicates. Im just wondering why you didnt go into that one ahh yeah, it's locked isn't it? Ahh i forgot, sorry, oops. Shame because that was a really good thread maybe we should open it back up now huh, what do you think folks?
Thanks.

[xris]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... one of the first things I would note is that the branch of AI that seeks to understand mind (as opposed to creating engineered special-purpose intelligences) attempts to do so by reproducing mind on a silicon substrate ... so if mind can be reproduced on a silicon substrate, does that imply that mind is something distinct from any one particular substrate? ...

Just a silly question can it, has it?

[Pathfinder]

Originally Posted by Caroline

Havent we already a thread started on this by Ody Pathfinder? How come you just didn't pick that one up only there's no point in duplicates. Im just wondering why you didnt go into that one ahh yeah, it's locked isn't it? Ahh i forgot, sorry, oops. Shame because that was a really good thread maybe we should open it back up now huh, what do you think folks?
Thanks.

Caroline I would like to avoid you in this thread if you could find the courtesy, thank you!

[Caroline]

I beg your pardon but I was only making a suggestion, no I will not leave this thread and I've got a good mind to open Ody's up once again, after I've found out who derailed it in the first place. I have that right.
Thank you

[Pathfinder]

Originally Posted by xris

Just a silly question can it, has it?

Thta is what we will be discussing but we need to allow Paul time to respond.

I find it curious that he says in brackets , as opposed to something that is not specialized.

Could you tell me what you mean by the difference there as well Paul. If it is created for the purpose of something in particular what do you mean by not designed for something specific.

Just a little confusing.

---------- Post added 09-19-2009 at 08:13 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Caroline

I beg your pardon but I was only making a suggestion, no I will not leave this thread and I've got a good mind to open Ody's up again after I've found out who derailed it in the first place. I have that right.
Thank you

Are you, as a moderator, going to follow me and harrass me? I can promise youy that if you are implying that I have deliberately derailed someone's thread that you are confusing me with someone else. Can you not check IP numbers for that sort of thing? I have only ever used the name Pathfinder here. And I am not able to keep you from posting in this thread, but I can ask you politelyto allow me to use this forum without being harrassed. I will avoid you and I would ask you to do the same please. I do not want to have problems with anyone in here. And who the heck is Ody??????

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder

When we seek answers to the mysteries of life, are we asking mindful, intellectual questions out of curiosity, or are we simply performing precognitive brain functions?

My view is that Life is all about exploring (curiosity). It seems that is what we all do from the moment we are born until we move on.

Rich

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder

Okay lets take a look at this in greater detail Paul.

First of all, as in the other thread, mind needs to be exactly defined so we are all talking about the same thing. Just because someone duplicates or imitates the working of the brain does not mean they have created mind or consciousness. So what exactly is it that you are saying is being created on these silicone substrates? And try to avoid getting too technical and long winded for us who are not physicists.

It seems as though you are suggesting that there is a branch of artificial intelligence that has been developed who's sole purpose is in learning about the nuances of the human mind. Is this correct?

... yes - it's called the enactive approach: Enactive Artificial Intelligence Tom Froese ... it is a response to the perceived shortcomings of the computational and embodied approaches to AI with regards to learning about the human mind ... the computational approach took no account of significance and meaning and resulted in its own version of mind-brain dualism: the symbol grounding problem (how do you make symbols mean something?) ... the embodied approach was an attempt to remedy this shortcoming by grounding intelligence in a body (via a sensorimotor loop) - while this has been an advance, significance and meaning still remain elusive (how do you make perception and action mean something?) ... the enactive approach is an attempt to supplement the embodied approach by grounding intelligence in the responsibility for its own bodily existence - "constitutive autonomy is a necessary condition for intrinsic teleology", as it has been put ... an interesting thing here is that this would position autopoiesis at the center of explanatory descriptions of both life and mind - hence the title of a philosophical exposition by Evan Thompson: "Mind In Life" (Amazon.com: Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind (9780674025110): Evan Thompson: Books) ...

---------- Post added 09-19-2009 at 09:35 AM ----------

Originally Posted by xris

Just a silly question can it, has it?

... nope, as yet it has not - so far, what we've got are engineered intelligences based upon introspective accounts of human symbol processing, small-scale models of low-level neural information processing, and insect-level robotic embodied interaction with the world ...