Is consciousness necessary for intelligence?

Simon you say

Quote:

---

And for any out there who would argue that computers do turn data into information, I would say: No they don't. They are tools for allowing us to turn data into information.

---

Can you expand on this please I don't quite grasp your point. I think I need clarification on what constitutes turning data into information and why computers are incapable of doing this.



Harry,

Quote:

---

This is a one-way implication, if something is intelligent then it must be able to process information. It does not mean that if something can process information then it is intelligent.

---

Ok I like the logic you give here. Ok, well what allows computers to process information?

Also what does ¬ literally translate as?


Kedaman,

Quote:

---

A computer doesn't process information on it's own, software process information using available hardware. Software are intelligent to a certain level, depending on the programmer.

---

For a start I consider that software and hardware together form a computer. Hardware alone does not constitute a computer, nor does software in isolation.

Quote:

---

Learning means the ability to store information for later usage.

---

Learning is not simply to have a memory, how can one learn anything if one merely remembers what happened? I touch a boiling kettle, it burns my skin. Without the ability to learn I cannot change the way I interact with the environment even though I can recall the interactions. With memory alone I would never learn not to touch a boiling kettle. Memory is however a prerequisite for learning.

Quote:

---

Think about what you say. self awareness is the ability to recieve input of it's own state. That shouldn't require anything but a hardware device.

---

A hardware device can create self awareness :confused:. For me self-awareness is more likely software than hardware in so far as it is neither an input device nor an output device but rather part of the cognitive process.

Quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because computers may evolve to be more intelligent and potentially more self aware than us why to we have to prevent this from happening?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We are social evolutionary species, and have morals, did you read what i wrote?

---

Yes I did read what you wrote, did you read the paragraph after this question where I go on to say that for our own self preservation we should prevent this from occurring based on the assumption that a more evolved form of life will attempt to dominate all forms of life beneath itself.

Did you read this? If you did you should have realised that I asked the question in order to provide my thoughts on this question, not because I disagreed with your POV. In fact I think I supplied thought from another perspective that augmented your POV.

Quote:

---

What's the use of AI that can't store information?

---

Now you have really lost me, where did I say this :confused: My point was not to create AI with the ability to learn and thus out evolve us. Again it is not the ability to recall past events that by itself will cause computers to out evolve us, but their abililty to learn. So I would certainly not advocate AI that isn't allowed to store information, but AI that is not allowed to learn in a generic sense of the word.

Nucleus

Quote:

---

Simon you say

Quote:

---

And for any out there who would argue that computers do turn data into information, I would say: No they don't. They are tools for allowing us to turn data into information.

---

Can you expand on this please I don't quite grasp your point. I think I need clarification on what constitutes turning data into information and why computers are incapable of doing this.

---

OK, what I'm going on about here is to do with information theory. According to information theory, a statement contains one bit of information for every yes/no quesiton it answers. If you already know the answer, it contains no information. Therefore, I am equating information with Interpreted Data. e.g. A statement may contain information to me but not to you (as you may already know about it) so it is subjective.

Now the process of turning raw data into information is a process inside the mind of the observer. The raw data doesn't really change and the information doesn't really exist (in an objective sense). This process involves interpreting raw data by extracting meaning from it.

We are intelligent because your brain turns raw data (comming in through the senses) into information by a process of interpretation. The fact that we can extract meaning from raw data (even if it might be an incorrect interpretation) makes us intelligent.

Simon

Quote:

---

I don't think information is meaningless without raw data. Rather, information is interpreted raw data. I'm not sure if I think that information can exist without raw data...but I doubt it. If there is no raw data, there is only interpreted nothingness and that would imply that only I exist and everything else I see and hear around me are illusions created by myself for my own entertainment.

---

Raw data - If there is an objective universe, we assume it is the raw-data, but since we don't know, the device interface which supplies our information could be defined to work for any environment. If we just forget about raw-data and concentrate on information, we just have to adopt the applied scope perspective.

Quote:

---

but there is no point in continuing this thread unless we assume (for the time being) that there does exist such a thing as raw data.

---

In fact I think, we just need to adopt applied scope, and everything will be just fine. Even if we can't produce something "real" we do produce what we want.

Quote:

---

We are intelligent because your brain turns raw data (comming in through the senses) into information by a process of interpretation. The fact that we can extract meaning from raw data (even if it might be an incorrect interpretation) makes us intelligent.

---

the essense of information
You might consider raw data as information itself, just unprocessed information. If that's how we see at it, we are in agreement, I think. Both our views will give the same definition of intelligence, although you assume interpretation is part of it while I assume it's part of the processing as well.



nucleus

Quote:

---

For a start I consider that software and hardware together form a computer. Hardware alone does not constitute a computer, nor does software in isolation.

---

Assuming this, computers are by definition intelligent.

Quote:

---

Learning is not simply to have a memory, how can one learn anything if one merely remembers what happened? I touch a boiling kettle, it burns my skin. Without the ability to learn I cannot change the way I interact with the environment even though I can recall the interactions. With memory alone I would never learn not to touch a boiling kettle. Memory is however a prerequisite for learning.

---

Mixed up definitions here. When you conclude that it is a bad idea to not to touch the kettle, you process information, that is use intelligence. If you have the ability to learn, that is store this information you processed, you can use this information later on, to process again, the information that you see a kettle, and recall that you shouldn't touch it.

Quote:

---

A hardware device can create self awareness:confused: . For me self-awareness is more likely software than hardware in so far as it is neither an input device nor an output device but rather part of the cognitive process.

---

I don't quite understand what you want to say. Self awareness, to me means to be aware of itself, there is an obvious implication of an input device.

Quote:

---

did you read the paragraph after this question where I go on to say that for our own self preservation we should prevent this from occurring based on the assumption that a more evolved form of life will attempt to dominate all forms of life beneath itself.

---

Yes, but I don't quite see the relevance.

I don't think you disagreed with me but I thought you did not see my point, well nevermind, why should this be relevant?

Quote:

---

So I would certainly not advocate AI that isn't allowed to store information, but AI that is not allowed to learn in a generic sense of the word.

---

generic sense of the word? I know what you want to say even if it's the wrong terminology you use. You mean that AI would start making conclusions on what it percepts and then use these as axioms in a war against us. It's not "learning" that is responsible here, it's the processing part, the intelligence of AI that might overthrow us.

Simon,

Quote:

---

Software may process information (if that is the task that it is programmed to do) but it does not interpret information. The interpretation is provided by the programmer and the software is a mere tool for the device.

---

The important point for me is that the computer is doing the interpretation not us. We have programmed it to interpret raw data and this is exactly what it does and very efficiently I might say. When the computer takes input, the program processes it and then reacts accordingly. To process the data it must have interpreted the data, that is turn the data into information on the basis of which it acts.

So I cannot see how you can say that a computer doesn't interpret information when this is exactly why they are useful.

The hammer analogy isn't valid, as a hammer has no ability to process or interpret data.

For me the important point is that a computer only ever interprets data the way it is programmed, by contrast we are distinguished from a computer in that we have the ability to change the way we interpret raw data and I describe the process of evolving interpretation: learning. Humans, monkeys, cats, mice all have it, where as computers don't.

Computers have memory, they have the ability to interpret data the way they have been programmed, yet they do not have the ability to evolve their interpretation of the world around them, for this they remain dependant on us via upgrading software.

Kedaman,

Quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a start I consider that software and hardware together form a computer. Hardware alone does not constitute a computer, nor does software in isolation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Assuming this, computers are by definition intelligent.

---

By your definition of intelligence then yes, and I pointed this out two posts ago.

My definition of intelligence includes the ability to evolve your interpretation of the data received from your environment which I summarise by the word learn. So by my definition of intelligence computers currently are not intelligent as they can only interpret the way they have been programmed and cannot evolve this interpretation.

Quote:

---

I know what you want to say even if it's the wrong terminology you use. You mean that AI would start making conclusions on what it percepts and then use these as axioms in a war against us.

---

Getting very close here!

Quote:

---

It's not "learning" that is responsible here, it's the processing part, the intelligence of AI that might overthrow us.

---

Well I differ here, because to me it is not the processing part that is the problem, but the ability to evolve the processing part (learn) that should never be brought to realisation.

Well by my definition of intelligence, which includes the ability to evolve one's interpretation of data, Deep Blue is not intelligent.

Without further upgrades to its programming it will never be able to improve its chess playing ability by itself. On the other hand we can analyse how Deep Blue plays chess and over time alter our own interpretation in order to beat Big Blue.

I would consider Big Blue intelligent only if it could evolve its interpretation of data by itself.

We as programmers give computers the ability to interpret data at a high level relative to many other living creatures such as a dolphin or a cat, yet a humble mouse is eminently more intelligent than a computer. The reason being that at least the mouse was able to evolve to its current level of interpretation and will continue to evolve further, where as the computer requires us to instill it with any ability to interpret data and most importantly has no potential to evolve its interpretation any further.

If you define intelligence only as the ability to turn data into information that is contextually meaningful, and a computer as the combination of hardware and software, then Deep Blue is intelligent.

Nucleus

I do not think computers interpret information. Let me explain.

I don't know why you thought the "hammer" analogy wasn't valid; I didn't say it processed information but anyway, I will give you a closer analogy.

If I have a set of raw data and I draw a graph then I have interpreted the data. I have employed a set of rules that allows me to re-present the data in such a way that it allows my brain to more easilly turn it into information. (Note: it is not information until I read the graph. To someone else who looked at the graph and didn't understand it, it wouldn't be information).

Now, if I transfer my set of rules in to an automated process (such as a software program), the graph can now be automatically generated from the data. Does this mean I have transfered intelligence to the graph generation process? I think not. The program has not interpreted the data, merely re-presented it. It is only by someone looking at the graph, extracting meaning from it and interpreting it that turns it into information. The graph has no meaning to the software program that generated it. It is just an automated process set into motion by it's programmer.

Quote:

---

For me the important point is that a computer only ever interprets data the way it is programmed, by contrast we are distinguished from a computer in that we have the ability to change the way we interpret raw data and I describe the process of evolving interpretation: learning. Humans, monkeys, cats, mice all have it, where as computers don't.

---

I think what you are talking about, an evolving interpretation of data, is just the next level of intelligence. A meta intelligence. Whilst this level of intelligence is always going to be superior to a static interpretation, it is superflous for the basic definition.

I don't think Deep Blue was intelligent. It was just a transfered set of rules. It wasn't even that sophisticated by todays AI standards.

Nucleus, ¬ is shorthand for boolean 'not'.

Simon, I would be interested to hear what you think humans do with the graph in the process of turning it into information that is radically different from what the computer does.

Data is just numbers or letters, information is data with associated context, and knowledge is information (facts) with associated rules for the inferral of new information. Those are my definitions, and they're what I've been taught (more or less); if you disagree with that, say so.

A graph is placing raw data into a context, is it not? The raw data, though each datum is pretty meaningless on its own, becomes meaningful when given in relation to the rest of the data. That in itself still requires further processing before it becomes knowledge, but I would consider it to be information.

Quote:

---

I don't think Deep Blue was intelligent. It was just a transfered set of rules. It wasn't even that sophisticated by todays AI standards.

---

I am a bit disappointed at you simon.
Do you think other humans are intelligent?
Why would they not only be your "tools" to interpret data?
What in particular does differ them from Deep Blue, in the aspect of intelligence?

I'm not talking about degree of intelligence, I'm talking about whether they are or not, by definition.

Harry

Quote:

---

Data is just numbers or letters, information is data with associated context, and knowledge is information (facts) with associated rules for the inferral of new information. Those are my definitions, and they're what I've been taught (more or less); if you disagree with that, say so.

---

I would say that I pretty much agree with your definitions acept that data doesn't have to take the form of numbers and letters. It could be anything. This seems like a minor quibble but my reasonning will become clear shortly.

Quote:

---

A graph is placing raw data into a context, is it not?

---

No. I don't think it is. Interpretation places data into context. Raw data can be systematically turned into graphs, it does not require interpretation.

Quote:

---

The raw data, though each datum is pretty meaningless on its own, becomes meaningful when given in relation to the rest of the data. That in itself still requires further processing before it becomes knowledge, but I would consider it to be information.

---

It is meaningful only to someone who knows how to read a graph, who understands what the Axes are and the purpose behind the graph. To someone who doesn't understand the graph, it is not information.

I believe, like beauty, information exists in the eye of the beholder. Something is informaiton to me because it means something to me. It cannot be, objectively speaking, called information because that would be stripping away the context. Information exists only in a relationship between raw data and an entity that can make sense of it.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

I am a bit disappointed at you simon.

---

I seem to be disappointing many people today. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Do you think other humans are intelligent?

---

I believe other humans extract meaning from what they see around them. This, to me, makes them intelligent. I may be mistaken of course but there you have it.

Quote:

---

Why would they not only be your "tools" to interpret data?

---

I have no direct control over them so they are certainly not my tools. I cannot use people to simplify reality in order that I might extract more information from it.

Quote:

---

What in particular does differ them from Deep Blue, in the aspect of intelligence?

---

Deep Blue does not extract meaning from raw data. It processes raw data according to a transfered set of rules. It is an automated process set in motion by it's programmers. If you want to call that intelligence, fine. I don't.

Simon, you're not explaining how you think the way the computer does this so differently to how a human does it.

I concede the point about numbers or letters, I was just simplifying things a bit.

Quote:

---

Raw data can be systematically turned into graphs, it does not require interpretation.

---

By the time it's in a graph, it has already been interpreted. How is the way a computer creates the graph any different to the way a human creates a graph? I am not saying the computer knows what it means (yet), I am saying that if the context is known to the observer then the data has been manipulated to become information.

Knowledge of the meaning of the data comes at a later stage, and for the record yes I do think a computer can have knowledge of it, with further analysis. This is the way knowledge based systems work. There are numerous examples of them in industry, such as MYCIN that the NHS uses for diagnosis, and there's one DEC uses for quality control of the large and complex computers that it builds for specialist purposes.

It's not human level AI, but it is AI.

Harry

Quote:

---

By the time it's in a graph, it has already been interpreted.

---

No it hasn't! :p

How can you say that anything exists in it's own right as information? It is only when someone or something (intelligent) reads the graph that it may become information (in the mind of the interpreter). The graph is merely a representation of the data that makes it easier for our brains to make sense of it (i.e. turn it into information).

Quote:

---

How is the way a computer creates the graph any different to the way a human creates a graph?

---

Did I say that a computer creates graphs differently than we do? No I didn't. I said that computer programs that create graphs are just executing a set of rules that we have given them. It is not the generation of the graph that conveys information. It is the interpretation of the graph that is conveys information.

Quote:

---

I am not saying the computer knows what it means (yet)

---

It's not a matter of whether a computer can know what it means, it can't even extract any sort of meaning from it whatsoever. Therefore it is not intelligent.

Quote:

---

It's not a matter of whether a computer can know what it means, it can't even extract any sort of meaning from it whatsoever. Therefore it is not intelligent.

---

I was not suggesting that intelligence is required to assemble data into information. Nevertheless, I see it as information, since the data has been assembled into a context in which it is meaningful to one who is familiar with the format of a graph. That is information, data in context, I don't agree with you when you say that if somebody doesn't understand it it's not information. I think it is.

You keep saying that computers cannot know anything, that they can't understand things, and generally that there is no meaning to anything they do. I suppose this stems from the fact that they just run through algorithms? Why do you think this is so different from human brain processes? When abstracted to a higher level, you can go beyond algorithms and data, and use heuristics, facts, rules and meta-rules. You can deal with uncertainty.

From what you say it seems like you think computers are devoid of intelligence because they need to have the programs that they run written for them. Is that correct?

Harry

Did you say that you were familiar with information theory?

Quote:

---

I was not suggesting that intelligence is required to assemble data into information. Nevertheless, I see it as information, since the data has been assembled into a context in which it is meaningful to one who is familiar with the format of a graph.

---

You seem to be suggesting that something can exist as information regardless of whether there is an observer there who can extract meaning from it. This is contrary to what information theory suggests. For example, if I said to you: "Your name is Harry". Does that statement contain information? You already know that your name is Harry (and that I already knew that) so it contains no information. To someone who did not know your name was Harry, it does contain information.

The point is, something cannot exist as information in it's own right. You are suggesting that this graph exists as information in an objective sense.

Quote:

---

That is information, data in context, I don't agree with you when you say that if somebody doesn't understand it it's not information. I think it is.

---

To you it is. To the uneducated observer, it isn't (or at least not the same, anyway). It is information only as it exists in your brain. In your brain, it has been interpreted. In the un-educated brain, it has not been interpreted.

I would say, after thinking about it for a while, that a graph is just a coded up version of the raw data. It requires knowlege of the rules that constructed it to enable us to interpret it.

Quote:

---

You keep saying that computers cannot know anything, that they can't understand things, and generally that there is no meaning to anything they do. I suppose this stems from the fact that they just run through algorithms?

---

I do not mean to give the impression that computers will never be able to be intelliegent (or consious), only that a piece of software (such as a graph generation program) is not intelligent.

Quote:

---

Why do you think this is so different from human brain processes?

---

I have thought a little about this and I think that if we are deterministic in nature then we probably aren't intelligent. Perhaps free-will is required to really be intelligent? If I'm just following an algorithmn (however complex and sophisticated it might be) then am I really intelligent? What's so intelligent about just following a pre-set course?

If I have free-will, the ability to choose from a multitude of outcomes (none of which are innevitable), then I can be judged on my intelligence, my ability to make good or bad decisions.

Consciousness is certainly completely independent from the human body. The human body is simply a vehicle for our consciousness. This explains why people (everybody!) has the ability to shift their consciousness to distant places (i.e. Remote Viewing and Astral Travel etc).

Remote Viewing has been made famous by the American military, which used this to obtain information about enemies in the cold war. They say they stopped because it was too unreliable, but I doubt it.

If you believe in life after death, I’m sure you must believe that the consciousness is an external entity?


This is why; I believe, that a computer can never induce conscious thought.

Quote:

---

Consciousness is certainly completely independent from the human body. The human body is simply a vehicle for our consciousness. This explains why people (everybody!) has the ability to shift their consciousness to distant places (i.e. Remote Viewing and Astral Travel etc).

---

Well, that is a viewpoint held by some but it has certainly not been shown to be the case as conclusively as you suggest that it has.

If we believe that consiousness is seperate from the human body, that certainly spares us from having to explain how such a strange thing could be brought about mechanistically but it also raises many other (and perhaps more difficult) questions.

For example, if the consiousness is not physical in anyway, how (and why) does it interact with the brain attall? Why does it even need a physical body? At what point does it become associated with the body? Where do new ones come from?

I could go on but you get my point. If you would care to shed any light on any of the above questions it would be most illuminating. ;)

So, given that I don't see much of a possibility of free will existing (as discussed), I guess you wouldn't consider humans intelligent.

Jeez, you set pretty high standards :)

I didn't say I was familiar with 'information theory', whatever that is.

I think you are talking about a different kind of information to the information I'm thinking of. Information is a step down from knowledge. I'm talking about information in relation to data and knowledge, in terms of how far data has been processed into knowledge, not as a subjective entity. I don't really see the relevance of it to AI if it's only information when you didn't know about it already. That removes the possibility of storing it as part of long-term memory - as soon as you know it it's not information - so it's a pretty useless definition to me. It seems more concerned with the acquisition and transferral of information than the storage of it.

Quote:

---

I do not mean to give the impression that computers will never be able to be intelliegent (or consious), only that a piece of software (such as a graph generation program) is not intelligent.

---

Err... so computers might be intelligent, but software won't be? Of course software won't be intelligent, software doesn't do anything on its own, it has a symbiotic relationship with hardware. When you bring them together you have a computer, so what are you trying to say here?

Nobody has to prove to you, simonm, that the consciousness is external. I for one don't! If you'd like the true answer, you must find it out for yourself! There are ways of doing this. There are many websites explaining in clear terms how to shift the consciousness from place to place. Here is one good example:

http://home.tower.net.au/~rsb/

I can only show you the door, you have to open it :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
[B]Nucleus

If I have a set of raw data and I draw a graph then I have interpreted the data. I have employed a set of rules that allows me to re-present the data in such a way that it allows my brain to more easilly turn it into information. (Note: it is not information until I read the graph. To someone else who looked at the graph and didn't understand it, it wouldn't be information).

Now, if I transfer my set of rules in to an automated process (such as a software program), the graph can now be automatically generated from the data. Does this mean I have transfered intelligence to the graph generation process? I think not. The program has not interpreted the data, merely re-presented it. It is only by someone looking at the graph, extracting meaning from it and interpreting it that turns it into information. The graph has no meaning to the software program that generated it. It is just an automated process set into motion by it's programmer.

---

I don't follow any of the logic in the last two paragraphs. You say "If I have a set of raw data and I draw a graph then I have interpreted the data" further you go on to say that the automatic generation of the graph by a computer "has no meaning to the software program that generated it". From this I deduce that you are saying that the act of drawing the graph is considered interpretation of the data when the entity drawing the graph is able to extract meaning from the graph, and the act of drawing the graph is not considered interpretation of the data when the entity drawing the graph is unable to extract meaning from the graph. Is this really the point you wish to make here :confused:

Simon
You define something is intelligent if it can extract meaning from raw data. You also define something can extract meaning from raw data, if you think so. Consider the usefullness of this definition, for a society where common knowledge is important. Try qualifying something artificially intelligent if everyone thinks differently. Since you think this is all fine, I suspect you don't care of the possibility of AI, you can always deny or accept it's existens if you want, if so, why are you here then?

In case I have missunderstood you, can you explain how you qualify something to be able to extract meaning from raw data?


Hypnos
You can consider consciousness as nonexistent. If something exists, it is physical, since consciousness isn't physical, it doesn't exist.

kedaman said: "You can consider consciousness as nonexistent. If something exists, it is physical, since consciousness isn't physical, it doesn't exist."

Now, I personally have never read so much crap in all my days! Things don't have to be physical to exist! What about anger? Anger definitely exists in some people, but at the same time, it isn't physical. Or any emotion for that matter. What about beliefs? Are they physical? No, they're not, but they do exist; every single one of us is expressing ours in this post. Well you get the point...what kedaman said was bull s***.

Hypnos: Astral projection is utter nonsense. There is no evidence for it. If you choose to believe it as part of some religious faith, be my guest, but please do not try to pass it off as credible like theories from physics or chemistry. Do not even consider it on a level with the experimental results and conclusions of clinical psychologists. It is not even as believable as the some of weirder economic theories. It is not even a soft science.

It is barely possible that some military or political nut proposed using astral projection to obtain intelligence data. It is remotely possible that they got funds and fooled around a bit. I do not believe they ever really tried. Further more, I consider it a total misrepresentation of fact that they ever got any plausible results.

Guv, shut up you idiot! I didn't say the military tried Astral Projection. I said they tried remote viewing! As it goes they did try it you fool! Not because I say so, but because they admit it! So get your facts right before you start talking out of your arse. I don't believe in astral projection because of any religious beliefs! I believe it because of experiences. You see, I'm smart enough to actually look into something before I pass a judgment. You should try it some time.

Quote:

---

Things don't have to be physical to exist!

---

This is unfortunately a contradiction. Physical == Existent is a commonly accepted axiom in science.

Quote:

---

Anger definitely exists in some people

---

Anger is an emotion and emotions are states and states are information and information doesn't exist without a context and there is no context without consciousness, which doesn't exist because it isn't physical. Anger doesn't exist

Quote:

---

What about beliefs? Are they physical? No, they're not, but they do exist; every single one of us is expressing ours in this post. Well you get the point...what kedaman said was bull s***.

---

Beliefs are axioms, axioms are information... Beliefs doesn't exist.

Listen kedaman, all entities exist in some way, shape or form. Everything is an entity. Anger is an entity. Anger exists.

Hypnos
I wonder if you really grasp what you say:

Quote:

---

all entities exist

---

In case you think you do, I want you to explain it to me, or would you rather reconsider this?

Quote:

---

I'm smart enough to actually look into something before I pass a judgment.

---

Guv

Quote:

---

Hypnos: Astral projection is utter nonsense. There is no evidence for it

---

I thought you disliked mentioning proovability, or are you just keeping safe distance from between going nuts and being reasonable?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hypnos
Consciousness is certainly completely independent from the human body. The human body is simply a vehicle for our consciousness. This explains why people (everybody!) has the ability to shift their consciousness to distant places (i.e. Remote Viewing and Astral Travel etc).

---

Can you Astral Travel? If so, can you summarise for me what this means and what you are able to achieve via this process and also its limitations?

I would prefer your first hand account rather than a referral to another site.

Hypnos: Remote viewing, Astral projection, Ancient astronauts, ESP, et cetera. It is all bunk.

Sorry to confuse Astral projection with remote viewing. I assumed they were different terms for the same nonsense. The URL you supplied related to Astral projection, so I wrongly assumed that the reference to the military being foolish had something to do with that site. I do not keep up with the jargon associated with nonsense, although I happen to read a fair amount of mystical and occult crap for amusement. Weird, off the wall beliefs fascinate me.

If you claim to believe in Astral projection or remote viewing due to personal experiences, I would say that you are delusional. I just hope you are not dangerously delusional. If you believe due to being told of the experiences of others, you are incredibly gullible and I would love to sell you some real estate about 100 miles east of Miami Beach.

I am glad you do not consider it a religious belief. In that case, I do not mind calling you a fool for believing in occult nonsense. I must say that your violent name calling reaction suggests that it is some cherished belief. Those who recognize their beliefs as faith based are usually the ones who rant and rave when questioned. After all, they have no evidence to back them up, so what else can they do?

The stupidity of the military never ceases to amaze me. Did they really try remote viewing? I do not suppose you mean they used something like a telescope or a scientific device. I assume you meant some mystic phenomena.

BTW: I enjoy fiction dealing with the mystical, magical, and the occult. While watching Star Trek I was even willing to believe in the Transporter, although the Matter Transmitter in the Fly movies was just a tad more believable.

Kedaman: In answer to the following.

Quote:

---

I thought you disliked mentioning proovability, or are you just keeping safe distance from between going nuts and being reasonable?

---

In a previous post I acknowledged that there was no such animal as an absolute proof or disproof, since all proofs depend upon unproved axioms and some undefined terms. I did not mean to imply that I did not accept the truth of certain valid proofs. In addition to accepting various proofs as indicating truth, I also view a lot of reasonable conclusions as true until contrary evidence is discovered.

I do not consider myself infallible. Holograms showed me that I was wrong when (in about 1955) I explained that true 3D perception would always require some mechanism which presented separate images to each eye. While I could quibble a bit on this issue, I realized that a hologram provided a 3D image in a way I never imagined. It was neither the first nor the last time I believed in something invalid, and if I live another 10-20 years, I might discover some other errors in my belief system.

So far, my disbelief in the mystical and the occult has never been shaken, and my belief in mainstream science has been pretty much justified. To the best of my knowledge, mainstream physics has not been shown to be wrong in the last 300 or so years. It has only been shown to be invalid when extrapolated to situations beyond the scope of the available experimental evidence. Sorry, I just remembered an exception to the above. For a year or two, mainstream physicists called Einstein a fool for believing that energy was quantized: They preferred to believe Planck's interpretation.

Guv,

Quote:

---

The stupidity of the military never ceases to amaze me. Did they really try remote viewing? I do not suppose you mean they used something like a telescope or a scientific device. I assume you meant some mystic phenomena.

---

How does testing a theory make the military stupid?

Nucleus: It was once reported that the military hired some people who claimed to have ESP (TK & Telepathy) because they heard that the Russians were using such people.

I do not believe the rumour, but would consider the military stupid for doing research or testing ESP theories.

I think the rumour was started by people who thought they could get private funds for this type of research by claiming the existence of some top secret govt project.

It is stupid to waste time testing theories that are at the bottom of the believabilty scale when there are more promising ones higher up.

Guv

Quote:

---

It is stupid to waste time testing theories that are at the bottom of the believabilty scale when there are more promising ones higher up.

---

What is this believability scale and how does one work out where a given theory sits on this scale? I understand that many accepted theories we have today were at some time in the past considered totally ridiculous.

Nucleus: Perhaps the believability scale (my own term) is merely the subjective opinion of intelligent people. The more intelligent the people, the better the scale.

For me, ESP, Bermuda triangle phenomena, Ufology, alien abductions, Astral projection, the Star Trek transporter, magic, et cetera are at the bottom in any old order.

Farther up are research projects relating to Stem cell based cures for various diseases, artificial hearts, neural networks, other AI projects, room temperature super conductivity, clinical psychology projects of various types, and I cannot think of any more without further thought.

If you feel the above is an unreasonable assessment, let me know.

I suspect that many of our currently accepted theories were not even imagined 100 to 400 years ago, rather than disbelieved in. For example: Relativity, quantum physics, radio, TV, lasers, the expanding universe.

Once again, I must insist that the errors of the past do not lend credibility to every crazy idea that can be imagined today.

Furthermore, the mainstream scientists of the late 19th century were not as smug as many people at this forum think they were. For example they were aware of the following each of which indicated the existence of serious flaws and/or omissions in their theories.

• The Michaelson-Morley experiment which led to special relativity. None of them believed that the earth was stationery, which is a possible explanation for the experimental results.
  
• The ultraviolet catastrophe, which was later explained by Quantum Theory.
  
• The sun’s energy output. It was known that the sun was at least millions of years old since they had geological data for the earth being at least that old. The most energetic phenomenon known then would have used up the entire mass of the sun in about 50,000 years. This indicated some unknown energy producing process orders of magnitude beyond known processes.
  
• Obler’s paradox, which has been explained by the expanding universe cosmology.
  
• There might have been other problems they worried about, but those are the major ones.

It was high school teachers and pseudo scientists who thought they knew it all.

One parting remark: A paraphrase of something said by either Asimov or Sagan.

Quote:

---

I know of no evidence for ET's visiting the earth. I know of much evidence for people having poor powers of observation, for people having hallucinations, and for people telling outright lies.

---

Many other subjects could replace the bolded phrase, such as ESP, astral projection, Bermuda triangle mythology, et cetera.

Guv

Quote:

---

Nucleus: Perhaps the believability scale (my own term) is merely the subjective opinion of intelligent people. The more intelligent the people, the better the scale.

---

What use is a subjective believability scale? Take two people of equal intelligence. One person's plausible theory is another person's hoax. You wouldn't argue that people with the same level of intelligence will never differ in the theories they consider believable would you?

Quote:

---

For me, ESP, Bermuda triangle phenomena, Ufology, alien abductions, Astral projection, the Star Trek transporter, magic, et cetera are at the bottom in any old order.

---

Why are these at the bottom of the believability scale? I suspect it is because they are theories that have been tested and have yet to have any supporting scientific evidence?

The point here is you need to test the theories before you can allocate a "believability" rating, rather than place this term prior to testing.

hypnos

I never said that you had to prove to me that consiousness was external. Rather I said that if that were true, there would be many questions raised that would need answering.

It is a shame you are so intolerant to other peoples opinions and you proclaimations that things like "remote viewing" and "astral projection" were proven concepts discredits other quite intelligent scientists who believe that consiousness is seperate from the brain.

I will look into the site you provided but I have already read very convincing scientific papers by scientists that attempt to prove the non-mechanistic character of consiousness.

Guv
Whilst concepts like "astral projection" and "remote viewing" have not been proven to a satisfactory level, just remember that consiousness has not yet been successfully explained by reductionist scientists. It is still beyond the ability of scientists to explain how such a thing as consiousness could ever arise from the physical processes in the brain.

That's not to say that I think it never will, it's just we should all keep an open mind on this one.

Quote:

---

It is stupid to waste time testing theories that are at the bottom of the believabilty scale when there are more promising ones higher up.

---

Why is it so unbelieveable? It's not so wild to suggest that there are perhaps functions of the mind that we have lost and forgotten.

Nucleus

Your confusion might be aleviated if you replace the sentance: "If I have a set of raw data and I draw a graph then I have interpreted the data. " with : "If I have a set of raw data and I draw a graph then I have not interpreted the data. "

Does that clear things up?

LOL :D You guys are always going on about science this and science that. As soon as I mention something that isn't scientifically proven, you bite my head off and call me a psycho(especially Guv). Guv, it isn't the military that are stupid... They look at everything with an open mind. This is why they were involved in a 24-year programme in investigating the possibilities of ESP. The military have released the documents about this programme under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

Guv, if you believe it’s all nonsense, how do you explain the length of the military’s’ investigation? Don't you think if after a year or so they found nothing remotely interesting they would have stopped the programme? But they didn't stop it. It continued for 24 years because they were getting results. The information is out there, on display to anybody who wants to see it.

There was a man named David Morehouse in the paper a while ago talking about his work in the CIA. He was a remote viewer for them who helped them solve acts of terrorism.

Science doesn’t have all the answers.

Simon

Yes, I now take it you are saying that drawing a graph can never be considered interpretation, whether performed by human or computer is this correct? If so, I would agree with you.

However, computers can do more than draw graphs, they can, to keep the Deep Blue theme running, play chess for example.

To play chess the computer takes in data, interprets the data and then even acts on its interpretation by itself. Although we bestowed it with the ability to interpret the data, I don't see how you can suggest it does not have this ability.

When you're playing the computer at chess, you're not really playing the computer. No, you're playing the person who programmed the game of chess. That's how I like to think of it anyway :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hypnos
When you're playing the computer at chess, you're not really playing the computer. No, you're playing the person who programmed the game of chess. That's how I like to think of it anyway :)

---

Does it follow then that if I teach you to play chess Hypnos, then Guv plays you at chess, does it mean that Guv is playing me and not you?

Quote:

---

Does it follow then that if I teach you to play chess Hypnos, then Guv plays you at chess, does it mean that Guv is playing me and not you?

---

You raise a very good and interesting point Nucleus. Lets not for get however, that I'm a conscious being where as a computer isn't. If you were to teach me how to play chess, I would learn from experience how to become a better player. If you were to teach (programme) a computer how to play chess however, the same rules that you told it, would apply for the rest of eternity (or a least until somebody puts it in the windows recycle bin :D). So you see, there is a distinct difference.

Simon (and now also hypnos), you haven't given me an explanation to why you decide a computer is not concious while another human is.

Your definitions are still useless and you don't admit it. Why?

Hypnos, you haven't explained why all entities exists, do you know what it means?

Nucleus

Quote:

---

Yes, I now take it you are saying that drawing a graph can never be considered interpretation, whether performed by human or computer is this correct? If so, I would agree with you.

However, computers can do more than draw graphs, they can, to keep the Deep Blue theme running, play chess for example.

To play chess the computer takes in data, interprets the data and then even acts on its interpretation by itself. Although we bestowed it with the ability to interpret the data, I don't see how you can suggest it does not have this ability.

---

I think you are being a bit inconsistent. How can you both argue that computer does interpretation when interpretation is basically processing data in Deep Blue's case and at the same time agree that the processing performed when interpreting data for drawing a graph? Do you care to explain me why, and come up with a definition for interpretation that somehow differs from mine but also from simon's?

Quote:

---

In a previous post I acknowledged that there was no such animal as an absolute proof or disproof, since all proofs depend upon unproved axioms and some undefined terms. I did not mean to imply that I did not accept the truth of certain valid proofs. In addition to accepting various proofs as indicating truth, I also view a lot of reasonable conclusions as true until contrary evidence is discovered.

---

The problem is to decide what absolute proof actually means. That is the only undefined term I think I know of. As mere information we are not refering to it at all. The axiom true is for expressing constant relations between information, but we prefer refering to an objective reality.

Mainstream science frame of information may explain a variety of phenomenons, making it usefull, however that does not implicate radical theories should be avoided. There are certain key phenomenons that science cannot explain indicating there is something fundamentally flawed in it. That's why new theories are born to try to cooperate with that phenomenon.

Guv

Quote:

---

So far, my disbelief in the mystical and the occult has never been shaken

---

Mystical and the occult? Isn't that some kind of category where you put everything that you think is bunk. If a lot people put something there, you prefer to put it there, however you have in your signature: "If 100 million people believe a foolish idea, it is still a foolish idea!"

I have this vision that one day, we will look back at us and think that we were disgustingly unintelligent. That if there was a scale say IQ for a normal person would be 100, the IQ of a human in these days would be less than 1. Consider now a whole society of these people with intelligence around IQ 1 and some with close to 2 or so, what kind of scientific perspective would they have? Very miserable, and lot's of beliefs in mystical and the occult. Information is a unlimited source for intelligence so there's no bound to how intelligent we can be.

If our material resources wont exhaust until we can start building on the next information empire, evolution is going to show us the way.

Kedaman,
I believe all entities exist because for something to be an entity it has to be something – if you catch my meaning. I believe that “something” is in existence. On some level everything that you can think of exists. You exist, your thoughts exist and your feelings exist – if they didn’t, you wouldn’t be thinking them or feeling them. And your thoughts are an entity of some kind or another. This is my reasoning behind all entities exist. It makes sense, that’s why I believe it.
:rolleyes:

You define entities as things that exists, then you state you believe that entities exists because of that. That doesn't sound informative to me. What do you call things that may or may not exist?

Well I believe everything exists. If somebody was to say, there's a big green monster that's coming to eat me up. I would believe that the monster exists. Maybe not on my plane, but definitely in the imagination of the person telling me about the monster. You see, it may exist on another plane, but it does exist nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hypnos


You raise a very good and interesting point Nucleus. Lets not for get however, that I'm a conscious being where as a computer isn't. If you were to teach me how to play chess, I would learn from experience how to become a better player. If you were to teach (programme) a computer how to play chess however, the same rules that you told it, would apply for the rest of eternity (or a least until somebody puts it in the windows recycle bin :D). So you see, there is a distinct difference.

---

Hypnos, the only difference you have pointed to is that a human has the ability to evolve its interpretation, where as a computer has a static interpretation. So the difference between a computer and a person is the ability to learn or I prefer: an ability to evolves one's own interpretation of data. Go back to page 4 and I fleshed out this point in more detail.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

I think you are being a bit inconsistent. How can you both argue that computer does interpretation when interpretation is basically processing data in Deep Blue's case and at the same time agree that the processing performed when interpreting data for drawing a graph? Do you care to explain me why, and come up with a definition for interpretation that somehow differs from mine but also from simon's?

---

On reflection playing chess and drawing a graph both require interpretation and I have no reason to distinguish one from the other.

Quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a previous post I acknowledged that there was no such animal as an absolute proof or disproof, since all proofs depend upon unproved axioms and some undefined terms. I did not mean to imply that I did not accept the truth of certain valid proofs. In addition to accepting various proofs as indicating truth, I also view a lot of reasonable conclusions as true until contrary evidence is discovered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The problem is to decide what absolute proof actually means. That is the only undefined term I think I know of. As mere information we are not refering to it at all. The axiom true is for expressing constant relations between information, but we prefer refering to an objective reality.

Mainstream science frame of information may explain a variety of phenomenons, making it usefull, however that does not implicate radical theories should be avoided. There are certain key phenomenons that science cannot explain indicating there is something fundamentally flawed in it. That's why new theories are born to try to cooperate with that phenomenon.

---

I believe this was a comment by Guv not I.

I would still like to comment though. I don't think it follows that because science cannot explain all phenomenons, then science is fundamentally flawed. How do you come to this conclusion?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hypnos
Well I believe everything exists. If somebody was to say, there's a big green monster that's coming to eat me up. I would believe that the monster exists. Maybe not on my plane, but definitely in the imagination of the person telling me about the monster. You see, it may exist on another plane, but it does exist nonetheless.

---

Your definition of existence is subjective rather than objective.

Simonm: The following might relate to another thread. I reread a previous post of mine to verify my memory. A lot of you folks seem to scan rather than read posts. I am referring to your following remark.

Quote:

---

An I'm sorry if my distrust of big corporations conveys a lack of intelligence.

---

I have always considered you and most others who post at this site to be very intelligent. Did the following imply that I did not think you were intelligent?

Quote:

---

Simonm: It saddens me when I see intelligent people more worried about big business than big government.

---

I thought I was implying intelligence and saying that I disagreed with your opinion.

The inability of modern science to adequately explain consciousness does not lend credibility to concepts like Astral projection.

Quote:

---

Whilst concepts like "astral projection" and "remote viewing" have not been proven to a satisfactory level, just remember that consciousness has not yet been successfully explained by reductionist scientists. It is still beyond the ability of scientists to explain how such a thing as consciousness could ever arise from the physical processes in the brain.

---

If you intend the above as an argument on behalf of Astral projection, it is a completely fallacious argument. First, Astral projection and remote viewing have not been proven at any level, and the above implies some evidence other the anecdotes of believers. Second, the lack of a successful explanation does not suggest that anything other than brain functions are responsible for consciousness. If not brain processes, what is responsible? The big toe? The pituitary? Leprechauns? No rational person doubts that brain processes are the basis of consciousness. It is just that they do not know how it works or how to create it artificially.

Hypnos: You are so off the wall that it is hard to argue with you.There is no need to expain the miltary research into ESP. I flat out do not believe that the military investigated ESP phenomena for 24 years. If by some weird chance that they did, it just shows how stupid they are to waste all that time. Where did you find this piece of information? You cannot cite any source other than some other crackpot.. This is the sort of stuff that one nut makes up and then others pass it around as valid data. No ESP phenomena has ever been validated by a properly controlled experiment. If you believe in Astral projection, you are not a reliable source of information on any subject. At least Kedaman and others who post here merely claim that various farout concepts are possible. None of them actually claim to believe due to experiences.

Quote:

---

I don't believe in astral projection because of any religious beliefs! I believe it because of experiences. You see, I'm smart enough to actually look into something before I pass a judgment. You should try it some time.

---

Where and when did you have these astral projection experiences? Were you smoking, snorting, or injecting something that made you think you had such experiences? Perhaps you can have hallucinations without chemical assistance.


Nucleus: What you are doing in the following quote is known as Setting up a Strawman. It is a well known ploy which attempts to win an argument by a subtle form of fallacious reasoning.

Quote:

---

Take two people of equal intelligence. One person's plausible theory is another person's hoax. You wouldn't argue that people with the same level of intelligence will never differ in the theories they consider believable would you?

---

Of course I do not expect two intelligent people to never differ in their opinions on theories! I never made or implied such a ridiculous statement. It is absurd for anybody to believe such a statement,. While not intended as an insult, it is an insult to suggest that I believe such nonsense. By implying(not actually saying) that I made such a statement, you easily attack my credibility in a rather subtle fashion. Anyone who reads your post and believes that I made or even implied such a statement would obviously consider me a nut, and side with you with little or no consideration of any other remarks posted by us. It is one of many well known fallacious arguments, and has not no merit. It is probably a more disreputable ploy than quoting out of context.

Perhaps I should reply in kind and ask if you believe that we have unlimited money, manpower, and resources allowing us to undertake any imaginable research project, requiring only that the proposer believes he is investigating a plausible theory. Tell me where to go to get the research funds, I can make up some interesting projects.

All kidding and quibbling aside, would you vote to allocate research funds for any of the following?

Quote:

---

ESP, Bermuda triangle phenomena, Ufology, alien abductions, Astral projection, the Star Trek transporter, magic, et cetera.

---

These are the subjects I mentioned as being at the bottom of my believability list. I doubt that you could fund any of the above for less than $100,000. A tenured professor, two assistants, a secretary to record results, a computer, some office space, various instruments, perhaps some travel, et cetera. Do you think you could find better uses for the money? I think I could find better uses for it.

There is not enough time to investigate every weird concept that somebody can imagine. Life is too short. You must discard a lot of ideas that seem to be nonsense without doing much analysis. Now and then, something like plate tectonics gets ignored for 20 years or so. The twenty years were not wasted because bright people spent the time developing and testing other good ideas.

BTW: I suspect that ESP research has eaten up many millions since Rhine started it at Duke university about 70 years ago. I consider the departments of parapsychology at universities to be scam or confidence games, with the university being the pigeon. The experimental design is guaranteed to show results in the absence of any phenomena, and I believe that the researchers are smart enough to know that their design is faulty. Due to my disbelief in such phenomena you might think that I have not studied any of the experiments. Actually, I have read articles by Rhine, Putoff, Targ, and others in the field.

LOL :D You're a funny guy Guv, a very funny guy indeed. Do you really think I'm gonna' mention any Astral experience that I may or may not have had? You think I'm that stupid? I know what type of person you are Guv, everything I've said you have mocked me for it. It's evident that no matter what I say you'll just take the piss so I couldn't give a crap about telling people like you anything anymore.

Nucleus

Quote:

---

On reflection playing chess and drawing a graph both require interpretation and I have no reason to distinguish one from the other.

---

I take it that you take back that you agree with simon about drawing a graph not requiring interpretation. Do you define interpretation is processing of data? Do you define intelligence as processing of data?

Quote:

---

I believe this was a comment by Guv not I.

I would still like to comment though. I don't think it follows that because science cannot explain all phenomenons, then science is fundamentally flawed. How do you come to this conclusion?

---

Yes, I put the Guv in bold letters afterwards in the wrong place, sorry about that. Science only works on a specific area, that is a specific interpretation of our world, for Science to be fully qualified theory (as a entity) it needs to be uniform and solution to all phenomemons. It's mere a tool to solve specific problems, a result of reverse enginering and conclusion of basic axioms.

hypnos
Your definitions are useless to me or any other person, as common knowledge. Most people do consider the existance of any entity. If you stated you believe in Astral projection because of experience, why do you deny further explanation? Guv may ignore you because he think it's bunk, but that is as unqualified as your statement of your experience. Can't you be less offensive when you answer?

Guv

Quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take two people of equal intelligence. One person's plausible theory is another person's hoax. You wouldn't argue that people with the same level of intelligence will never differ in the theories they consider believable would you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course I do not expect two intelligent people to never differ in their opinions on theories! I never made or implied such a ridiculous statement. It is absurd for anybody to believe such a statement,. While not intended as an insult, it is an insult to suggest that I believe such nonsense. By implying(not actually saying) that I made such a statement, you easily attack my credibility in a rather subtle fashion. Anyone who reads your post and believes that I made or even implied such a statement would obviously consider me a nut, and side with you with little or no consideration of any other remarks posted by us. It is one of many well known fallacious arguments, and has not no merit. It is probably a more disreputable ploy than quoting out of context.

---

When I said, "You wouldn't argue that people with the same level of intelligence will never differ in the theories they consider believable would you?” it was merely a question; there is no implication that you supported this statement at all. In fact as the question as it is phrased quite the opposite is true, it indicates that I would not expect you to argue such a case to be true.

You have now confirmed that you wouldn't argue such a case, albeit very defensively!

Ok, well can you indicate how a subjective believability scale can be useful, given that you now agree, in your own words, two people of equal intelligence will potentially differ in their believability assessments of theories?

BTW I don't consider you a nut, but I am struggling to understand your how your believability scale as you have stated it, may be implemented to work out which theories should be allocated funding.

You didn't answer another key question, where I ask you whether you have come to the conclusion that theories such as ESP and Astral travel are bunk through the lack of support scientific evidence after theories have been subjected to the scientific process, which is why they rank at the bottom of your believability scale?

Quote:

---

All kidding and quibbling aside, would you vote to allocate research funds for any of the following?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESP, Bermuda triangle phenomena, Ufology, alien abductions, Astral projection, the Star Trek transporter, magic, et cetera.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the subjects I mentioned as being at the bottom of my believability list. I doubt that you could fund any of the above for less than $100,000. A tenured professor, two assistants, a secretary to record results, a computer, some office space, various instruments, perhaps some travel, et cetera. Do you think you could find better uses for the money? I think I could find better uses for it.

---

In order to allocate funding, I would look at many factors including whether there has been any previous scientific evidence in support of the theory. I would consider allocating funding to theories lacking any supporting evidence, particularly if they had been around and tested over several decades, to be a relatively inefficient allocation of resources.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

Do you define interpretation is processing of data?

---

If you are asking me if I agee with you, that interpretation can be used interchangeably with processing data, then I would say yes.

Quote:

---

Do you define intelligence as processing of data?

---

No, to be intelligent one must be able to evolve one's own abilty to process data. The ability to process data by itself is not enough.

Quote:

---

Science only works on a specific area, that is a specific interpretation of our world, for Science to be fully qualified theory (as a entity) it needs to be uniform and solution to all phenomemons. It's mere a tool to solve specific problems, a result of reverse enginering and conclusion of basic axioms.

---

Can you please go into more detail as I don't understand exactly what you mean to say.

Quote:

---

Err... so computers might be intelligent, but software won't be? Of course software won't be intelligent, software doesn't do anything on its own, it has a symbiotic relationship with hardware. When you bring them together you have a computer, so what are you trying to say here?

---

So, you're saying that software won't be intelligent? I take particular offense to your implication that metal can be smarter than a creation of the human mind. There's a saying that goes around the Iowa State campus, particularly between the ComSci and the CompEng majors: "Hardware is fixed, so us ComSci's have to work around your mistakes!" The software aspect of computers is infinitely more flexible than the hardware. If it were locked to the silicon, a computer could turn on and off and not much more. However, within advanced software (neural nets, fuzzy logic, etc.) lies the keys to intelligence, and thus to consciousness.

Guv

Quote:

---

I have always considered you and most others who post at this site to be very intelligent. Did the following imply that I did not think you were intelligent?

---

I interpreted your statement as suggesting that, whilst I might display intelligence in other areas, I was lacking with regards to that issue. Don't worry though, I'm not offended. I understand America's love affair with big business and I would expect nothing less.

Quote:

---

. Second, the lack of a successful explanation does not suggest that anything other than brain functions are responsible for consciousness. If not brain processes, what is responsible? The big toe? The pituitary? Leprechauns? No rational person doubts that brain processes are the basis of consciousness. It is just that they do not know how it works or how to create it artificially.

---

I'm saying that I believe that consiousness is seperate from the brain. But, it is important to recognise that the scientific comutity is split on the issue. Indeed, there is certainly no basic for ruling out one issue of the other.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

Simon (and now also hypnos), you haven't given me an explanation to why you decide a computer is not concious while another human is.

Your definitions are still useless and you don't admit it. Why?

---

I think that determining whether a computer program is consious or intelligent is certainly beyond my ability and I don't know how we could successfully distinguish at this stage.

My proposed definition for intelligence (anything that can turn raw data into information) is only a suggestion and I'm not trying to pass it off as established fact. I don't think a program that draws a graph or plays chess is (necessarilly) intelligent as they are just following algorithms systematically. The logic by which they operate was programmed by their creators and hense it is the creators of these programs that interprets data.

I would not say, however, that computers could never be programmed to be intelligent. If we could develop software that could develop it's own rules for intepreting data then it could become intelligent. I think such systems would have to be based on the 'Self-organising' models that allows incomming data to organise itself into self-perpetuating patterns.

csammis, software without hardware is useless. It can't be intelligent on its own. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying hardware is more important, I'm just saying that on its own it's nothing.

Software is, of course, more flexible, but hardware is just as necessary.

... This has got way off-topic.

Simon, do you know anything about Knowledge Based Systems? What you're talking about sounds like them to me.

Harry

I know of knowlege based systems and am aware of the basics although I am not familiar enough to know whether knowlege based systems are actually "self-organising". Isn't ALICE built on a knowlege based system?

Following are some tries at answering your queries. Frankly, I did not think that the posts leading to these queries required all that much explanation.

Quote:

---

Ok, well can you indicate how a subjective believability scale can be useful, given that you now agree, in your own words, two people of equal intelligence will potentially differ in their believability assessments of theories?

---

First a little quibbling: With our present knowledge I do not think it is possible to come to the conclusion that two different people have equal intelligence. Next, I really believe that two people with approximately equal intelligence (however this is determined) would not differ much in their assessment of the various established theories in the hard sciences, assuming they both had significant knowledge of said theories. There are people who do not believe various counterintuitive notions from modern physics, but these people only understand the conclusions and are lacking the background to understand all the thought leading to the conclusions. Obviously on the frontiers of science, the experts themselves are working on competing theories. Most competing theories are not diametrically opposed to each other. A major exception occurred about 50 years ago, when Continuous Creation and Big Bang cosmologies were on the frontier. These are obviously mutually exclusive. At any rate, I believe that most disagreements among intelligent people involve one of the following.

• The frontiers of science.
• A desire for a good argument causing somebody to advocate some off the wall idea.
• Lack of pertinent background in a particular area of knowledge.
• Some faith induced bias not recognized as such.

With the above as background, a subjective believability scale is useful because life is short and resources are limited. There is not enough time to do an in depth analysis of every idea that is proposed as being valid. Some ideas, I dismiss without any attempt to run experiments or collect evidence. My decisions are often based on what I consider valid internal subjective analysis. For example, the following are my thoughts on Astral projection.

• There is a claim that the mind can move a significant distance from the body, seeing sights and hearing sounds which could not possibly be seen or heard from the vantage point of the physical body.
  
• It is known that various areas of the brain are involved in processing visual images and the brain activity generally does not take place when the eyes are closed (Exception: A subject dreaming or asked to construct a visual image can invoke such brain activity without stimulation from the optic nerves). However, the brain activity is always present when there are visual images being processed.
  
• Astral projection is claiming that visual perception can take place without eyes or optic nerves present at the remote location. There is seldom (if ever) any mention of an alternative visual mechanism.
  
• Astral projection is claiming that the visual perception can take place either without the brain activity always associated with perception (seemly absurd) or due to brain activity stimulated by some mystic phenomena at the remote scene and transmitted to the brain by unknown methods.
  
• The phenomenon seems to require some magic activity at the remote site. Storage of visual data somehow, and later transport of the data to the brain for storage in long term memory.
  
• Does the above seem remotely reasonable? Hell no!

The above analysis is subjective, based on my own personal internal processing of the claim versus some knowledge & facts I consider pertinent, but which were stored in memory long before I ever heard of Astral projection. Is this a subjective judgment? I certainly think so: I did not attempt to collect data; I ran no experiments; I consulted no authorities. Do I consider it worth while to do further analysis? No I do not. Am I willing to dismiss all the anecdotal evidence I have read or heard? Damn right I dismiss it.

Although subjective, I consider the approach valid. Do you think I should suspend disbelief until there is further evidence? Do you think I should spend any time, money or other resources on looking for further evidence pro or con the issue?

Similar subjective opinions: I notice a NY Science Times headline about evidence for a black hole and a National Inquirer headline about capturing the Loch Ness monster. I read the Times article and pretty much accept it as valid. I do not buy or even open the National Inquirer to further investigate their claim, dismissing it as nonsense. Have I considered any hard evidence? No I have not. Have I ever researched a NY Times Science article to verify its validity? No I have not. Have I ever read more than a headline from the National Inquirer? No I have not. Am I being subjective? Probably. Should I spend time and energy to be more objective here? I do not think so.

In spite of the subjectivity, I consider my approach to the above to be reasonable and valid.

Quote:

---

BTW I don't consider you a nut, but I am struggling to understand your how your believability scale as you have stated it, may be implemented to work out which theories should be allocated funding.

---

I think the above addresses this issue. There are not enough resources to do an in depth analysis of every imaginable or proposed theory. Some are dismissed on the basis of an assessment of the person proposing the theory. Some are dismissed due to a purely subjective opinion of the theory. The remainder are subjected to more rigorous and objective analysis, resulting in the selection of those considered worthy of funding.

The subjectivity is involved in dismissing those ideas considered to be too far from mainstream thought. The process is analogous to the receptionists, managers, and red tape standing between a celebrity or an executive and those who compete for her/his attention. Most of the time the system does a good job, but now and then somebody who should have gotten past the barriers is turned away. The celebrity or executive does not have time for everybody who seeks his/her attention. Similarly, there are not enough resources to provide for a thorough objective analysis of every idea.

I am forced to admit that Plate tectonics was ignored for more than 20-30 years due to failure to spend time analyzing it, even though existing theories were known to be shaky. This is a black mark for the method. There are probably other examples, but I do not think there are many. Note that plate tectonics finally triumphed. Cold fusion was given some objective analysis (though not by physicists) and funds were allocated to checking it further. BTW: Cold fusion was obviously absurd, which is why mainstream physicists pretty much dismissed it without much (if any) analysis, other than noting that it was contrary to some well established theories.

I think most of us run our lives using a lot of subjective intuitive decision making because it is not possible to do otherwise. Joking example, but there are more serious ones: When I prowled piano bars, cruise ships, and various resorts for interesting (Id est: Makable) females, I could not do an in depth analysis of the possibilities. Some I dismissed on the basis of subjective visual cues, without making an approach. At a piano bar, a choice (often not correct) was often made after a few minutes of conversation involving 2-3 prospects. In these situations, I discovered that if you delay a choice too long you are almost guaranteed to be rejected, while a quicker decision has a fair chance of at least initial acceptance. On cruise ships, taking a day or so to make a decision was a worthwhile strategy, but delaying longer was a bad idea. Given these circumstances, you cannot hire a private detective or administer a Minnesota multi-phasic test. You make a timely subjective decision based on little evidence.

Quote:

---

You didn't answer another key question, where I ask you whether you have come to the conclusion that theories such as ESP and Astral travel are bunk through the lack of support scientific evidence after theories have been subjected to the scientific process, which is why they rank at the bottom of your believability scale?

---

Some mystic and occult phenomena I have dismissed without much analysis. I have spent time analyzing some of the subject matter. For Astral travel, see a previous post. While in high school (in about 1944), a genius high school friend of mine and I read about the Rhine experiments at Duke and wondered if there was anything to ESP. We actually performed some experiments and concluded that we did not have any such abilities. We then tentatively decided that nobody else did either.

That decision was partially arrogance (if not us, how could it be possible?). It was mainly based on the observation that all measurable human abilities seem to have statistics which pretty much follow the bell shaped normal curve. For examples: Most young adult males can clean and jerk 75-150 pounds, a few can do over 250, a few can do only 20-40; Most people can memorize 20-50 lines of poetry; A few can memorize the entire bible; A few cannot memorize more than 5-10 lines of poetry. The statistics of ESP ability do not seem to have such statistics. Rhine (and our) experiments indicated that most people have no ESP ability and a few people have modest abilities. At that time, we did not totally dismiss the phenomena.

Years later I studied some of the experimental designs employed by Rhine and others. In every case, the design was guaranteed to show positive results without regard to the existence of ESP abilities. Correctly designed experiments did not exist. Yet many researchers had academic credentials which would suggest that they knew the implications of their faulty experimental design and were capable of designing credible experiments. This led me to conclude that the researchers were victims of the academic publish or perish syndrome and/or were charlatans (I believe the latter is likely).

Due to a fair amount of thought I have concluded that ESP is bunk. It requires communication via means undetectable by any known technology. This requires belief in some thing other than the electromagnetic spectrum, sound waves, quantum tunneling, exchanges of known particles. As elusive as this communication mechanism is, a human mind can detect it, while no scientific instrument can. Human sensory apparatus is orders of magnitude less sensitive than scientific instruments. We can detect less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum; Our hearing is restricted to a small range of sound frequencies; We have little ability to detect absolute temperature; Our tactile senses are limited compared to the full range possible; Many chemicals seem tasteless and odorless to us. Yet we can detect the subtle phenomena which provides for ESP abilities, while our most sensitive instruments cannot. It just does not make sense. If nothing else, Occams’ razor is against the idea.

For me, the lack of credible evidence for the mystic, the occult, and the pseudo sciences is only one strike against them. In most cases, there seem to be convincing counter arguments as well as a lack of positive evidence.

Guv

3 posts ago you said:

Quote:

---

Of course I do not expect two intelligent people to never differ in their opinions on theories! I never made or implied such a ridiculous statement. It is absurd for anybody to believe such a statement,.

---

Now you say:

Quote:

---

Next, I really believe that two people with approximately equal intelligence (however this is determined) would not differ much in their assessment of the various established theories in the hard sciences, assuming they both had significant knowledge of said theories.

---

So let me get this straight, you think it is totally ridiculous and absurd for two people of equal intelligence to never differ in their subjective opinions on theories, however, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that these two people will never differ much?


What I liked about your last post was that you have started moving away from a completely subjective scale in order allocate funding and at least mentioned a few objective measures. You referred to the following factors:

* The person proposing the theory
* The existence of any credible evidence in support of the theory

I may make a subjective judgment about a proposed theory and air my skepticism, however, I am careful to avoid condemning any theory without evidence supporting this view. This also prevents me from adopting a theory without supporting scientific evidence although does not stop me from articulating my intuitive attraction towards it.

If asked how to allocate funding, I would primarily focus on objective measures and would steer clear of subjective measures. Perhaps this is where our views will continue to differ?


Kedaman

Quote:

---

Suppose a script application based on instructions and arguments. Reading an external source of finite data the script application performs modifications on itself, making new readings based on the new instructions. The process is meaningless itself but it is by your definition intelligent.

---

Not quite. I said it had to evolve its interpretation, not merely change its interpretation.

Quote:

---

The element of selective evolution is however meaningless since there is no treat of the applications existance

---

I don't understand this phrase.

Quote:

---

, but I guess you're able to imagine a simple AI application simulating the survival of the fittest, an evolutionary process.

---

This I can imagine, however, I would not consider an AI application capable of evolution as simple, rather I would refer call the application intelligent.

Not much to say here, quick points:

Simon - I don't remember how ALICE was made, but that sounds about right. KBSs are a way beyond just algorithms.

csammis - Totally agree with you there.

Nucleus/Guv - I'm definitely with Guv on this funding issue.

Harry

I take it then you are in favour of a subjective believability scale to allocate funding.

Alright then, let me pose you a question:

You subjectively you feel a new theory is a load of bollocks. However the theory has been proposed by an esteemed expert in the field and it already has some scientific evidence in support of the theory.

An alternative theory exists which you subjectively find very attractive, to you it makes a lot of sense. However, there is absolutely no supporting scientific evidence, perhaps there is even evidence contradicting the theory, and the theory has been proposed by unknown university graduate.

How do you allocate your funding?

Perhaps? Is there or isn't there?

I would allocate to whatever seemed to me like the most likely to be fruitful. Since I am not in charge of that kind of funding I can only imagine this situation in a fictional context, and don't know whether I would consider myself an expert or not. Why would I think it was a good idea if there was no positive evidence and 'perhaps' even contradicting evidence? It doesn't make sense to me.

Nucleus

Quote:

---

Not quite. I said it had to evolve its interpretation, not merely change its interpretation.

---

define, explain and give a sample. It's hard to guess all the time. I think you must be confusing evolution with something else.

Harry

Quote:

---

Simon - I don't remember how ALICE was made, but that sounds about right. KBSs are a way beyond just algorithms.

---

What's beyond algoritms? It's purpose?