Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - H

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 159
General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: December 14, 2018, 03:54:49 pm »
So if I understand this correctly, the belief in the divine is rational, not irrational.

In a way, but I think it is deeper than that.  Perhaps, that the ideal, that is the transcendental ideal, which could be Divine, if we choose to define it that way, is the transcendent rational and so is the rationalizer of the rational.  So, if there is anything transcendental about the rational, then the very idea of that thing conditions rationality to it's pinnacle (rather than something like self-consuming "navel-gazing"), not the literal, objectivist existence of an entity such as God.

Here is Scruton on that passage:
Considered thus it is the source, not of illusion, but of knowledge. The knowledge that it leads to remains circumscribed by the conditions of possible experience: in other words, it conforms to the categories, and does not reach beyond their legitimate territory into a transcendent realm. The idea “does not show us how an object is constituted, but how, under its guidance, we should seek to determine the constitution and connection of the objects of experience” (A. 671, B. 699). Thus reason is led back from its vain speculations to the empirical world, trading the illusions of metaphysics for the realities of empirical science.

So, perhaps then it is the manner in which we could connect transcendental rationality to practical, pragmatic rationality.

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: December 14, 2018, 01:48:38 pm »
"Death destroys a man but the idea of it saves him."

- E.M. Forester

That's a good one.

These remarks will have made it evident to the reader that the ideal of the Supreme Being, far from being an enouncement of the existence of a being in itself necessary, is nothing more than a regulative principle of reason, requiring us to regard all connection existing between phenomena as if it had its origin from an all-sufficient necessary cause, and basing upon this the rule of a systematic and necessary unity in the explanation of phenomena.

A fascinating conclusion by Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.

General Misc. / Re: Board Games and Miniatures
« on: December 14, 2018, 01:24:43 pm »
Post Noise Marines if you got any.

I used to, but I never got to paint any of them and I sold them a while back when money was bad...

+1 ... and yes, I meant mesmerized  :D

But you're right, my misspelling may be more relevant than what I meant. Always wanted to be a tape worm, looks like I've been one all along  :D

Well, I'm not buying the "tape worm" explanation.  Rather, consciousness is more akin to a UI, a user interface.  Not just a front-end though, but one that can feed back to the sensory system.  That is, an ant is not capable of modifying it's own behavior to the same extent that a human can.  That is a possible role for our "expanded" consciousness.  Note, that consciousness is limited, which makes perfect sense in this case, or else we'd be in a never-ending feedback loop.

Philosophy & Science / Re: More stuff on the Simulation Hypothesis,,,
« on: December 10, 2018, 09:08:50 pm »
Don't think I said it has to be meta-physical, just that if it's not then I'm prone to put my chips on evolution than someone else cooking up this experience. Of course I don't know, just guessing. You're right, all 3 scenarios could still involve simulation. I'll try not to sweat it, but the thought of a thousand people "enjoying" watching my life from a higher dimensional movie theater is a bit unnerving if not out right embarrassing  ;)

Right, I just meant there isn't anything to awareness that necessitates a soul.  So, no real need to add it if we don't need to.  If it helps us to though, then that works.

Simulation or not, I think you see the call to transcendentalism right there though.  Call it God, or interdimentional movie viewers, but there is the reasoning right there to be the best you that you can be.  Be the best TaoHorror possible in the "Ballad of TaoHorror."

Philosophy & Science / Re: More stuff on the Simulation Hypothesis,,,
« on: December 10, 2018, 08:32:55 pm »
What accounts for the sense of self. If it's not a soul, what is making me aware I'm in this particular body. Seems like this phenomena of identity/self awareness would be much harder to pull off by lower intelligent ( a simulation creator ) design than emerging from evolution. If there's no god/no soul, I find it likelier awareness has emerged from evolution, not from "someone else". If we are in a simulation created by lower intelligence, than I would buy we're captives in it more than we're created by it - though could be we willingly playing a game whereby we would not be allowed to bring our history with us.

Why is it necessary that a sense of self be meta-physical?  Why can't it be a result of how our brain processes information through our senses.  Again, research has shown that consciousness it's always what we think of it as, in the sense of a "prime mover."  Many processes and decisions arise before consciousness and we are only "aware" of them later.

Again, if we are in a simulation, then we are in a simulation.  The universe conspiring isn't contingent on things being a simulation or not.  It could "be the case" in either case, so don't sweat it.

Philosophy & Science / Re: More stuff on the Simulation Hypothesis,,,
« on: December 10, 2018, 05:53:02 pm »
Yes. I forget, what is the universe?


Philosophy & Science / Re: More stuff on the Simulation Hypothesis,,,
« on: December 10, 2018, 05:11:47 pm »
Ha, this was not a good article to share with me as for a time now, I've been a paranoid spiritualist to some extent. I have my "beliefs", but at times I find myself looking around wondering who is fucking with me ... good stuff.

In either case, isn't the answer "the universe?"

General Misc. / Re: Board Games and Miniatures
« on: December 10, 2018, 02:21:47 pm »
it was ones for doing eyes. this was also in the early 1990's.

Ah, OK, I see what you are saying.  Probably like a 00 size or something.  Yeah, there are easier ways now-a-days though, you can even just use something like a paint pen or something rather than spending so much on a tiny brush.

In reality, if you have a good 1, you can probably do the same as you could with a 00 or smaller, but it's more about having your paint the right consistency to work with in that case.

General Misc. / Re: Board Games and Miniatures
« on: December 10, 2018, 01:10:51 pm »
I used to paint warhammer models when i was younger, the one abiding memory i have is brushes with fewer hairs being more expensive.

I used white and black primer depending on the chapter i was painting. Mostly 40k

Well, it more depends on what those hairs are made from than how many there are.  Kolinsky sable brushes will be expensive no matter what.  Synthetic brushes are a great deal cheaper.  Of course, real sable ones are "better" but not necessarily in proportion to their cost.  Not to mention, any metallic paints will destroy real sable brushes.

Unless you are really good and really know what you are doing, expensive brushes are nearly a complete waste of money.

Philosophy & Science / Re: The Secret (Inner) Life of Bees?
« on: December 07, 2018, 12:40:16 pm »
I got the feeling he's metaphysically neutral and focused on structure but maybe I'm wrong about that.

Yeah, that's likely.  The more I thought about it, I guess there is a lot of "room" in the concept of whatever he might term a "vibration."

Philosophy & Science / Re: The Secret (Inner) Life of Bees?
« on: December 06, 2018, 10:59:46 pm »
Yeah, I mean it gets into the Problem of Other Minds - barring telepathy I can only assert Cogito Ergo Sum for myself, yet I would be aghast at denying my fellow humans the "rights of sentient beings" I feel I intrinsically deserve.

If we can get a good enough understanding of the relevant correlates that are necessary & sufficient for consciousness it seems wrong, to me, to deny "rights of sentient beings" to a synthetic being crafted to utilize those correlates. Whether the correlates "catch" a soul, filter the One Consciousness, or produce the consciousness necessary would be irrelevant to the fact that the structures are matching.

To give an example, the kind of machine minds I believe Anirban Bandyopadhyay is (was?) working on:

Hmmm, I couldn't really follow what he was saying, because if everything is a vibration caused by a vibration, doesn't that boil down to flat Materialism?

Philosophy & Science / Re: The Secret (Inner) Life of Bees?
« on: December 06, 2018, 09:49:52 pm »
Ah sorry yeah I am not saying it is impossible to make synthetic entities (at least "synthetic" in the sense of being made of in-organic compounds).

I agree that it may be possible to reproduce the significant structures that make us conscious entities, and it is also possible that the relevant structures may not completely resemble our own bodies. But I doubt that anything so wholly different for us, like a Turing Machine, is any more capable of preserving our conscious selves than a car engine.

Right, I'd definitely agree there.  The very "programmed" nature of the machine is likely completely ill-suited, perhaps even particularly so, to house consciousness.  I'd think this might be because, consciousness is likely not just the "current data content of the brain."  Because consciousness is likely born of the system of sensory perception wedded with the brain and it's data.  Consciousness might be in the loop between all those things, or the loop might well be consciousness.

At least something like that.  I don't know if anyone is really studying that, because I don't know if you really can, due to it's scope.

Philosophy & Science / Re: The Secret (Inner) Life of Bees?
« on: December 06, 2018, 07:57:49 pm »
  So, I don't really know what I am saying, really.
To me its like asking 'can we build a lightbulb' by looking at a picture ... but without knowing what electricity is. Sure, you can construct the vacuum chamber and the magnesium(?) filament, but if you have no concept of how the lightbulb actually makes light, its going to be real unlikely that it'll light up when you're 'done'.

Could we make all the biological equivalent structures... lets assume yes. But if we don't know the source of consciousness, it seems rather unlikely that it'll just happen spontaneously once we're done building the box.

Right, I mean, in the rest of the quoted post, I asked "But, "Soul" aside, without knowing what consciousness actually is, the issue of conveyance would seem to be missing the fundamental point, though, right?"

So, I mean, I am biased, because someone who is educated in psychology and generally seeing things through a lens of something like psychodynamic forces, I have doubts about all the looking done at making AI we could ever really fear, or consider Intelligence, when we don't even know what "intelligence" even is, let along how it is formulated.

And simply attempting to "vivisect" the brain, via things like neuroscience is likely to miss the "big picture" of the totality of the system, which might well be what consciousness actually is...

Philosophy & Science / Re: The Secret (Inner) Life of Bees?
« on: December 06, 2018, 07:10:28 pm »
Well if we have a soul I figure most (all?) chances on answering questions like "can you upload your self" would be off. But we could ask again why the structure of nervous system (or even entire body) is the way it is, and what makes us think we a different structure would "catch" consciousness?

But computationalists who support mind uploading, from what I understand, believe all facts are physical facts. [Their disbelief in souls is the motivation for uploading] But they uplift the position of structure, or matter's "Form" as Aristotle would say. Or rather it might be better to say they privilege processes, and claim that a complete enough simulation will provide then necessary duplication of said processes.

But the processes in the physical world would be the workings of the Turing Machine, the stuff of Frogger - CPUs, Registers, etc...hardly the stuff of cells aka the stuff of Frog.

But, "Soul" aside, without knowing what consciousness actually is, the issue of conveyance would seem to be missing the fundamental point, though, right?

I mean, it's very hard to say whether or not, if you built something with all the same biological systems with "equivalent" mechanical ones, would that mechanical thing be capable of consciousness?  I can't see a manner to devise a plausible answer for no and yet I still, at some level, doubt if it could be done.  Yet, I'm not really advocating for a soul, per se.  So, I don't really know what I am saying, really.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 159