You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: NOVELTY. DOES IT REALLY "EXIST"?

in #philosophy7 months ago

...this raises the logical question, why a virus can be found as "new" or "never been found before" at all?

You've done a great job of outlining the basic ONTOLOGICAL PROBLEM.

Did the first chicken egg come from a proto-chicken (OR) did the first chicken hatch from a proto-chicken egg? It's really just an ONTOLOGICAL CHOICE.

When (or if) we are able to copy human "consciousness" into a machine, it will only be able to "survive" in a simulated body and a simulated environment.

Like this,

Sort:  

Thanks for that video. There is a lot movie material dealing with this type of futurism.

Did the first chicken egg come from a proto-chicken (OR) did the first chicken hatch from a proto-chicken egg? It's really just an ONTOLOGICAL CHOICE.

Yes, I have considered this question in my comment to @vieira above. I also think it is a choice and not an answer to the question of how life comes into being.

To download human consciousness I consider complete nonsense. Consciousness cannot be isolated from the physical biological existence, otherwise it would be something different than human consciousness. It would be "machine consciousness".

When a human being is born, he learns body coordination just like language only through the presence of his body, i.e. his senses: eyes, nose, mouth, ears, tactile perception. Physicality cannot be simulated technically, because this simulation would not be physical, so it is a thing of impossibility to make an embodied simulation. A simulated body would still have no hunger and thirst, no physical pain, unless it was still physically present. Only through the body-mind connection is a human being a human being. If this connection is severed, it is no longer a human being. The human would be lost and one would no longer have anything in common with a human being. Common would be the idea of man, which is something else. A simulation does not reflect reality, it is like a fraud on it.

I remember in this context the film with Tom Hanks, where he plays the captain of the aircraft that landed the passenger plane on the Hudson River. The attempts of the "experts" to use simulation to prove that he could have flown to an alternative airport are a good example of the fact that simulations are basically not good for reproducing reality, at best they can be quite useful for developing basic mathematical or physical knowledge and for imagining things better. This is also because education today seems to be moving away from the material view in the classroom and instead of real matter tries to impart knowledge about the virtual and abstract.

So it remains something different when I put my foot in cold river water and experience the real sensory impressions compared to the mere imagination of this scene. Perhaps if I really go deep - and not superficially - into the imagination and evoke real memories of cold water on my feet, that my feet will actually go from warm to cold. That would be an outstanding achievement, I would think.

But: a woman who never was pregnant in her real physical life cannot evoke this experience in simulation because she never had it in reality.

Furthermore, a simulation, can only reenact conscious (input) processes, but by its very nature cannot play the unconscious. People usually breathe without being aware of the continuous breathing. The simultaneity of breathing, heartbeat, metabolism, cell activities etc. are all unconscious processes. A simulation acts as if it could imitate such processes. But if you think about it carefully, these processes would also have to happen in their unconscious simultaneity, but would have to be programmed one after the other, in linear sequences. But how should linear sequences experience simultaneity all by themselves?

Great, that you commented here.

Great, that you commented here.

I am honored by your attention.

I'll be back tomorrow.
Honored by your patience and willingness to debate.

But: a woman who never was pregnant in her real physical life cannot evoke this experience in simulation because she never had it in reality.

Chemical triggers can stimulate the physiological and emotional symptoms of pregnancy.

If the electrical signals to your brain can be replicated, then entirely "new" experiences can be encoded.

For example, in a dream you might be older or younger than you know yourself to be.

For example, in a dream you might be able to breathe underwater, or fly like a kite.

Your dreams are not like recordings, they are amalgamations of aspects, "new" constructions of somewhat familiar "building blocks".

But man is a much more complex being just like his environment, other people, planetary influences and so on make him think thoughts, experience feelings or reflect on them and question his life and the opinions of others.
I talk to people who take antidepressants, for example. They say: "Since I have been taking the pills I feel more balanced, but at the same time I can neither cry nor laugh heartily. I miss it, but I'm afraid to get these emotions back in their full strength."

You can already see from this that "simple" hormonal manipulation is not enough. People also always approach their psychological impressions, have contradictory thoughts and emotions in one and the same situation.

You cannot simulate pregnancy, because what is really missing is the growing life in the woman. Where nothing has settled there, no connection can develop.

The fact alone that there is a life forming in the womb and the fact that these two - the new life and the mother - are forming a unity with each other cannot be simulated. A pregnancy lasts nine months. You cannot simulate that the belly begins to grow, the breasts as well, just like all the other countless changes that a pregnancy brings about.

For such a simulation, you would have to put a woman in a coma and then try to produce all the hormonal substances that fake such a thing. However, you would still not have an embryo that in turn affects the entire organism of the woman. You would not have the pressure of a baby's weight on the organs and so on.

A visitor who came into the room and saw the woman lying there in a coma would never say, "Oh, look, a pregnant woman."
Pregnancy also includes the social environment, the reactions of fellow human beings who have a decisive influence on it. If the pregnant woman experiences a benevolent environment, this will also have an effect on her hormonal and other biochemical processes in the body. She will react emotionally to the outside world.

Pregnancy is an excellent example because it puts an end to non-sense, a situation that can only happen in the same way and not in a simulated way.


yes, dreams are different. While sleeping and dreaming everything can be possible. Also, tripping is different.

...this will also have an effect on her hormonal and other biochemical processes in the body.

Yes. Gestation and (strong) emotion are electrochemical interactions.

Bearing your own child is one of the most rewarding experiences possible.

Raising an adopted newborn is one of the most rewarding experiences possible.

I just used the terms "biochemical" and "hormones" because of you, not because of me. So that you can understand me. But I actually prefer not talking about biochemicals or hormones as those are empty terms for me.

Emotions are not electrochemical interactions, at least not for me. Emotions for you to see are "crying", "laughing", or "sobbing", "giggling", or "frowning", "raging" or "feeling sad" - But electrochemical processes you cannot sense, why altering language to something abstract when the non-abstract tells it directly?

It saddens me. I feel that the world around me wants to be de-humanized and trans-humanized. I don't want to live in this kind of world. I don't understand it...

It saddens me. I feel that the world around me wants to be de-humanized and trans-humanized. I don't want to live in this kind of world. I don't understand it...

Your immediate, visceral experience of living and breathing is authentic.

At somepoint we will be able to create an artificial (lucid/matrix-style) dream experience.

This will be especially therapeutic for the elderly and the disabled.

This will also undoubtedly be used as a form or entertainment for those who feel trapped in their oppressive tiny lives.

However it will not be the same as what you are feeling now.

It will be like a dream.

That's the difference.

How old are you?

Probably the same age as yourself.

Furthermore, a simulation, can only reenact conscious (input) processes, but by its very nature cannot play the unconscious.

Every time you enter a cathedral, your subconscious is being manipulated (simulated).

Every time you see a picture of food you desire, your subconscious is being manipulated (simulated).

Every time you hear a recording of sounds you find pleasant, your subconscious is being manipulated (simulated).

Your subconscious mind is actually significantly more naïve than your conscious mind and is much more susceptible to simulation.

Hey, should I say "good morning" to you?

hmm ... we define simulation differently, I think. For me, simulation tries to copy a process as accurate as possible. Also, a situation of either the past or the future. Like the example with the Hudson River landing (simulation of what "had happened") or the simulation for the future, for example weather forecastings, of what "will happen".

What you presented are situations in which people are confronted with sensory impressions of subjects and objects, "cathedral", "pictures", "sounds". Those, I would say, are influential factors, not a simulation of something but a real experience in which a human is moving right then.

I walk into a cathedral. I feel the greatness of the room, I hear the echo of my steps, I smell a certain odor, I perceive an atmosphere of silence because I hear people in the very far end whispering, and so on. That is real life experience, not a simulation.

I also would not necessarily name it "manipulation" but "influence". It can either have a pleasant, a neutral or an unpleasant one. Manipulating would take place when the cathedral builder wanted me to have particular his thoughts, while walking the isles. But that does not happen. So it's not manipulating, other than you define "manipulation" as a neutral expression, than we are probably on the same page here :)

I haven't watched the video, so maybe I missed something which put your answer into context of it.

Hey, should I say "good morning" to you?

hmm ... we define simulation differently, I think. For me, simulation tries to copy a process as accurate as possible. Also, a situation of either the past or the future. Like the example with the Hudson River landing (simulation of what "had happened") or the simulation for the future, for example weather forecastings, of what "will happen".

What you presented are situations in which people are confronted with sensory impressions of subjects and objects, "cathedral", "pictures", "sounds". Those, I would say, are influential factors, not a simulation of something but a real experience in which a human is moving right then.

I walk into a cathedral. I feel the greatness of the room, I hear the echo of my steps, I smell a certain odor, I perceive an atmosphere of silence because I hear people in the very far end whispering, and so on. That is real life experience, not a simulation.

I also would not necessarily name it "manipulation" but "influence". It can either have a pleasant, a neutral or an unpleasant one. Manipulating would take place when the cathedral builder wanted me to have particular his thoughts, while walking the isles. But that does not happen. So it's not manipulating, other than you define "manipulation" as a neutral expression, than we are probably on the same page here :)

I haven't watched the video, so maybe I missed something which put your answer into context of it.

Those, I would say, are influential factors, not a simulation of something but a real experience in which a human is moving right then.

Specifically "pictures" and "recorded sounds" ARE definitely simulations.

A picture of your family is not your family, and yet it is a simulation that triggers a strong (subconscious) emotional response.

Looking at old photographs is a simulated experience.

:-D haha, it's funny how different we deal with those scenes. I guess, the reason why I put "pictures" and "sounds" into the same category, is, that I created a whole scenery in my imagination in which it is not just a moment of seconds without any give context but an experience, IN WHICH I hear music and start dancing, a situation IN WHICH I look at a photograph while I show it to another person.

But you are right, if I just take the mini scene, music and a photograph can be seen as simulations of something I already experienced and which then comes back as memories or emotions.

The situation in the cathedral is not a simulation for me. It's a real time experience.

The cathedral is like a (painting or) photograph in the same way that a sculpture is like a photograph. A cathedral is a sculpture you can experience from the inside. Sort of a sculptural envelope. A "new world" (VR).

Here I found an answer two months ago, which I forgot to forward it to you :)

I beg to differ. A cathedral is a cathedral. A painting a painting and a photograph is a photograph. I can't experience any of it in the inside, if I haven't experienced it already in real life.
I can only make comparisons if I have two things to compare to one another. One real, one virtual.

A man, who grew up in the jungle and never in his life has seen a ship won't know it's a ship. He could not make any virtual connection to its purpose, function and parts.

The real thing is not in any way similar to the virtual. If you think about it in depth, there is no such thing as similarity.

there is no such thing as similarity.

100% THIS.

Also, if you like that feeling you get from a cathedral, you might like this,

I walk into a cathedral. I feel the greatness of the room, I hear the echo of my steps, I smell a certain odor, I perceive an atmosphere of silence because I hear people in the very far end whispering, and so on. That is real life experience, not a simulation.

Imagine a purely "natural" world with no detectable "artificial" (human) influence.

Now imagine that "feeling" you get from a cathedral.

Where would you get something like that?

Perhaps in an enormous rock-faced canyon?

Perhaps looking up into a deep, dark sky filled with shimmering stars?

Would you experience a sense of awe and wonder?

Would you hear your feet tapping on the stone floor?

A cathedral is a HYPNOTIC DEVICE, just like a swinging pocket-watch, or a single flame in a darkened room.

A cathedral is a piece of technology designed to replicate (on demand) the sense of awe and wonder that has been historically the exclusive domain of the natural world.

Yes, good points. In a world where I barley get in touch with the stars above and the natural wonders like water falls and high cliffs, if I do not happen to live near them, the technological substitutes serve a somewhat similar purpose. Though I'd say they often don't even come close to bring the awe or calmness.

Remember the two monks I recently talked about? Sitting on top of a mountain?

Manipulating would take place when the cathedral builder wanted me to have particular his thoughts, while walking the isles.

The architects who designed (and the financiers who sanctioned and commissioned) the cathedral intended, very specifically to instill a sense of awe and wonder in its visitors and to communicate the awesome power (and innate value) of its officers (individuals who merely occupy its offices).

This has been demonstrated by the "voluntary" outpouring of support from many non-members (even atheists) for the restoration of Notre-Dame de Paris for example.

I don't consider it bad to come into the state of awe. I nevertheless can make the connection to the church officials who planned on this to impress and rule the people. Once a person gained insight in the fact that architecture was and is always a means to demonstrate power, the power loses. Then it's just a building which can impress me. But I will not further on will be impressed by its builders and plans they might have. I see through the power game.

I can ask myself the question: Could I live without churches and buildings impressing me? My clear answer is "yes". Though I probably would miss to have a church experience as I rarely have the chance to enter a natural cave of similar quality.

Though I probably would miss to have a church experience as I rarely have the chance to enter a natural cave of similar quality.

I agree. I have an almost instinctual nostalgia for that first cathedral experience. It's a very impressive technology.

Hey, should I say "good morning" to you?

hmm ... we define simulation differently, I think. For me, simulation tries to copy a process as accurate as possible. Also, a situation of either the past or the future. Like the example with the Hudson River landing (simulation of what "had happened") or the simulation for the future, for example weather forecastings, of what "will happen".

What you presented are situations in which people are confronted with sensory impressions of subjects and objects, "cathedral", "pictures", "sounds". Those, I would say, are influential factors, not a simulation of something but a real experience in which a human is moving right then.

I walk into a cathedral. I feel the greatness of the room, I hear the echo of my steps, I smell a certain odor, I perceive an atmosphere of silence because I hear people in the very far end whispering, and so on. That is real life experience, not a simulation.

I also would not necessarily name it "manipulation" but "influence". It can either have a pleasant, a neutral or an unpleasant one. Manipulating would take place when the cathedral builder wanted me to have particular his thoughts, while walking the isles. But that does not happen. So it's not manipulating, other than you define "manipulation" as a neutral expression, than we are probably on the same page here :)

I haven't watched the video, so maybe I missed something which put your answer into context of it.

Physicality cannot be simulated technically, because this simulation would not be physical,

What we call "physical" is simply a model of electrical impulses received by our brains.

Even in "reality" we never actually "touch" or "see" anything "directly".

We merely receive coded signals.

What we experience as "normal" is functionally indistinguishable from a "simulation".

For example, only roughly 6% of what you "see" is input from the photo receptors in the backs of your eyes. The other 94% is a "model" that your brain constructs to "fill in the rather large gaps in your perception".

In which situation in life does this notion or knowledge help you to get along?

It makes me significantly more forgiving of "mistakes".

When a human being is born, he learns body coordination just like language only through the presence of his body,

Yes. For example I remember reading about a simulated kitten.

The artificial neural network running the kitten program was the size of a few large refrigerators. The kitten body was a small robot. The "brain" of the kitten had no way of detecting its "true self". All sense detection was exclusively through the kitten body (and attached sensors).

One of the points I found interesting was the idea that even if you had a "human" brain, or an artificial neural network capable of (roughly) human capability, IFF you could only "see" through kitten eyes and hear through kitten ears and speak with kitten vocal chords, you would be indistinguishable from a kitten.

Yes. I think if one was transformed from a human into a rat, one starts to sense like a rat, feel like a rat and act like a rat. Soon it will forget everything which was human once.

A simulated body would still have no hunger and thirst, no physical pain, unless it was still physically present.

You have no intrinsic, direct experience of "hunger".

Hunger is simply an electrical impulse that your body shoots up to your brain when certain prerequisite (chemical) conditions are met.

How your brain responds and reacts to these signals is based on your (probably genetic) instincts (core programming/basic input output system/BIOS).

You have no intrinsic, direct experience of "hunger".

LOL, tell me this while I am starving and crave for something to eat. Say it to someone who has no tap water and must walk miles for a canister. It's an interesting thought but it diminishes what is felt as reality by all humans.

Your nervous-system is relaying data to your brain.

You understand that data as "ravenous" or "parched" and take action to satiate yourself.

It's no different than a robot receiving a signal to return to its charging pad.

But it is something different. A human is not a robot. If he were a robot, you would not say human, but robot.

You have no intrinsic, direct experience of "hunger".

When it's not intrinsic, from where does it come? Hunger happens inside my body, not outside of it. And the directness of it is clearly an experience, what else is it other than direct and an experience?

You wouldn't talk that way, would you? Like: "My stomach signals to my brain that it needs some more biochemicals."

Otherwise you'd have to use a lot of vocabulary to be absolutely precise about all the signals and ongoings within your whole organism. You wouldn't have time for anything else and you'd need probably all day long to say the sentence "I am hungry". Meanwhile you would starve and faint. LOL :D

...actually, it's quite fascinating how many things happen all by themselves, in and on my body, without me having anything actively to do, like heart beat, vision, breathing, hair growing, digesting and all that jazz.

The "feeling" (experience) of "hunger" is a summary.

"Hunger" is the conscious alert of an orchestra of sub-conscious impulses.

Only through the body-mind connection is a human being a human being.

I agree, but the definition of "mind" and the definition of "body" are somewhat flexible.

HaHa! Yes, it's flexible and I actually like this flexibility. ;-)

The attempts of the "experts" to use simulation to prove that he could have flown to an alternative airport are a good example of the fact that simulations are basically not good for reproducing reality,

Our current simulation technology is imperfect, but not necessarily fundamentally incapable of fabricating simulations indistinguishable from "reality" (or a dream).

You might find "DEVS" interesting IMDB.

Also,

Click here to skip to 4624 seconds,

This is also because education today seems to be moving away from the material view in the classroom and instead of real matter tries to impart knowledge about the virtual and abstract.

Abstraction is an assault on the human soul.

Perhaps if I really go deep - and not superficially - into the imagination and evoke real memories of cold water on my feet, that my feet will actually go from warm to cold. That would be an outstanding achievement, I would think.

This is demonstrable.