Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.
Search found 85 matches
November 3rd, 2012, 7:46 am
Why don't you address the counter-arguments? Just because a computer is autonomously able to pick out a pattern in the world, its still just manipulating that input as formal symbols into a new output. It doesn't solve the symbol grounding problem, it just expands it's potential to pick out formal s...
November 2nd, 2012, 9:19 am
I'd say it's a cognitive dissonance in the collective consciousness. To say the 1. world war was a result of the shot in Sarajevo, is as naive as claiming the Muhammad film was the reason for the outrage in Muslim countries. First of all I think it's a metaphysical problem, a struggle for hegemony i...
November 1st, 2012, 7:55 am
It's not about "getting better" at programming. Being in the world, understanding, relating through meaningful processes are not a simple task of manipulating formal symbols according to a certain algorithm. We might be able to artificially create a human brain the way we create a heart ar...
October 31st, 2012, 8:17 am
There have been many thought experiments refuting the idea that the process of manipulating an input of formal symbols into new syntactical output is sufficient for semantics. Searle's Chinese room demonstrates this quite clearly. I don't know what UniversalAlien means by AI consciousness, there has...
October 11th, 2012, 9:28 am
It is right as you say Spectrum, that Kant believed we had no way of coming to a direct apprehension of the noumenal world. It's not correct however that he believed we could never experience the noumenal, he just pointed out it would always be conditioned by The Form and the Principles of the Sensi...
September 26th, 2012, 7:09 pm
Not in means of words and conceptualizing which are inevitably bound to the phenomenal world and the perspective of human beings.
September 26th, 2012, 3:40 pm
It doesn't necessarily lead to dualism. It's the same thing. Consciousness is the no-thing (pure consciousness), being is the movement in no-thing.
September 25th, 2012, 12:43 pm
I'd say most human beings are actually working as "things" in many ways. Although inter-connected things, they are still slaves to causation once the "programmer" (pure consciousness) has allowed for the creation of a sufficient thought-pattern through experience. This is however...
September 19th, 2012, 7:06 am
By eradicating the concept.
September 19th, 2012, 6:50 am
(quote not shown) Yes, and you can never lose the ego completely, but you can recognize it as an "illusion" and bring consciousness back to its native soil. The problem arises when "the ego" has the experiences. The ego thwarts appearances into abstractions, which are reified by ...
September 19th, 2012, 5:58 am
Martian Visitor. I have a feeling you mistake the means for the ends as so many religious institutions does, whether it's due to lack of understanding or fear of losing power, I'm not sure, probably a bit of both. The original point of Buddhism as such is not to be an institution. Historically peopl...
September 16th, 2012, 6:02 pm
Grotto19 wrote:(Nested quote removed.)
I find these approaches to philosophy amusing, because it operates under the assumption that humans are the only thing in the universe that matter. That there never was nor ever will be anything other than what we humans perceive.
Why? Only Man suffers from the illusion of time.
September 16th, 2012, 9:20 am
Hi, Quot! Thanks for the article by Heisenberg, look forward to reading it. Yes, Schrödinger also had some interesting remarks regarding this. He pointed out he owed a lot of his writings/opinions to Aldous Huxley (The Perennial Philosophy) which I'm currently reading actually. Now all of these bear...
September 15th, 2012, 1:21 pm
Well, from a quantum point of view, there are no inherent "things" in the classical sense of the word at all, only energy, so in the sense of a thing as something material (the way I assume most people interpret the word), is just an illusion. So in that sense you could definitely say that...
September 14th, 2012, 9:27 am
So you're basically putting forward the top-down causation of mind? Would you care to elaborate? That neural activity carries no meaning in itself to the so called "illusion" or "epiphenomena" of mind, but rather meaning has to be assigned by the mind?