Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Drini85
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
Posts: 2
|
Post: #1  Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:50 pm Post subject: We're machines ... very complicated machines ... but machine |
  |
|
|
What would be the best philosophical response to this post:
"Sentience is such an over-hyped and exaggeratec concept that people get very angry when you try and understand/explain it.
Everything we think/do/feel (including sentience) is a result of the electrochemical activity in our neural networks. The networks are very very complicated which means that the variety and intensity of our throughts/actions/feelings are also equally, if not more, complicated. But in the end the mind is just the activity of the brain. There is no magical spirit or soul or anything else.
We're machines ... very complicated machines ... but machines nonetheless. This label of consciousness or sentience that we often use will not magically transform us into anything else.
Here are a few of the many many many myths surrounding this topic at the moment.
It may be upsetting to think of ourselves as glorified gears and springs. Machines are insensate, built to be used, and disposable; humans are sentient, possessing of dignity and rights, and infinitely precious. A machine has some workaday purpose, such as grinding grain or sharpening pencils; a human being has higher purposes, such as love, worship, good works, and the creation of knowledge and beauty. The behavior of machines is determined by the ineluctable laws of physics and chemistry; the behavior of people is freely chosen. With choice comes freedom, and therefore optimism about our possibilities for the future. With choice also comes responsibility, which allows us to hold people accountable for their actions. And of course if the mind is separate from the body, it can continue to exist when the body breaks down, and our thoughts and pleasures will not someday be snuffed out forever.
Sad wishful thinking. I personally am proud of what I am and dont need to delude myself in order to feel so."
Me and my friends found this post in another forum. None of us has a deep knowledge in philosophy and we are arguing back and forth, some supporting this statement and me and another friend not supporting it. So we want to get a professonal philosophical argument on this.
P.S. Thank you for taking your time to read this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #2 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: We're machines ... very complicated machines ... but mac |
|
|
|
Hi Drini85,
The best philosophical or Wisdom-of-Love response is that we are machines which work by sound: That makes us sound-machines.
Our brains work by words, all of which, including the words 'machine' and 'neurochemistry' are sounds, which are stored in our neurochemicals as us.
And so to to really appreciate ourselves as Sound Machines and to have sound brains and sound minds, we have to love all sounds. 
It is why there is a certain Chemistry we feel when we are in Love.
So your premise is correct: we are machines -- but we are also more than machines: we are also vitamins and dreamers and everything else, including something else, which we are made of.
So just add the word-sound and sound-word Love to all of the machine, and lo and behold! we have a Magical Machine and Machined Magic, where chemistry thinks and talks!
What a marvellous machine! Simply complex and complicatingly simple! I would not change it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nada
Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 91
|
| Post: #3 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: We're machines ... very complicated machines ... but mac |
|
|
|
| Drini85 wrote: |
Me and my friends found this post in another forum. None of us has a deep knowledge in philosophy and we are arguing back and forth, some supporting this statement and me and another friend not supporting it. So we want to get a professonal philosophical argument on this.
P.S. Thank you for taking your time to read this. |
I am alive! A machine is not.
I know myself! A machine knows nothing.
Even if - we might say that the human body/brain gives rise to the human mind and consciousness as a product of chemical and electrical processes .. the very fact of that mind IS connected to the body means that it is no longer just a machine but now something greater - a human being.
As long as the human body has the quality which we call 'life' it is more than just a machine. One MIGHT say that a dead body is a machine (I guess).
And if you want to piss him/her off - mention that some people like to think of themselves as a machine as they think this frees them from personal responsibility. "I am not personally responsible for myself - I am a machine."
Bye. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 48
|
| Post: #4 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| This perspective is just one among many. I could suggest to embark on a vast phiilosphical quest to read everything imagineable. If you have the desire to do so, then more power to you. But more importantly, you need to base your beliefs off your own experience, not anything outside yourself. The best thing you can do to find the answer to your question is to take an honest look at yourself and why you believe/question what you do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drini85
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Post: #5 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thank you all for replaying to my post.
The arguments that I have about this statement are that the individual writing this is trying to say that there is no consciousness, no soul or anything else but material. Basically, he/she is trying to say that we are just machines that function through the neurons activities in our brain and there is nothing else to it. If this would be true than there would not be any meaning to life!!! If there is everything material as he/she implies than how about justice and truth? If we are material bodies in the universe than the motion of "I" is nonexistent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 48
|
| Post: #6 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| About the statements you just made, you are correct. The thing is, you need to realize the materialists cannot prove the propositions they make. Their claim is that idealists or dualists cannot claim the mind and/or spiritual reality is true, yet they have no proof for it, even though that is their criteria to believe in such things. Everyone places faith in something. Materialists place faith in science above all else. The fact is, there are many questions that are beyond the scope of science. Don't be discouraged, my friend. There is a reality that is beyond what anyone can prove or disprove. All you have to do is look into the deepest layers of yourself and you will see a reality that represents everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3863
|
| Post: #7 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
There are three theories of existence which are the ones most often debated.
1. Materialism.Everything is material.Our minds are caused by the neuron activity of our brains.
2. Idealism/Immaterialism. Everything is mind stuff(ideas). Our brains are an idea of our minds, among all the rest of our ideas.
3. Cartesian Dualism.. We are minds that occupy bodies. This is the theory of existence which is held by theists. (Although comparatively few theists know anything of philosophy).This theory of existence was explained in detail by the philosopher Rene Descartes.
There is another theory of existence which is the one I prefer. But these three are enough to begin with if you are new to philosophy.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meleagar
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1505
|
| Post: #8 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:13 pm Post subject: Re: We're machines ... very complicated machines ... but mac |
|
|
|
| Drini85 wrote: |
What would be the best philosophical response to this post:
"Sentience is such an over-hyped and exaggeratec concept that people get very angry when you try and understand/explain it.
Everything we think/do/feel (including sentience) is a result of the electrochemical activity in our neural networks. The networks are very very complicated which means that the variety and intensity of our throughts/actions/feelings are also equally, if not more, complicated. But in the end the mind is just the activity of the brain. There is no magical spirit or soul or anything else.
We're machines ... very complicated machines ... but machines nonetheless. This label of consciousness or sentience that we often use will not magically transform us into anything else.
Here are a few of the many many many myths surrounding this topic at the moment.
It may be upsetting to think of ourselves as glorified gears and springs. Machines are insensate, built to be used, and disposable; humans are sentient, possessing of dignity and rights, and infinitely precious. A machine has some workaday purpose, such as grinding grain or sharpening pencils; a human being has higher purposes, such as love, worship, good works, and the creation of knowledge and beauty. The behavior of machines is determined by the ineluctable laws of physics and chemistry; the behavior of people is freely chosen. With choice comes freedom, and therefore optimism about our possibilities for the future. With choice also comes responsibility, which allows us to hold people accountable for their actions. And of course if the mind is separate from the body, it can continue to exist when the body breaks down, and our thoughts and pleasures will not someday be snuffed out forever.
Sad wishful thinking. I personally am proud of what I am and dont need to delude myself in order to feel so."
Me and my friends found this post in another forum. None of us has a deep knowledge in philosophy and we are arguing back and forth, some supporting this statement and me and another friend not supporting it. So we want to get a professonal philosophical argument on this.
P.S. Thank you for taking your time to read this. |
The philosophical problem the poster in question faces is that his statements are utterly self-refuting. First, if he is a programmed machine, and obviously programmed machines can be programmed to believe false things, then he has no basis by which to conclude that his position is true other than that he's been programmed to believe it (by the relentless march of physics and biology in his particular case), which would be exactly the same reason that others believe in mind and soul.
Note the final self-conflicting satement at the end:
| Quote: |
| I personally am proud of what I am and dont need to delude myself in order to feel so. |
Proud? He feels proud because he's programmed to feel proud, and believes what he believes to be true, and feel whatever he feels, for exactly the same reason as those he calls "deluded".
Yet he uses the phrase "proud" and differentiates his beliefs from others using the derogatory term "delusion" as if he has the capacity to deliberately discern between true and false beliefs rather than being coerced by physics and biology to believe whatever he is programmed to believe.
In his own dialogue: a machine programmed to believe X and feel Y states that it feels Y because, unlike those other machines programmed to believe A and feel B, he instead believes X.
Insert for the variables any variant belief and feeling physics and biology can program into people.The machine has been programmed to make that statement, regardless of whether or not it is valid or nonsensical. If physics and biology tell you to bark like a dog and believe that you have just uttered profound wisdom and feel proud that your wisdom is above that of others, that is what you will do. '
The author has no means by which to assess the true/false nature of his statement without free will or an independent locus of deliberacy; he can only utter sounds as commanded, and believe and feel about it as commanded. Period. Just as those he considers "deluded" do.
Also, what does he mean by "delude himself"? How do programmed machines "delude themselves"? It is physics and biology that program in their beliefs; there is no "I" beyond that that is capable of deliberately over-writing the code installed by physics and biology. No machine can "delude itself", just as no machine can deliberately discern true statements.
IOW, his entire post is self-refuting nonsense. I suspect that for the author to utter such incoherencies, he or she is probably exactly what they claim to be; a programmed biological machine without free will.
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nada
Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 91
|
| Post: #9 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:52 pm Post subject: Re: We're machines ... very complicated machines ... but mac |
|
|
|
| Meleagar wrote: |
etc..
etc..
IOW, his entire post is self-refuting nonsense. |
A very comprehensive reply Meleagar.
I especially like the part about .. he is proud because (under his theory) he is programmed to be proud.
That at least should check-mate him/her.
Bravo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Santini
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 349
|
| Post: #10 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Either something causes us to form the beliefs we hold or nothing does.
If something does then this "something" (be it environment, genes, experience, god, satan, etc. -- or some combination of the preceding) is responsible for our holding the beliefs that we hold.
If nothing does then our beliefs are random. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meleagar
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1505
|
| Post: #11 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Santini wrote: |
Either something causes us to form the beliefs we hold or nothing does.
If something does then this "something" (be it environment, genes, experience, god, satan, etc. -- or some combination of the preceding) is responsible for our holding the beliefs that we hold.
If nothing does then our beliefs are random. |
You present a false dichotomy that is missing the third answer: deliberacy. Without acausal free will, debate is incoherent. I believe that not everyone has free will. They attempt to make the incoherent argument that their argument is caused (determined) or random, which fails for the reason I outlined above.
One cannot make a coherent argument without free will.
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #12 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: We're machines ... very complicated machines ... but mac |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
"Sentience is such an over-hyped and exaggeratec concept that people get very angry when you try and understand/explain it.
|
No. People get very angry when those explanations amount to zilch and are delivered by cocksure people. So, let's read the explanation:
| Quote: |
Everything we think/do/feel (including sentience) is a result of the electrochemical activity in our neural networks. The networks are very very complicated which means that the variety and intensity of our throughts/actions/feelings are also equally, if not more, complicated. But in the end the mind is just the activity of the brain. There is no magical spirit or soul or anything else.
|
That's not an explanation. It's an affirmation standing upon the shoulders of an appeal to complexity. An explanation would entail details of how electrochemical activity creates consciousness.
| Quote: |
We're machines ... very complicated machines ... but machines nonetheless.
|
This isn't philosophy. It's preaching.
| Quote: |
I personally am proud of what I am and dont need to delude myself in order to feel so. |
Any robot feeling pride, would be necessarily deluded, by logical default. Pride requires an ego - an individual self. But there is no individual/self in a robot. It would have to be an illusion. Nay, a delusion!
The guy who posted this is very naive. I won't even delve into 'the hard problem' or 'intentionality' or 'Chinese room arguments', etc.. Believe me, he's just parroting mantras. Nothing more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Santini
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 349
|
| Post: #13 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Meleagar wrote: |
| Santini wrote: |
Either something causes us to form the beliefs we hold or nothing does.
If something does then this "something" (be it environment, genes, experience, god, satan, etc. -- or some combination of the preceding) is responsible for our holding the beliefs that we hold.
If nothing does then our beliefs are random. |
You present a false dichotomy that is missing the third answer: deliberacy. Without acausal free will, debate is incoherent. I believe that not everyone has free will. They attempt to make the incoherent argument that their argument is caused (determined) or random, which fails for the reason I outlined above.
|
Either something causes us to have the beliefs that we have or nothing does. No tertium quid exists.
To say that 'deliberacy' causes our beliefs is not to say our beliefs have no cause. It's to say just the opposite. What are deliberations if they are not neurons in action? Do you believe that the actions of neurons are exempt from physical law?
Free will can no more be "proved" than can strict or hard determinism. Yes, you are correct, the original poster (or rather the article that he posted) assumes strict determinism without showing it to be the case, but you all do the same thing for free will. You've assumed it, you haven't shown it to be the case -- nor can you. Free will isn't something that can be proved. It can only be assumed.
Last edited by Santini on Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1966
|
| Post: #14 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
"A posse ad esse."
Er, someone, anyone! Can you please help me? I seem to be stuck in the rabbit hole.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wanabe
Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 2137
Location: EVERYWHERE
|
| Post: #15 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
well if you want "professional help" ask a philosophy professor. here you will get opinions just like you and your friends(and ironicaly just like the professor that you may ask) but opinions with a lot of practice(similar to the professor).
Here is one reply:
------begin------
Materialism is an over-hyped and exaggerated concept that people get very confused when one tries and understand and explain it.
Everything we think Everything we think/do/feel (including sentience) is a result of something we have yet to fully under stand no matter how hard we try and rush to a conclusion. The topic is very very complicated which means that the variety and intensity of our thoughts/actions/feelings are also comparably, if not more, complicated. But in the end the mind is just the activity some group of things we don't understand. There still could be a magical spirit or soul or anything else.
We're a bad analogy of machines ... very oversimplified analogy of machines ... but there are mechanical aspects nonetheless. This label of consciousness or sentience that we often use can transform us if we give it a chance.
Here are a few of the many many many myths surrounding this topic at the moment. It may be upsetting to think of ourselves as some thing we have yet to fully understand. life is sensate, born and unsure what to do, but courageously carries on in any direction that may work, uniquely different; humans are sentient, possessing of dignity and rights, and infinitely precious. A machine has some workaday purpose, such as grinding grain or sharpening pencils; a human being has higher purposes, such as love, worship, good works, and the creation of knowledge and beauty. The behavior of machines is determined by the ineluctable laws of physics and chemistry but they still break unexpectidly; the behavior of people is freely chosen. With choice comes freedom, and therefore optimism about our possibilities for the future. With choice also comes responsibility, which allows us to hold people accountable for their actions. And of course if the mind is only part of the body, it could possibly continue to exist when the body breaks down, and our thoughts and pleasures may not someday be snuffed out forever.
In thinking. I personally am proud of what I am and don't need to delude myself in order to feel so."
-----end------
Notice how changing a few key words, causes all of a sudden the other view to seem so accurate, it's because it's all some persons opinion, with no real facts, or any attempt at providing evidence/support for his beliefs...which seems to ditto everyone's response more or less
You and your friends are just as well off in this case as any one else.
What is important is that you learn all perspectives as best you can so you don't get stuck in trivial arguments or make baseless claims.
IMO you and your friend are 'right'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Juice! You need help out of a rabbit hole I'll be right over, where are you?!.....I concur, A posse ad esse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, since this guy will probably not come back(At least I had fun)...What do we do with this piece of crap thread?
_________________
The Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So. Fear is weakness leaving the mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
