<BJKlein> Topic ~ Philosophy of Mind
* Mermaid rings the bell
* Michael^2 waits for intro paragraph
<Mermaid> can the topic be rephrased?
<BJKlein> http://www.utm.edu/r.../f/function.htm
<BJKlein> this will be the starting point
<BJKlein> Functionalism -
<BJKlein> Let's discuss is the idea has merit in explaining 'phil of mind'
<BJKlein> i'll give our readers a few mins to digest the link information
<Michael^2> I haven't seen anything making it worth deviating from functionalism yet
<Michael^2> qualia seems to be a nonproblem to me right now, I don't see why we should even feel the urge to categorize them as nonphysical or outside of functionalism
<BJKlein> qualia, as a discussion topic, may be good at sheding light on the mental process
<Davidov> I think it can be broadly agreed qualia, if it even can be quantified, is still subject to the universal laws of physical processes
<Coyote> I dont understand what qualia is
<Michael^2> I think that the likelihood that they are subject to those laws is very high, but not certain
<Davidov> I wouldn't say certain either MIchael, for virtually anything
<Davidov> Qualia is what many have described as the non-physical "stuff" of the mind
<Michael^2> I think qualia will one day be quantified, but I agree with Chalmers that we need deeper terminology to address the more qualitative aspects of thinking phenomena
<Davidov> I think that if qualia is existent, it can and does interact almost indepenpently of physical processes, but never completely independent
<Michael^2> I think individual qualia correspond to certain physical mental states, of course...
<Michael^2> from the subjective viewpoint of the being the behavior of qualia seems so different than the physics of the surrounding environment
<Coyote> hmm
<Michael^2> David, we must have something in phil. of mind which we disagree about
<Davidov> That's where insanity comes from
<Michael^2> schizophrenia is when qualia don't stay attached to their proper physical cues
<Davidov> ya
<Michael^2> or their proper sensory cues
<Michael^2> how do we know that rocks don't hold subjective states?
<Michael^2> reflectivity and the like is required for them I suppose?
<BJKlein> Coyote, try and tell me what it's like to see yellow?
<Coyote> oh
<BJKlein> without saying something like bannana or the sun
<Coyote> ok...
<Coyote> this will take a bit.
<BJKlein> what is your mind doing to process that information about 'yellow' the 'color'
<Michael^2> english language is poor adapted to describing the configuration of my visual cortex with using associations
<BJKlein> how does your mind understand color.. or sound.. or feel.. etc.
<Michael^2> without*
<Coyote> jusec
* Mermaid mumbles..synaesthesia
<BJKlein> how does the mind categorize and process taste? for example...
<Coyote> jusec
<BJKlein> k
<BJKlein> just on a educational note..
<Michael^2> I wonder what Dan King wanted to talk abotu
<Michael^2> about
<BJKlein> we call it a 'philosophy' rather than a science of mind for a reason..
<Davidov> It's probably virtually useless to describe sensory experience without both of the beings having at least similar sensors
<Michael^2> unless the beings were very smart
<BJKlein> Dan is here.. just afk at the moment PD-AFK
<BJKlein> yeh.. how would a dolphin describe sonar to a human?
<Michael^2> similar sensors help when you are too dumb to make abstract representations of entire sensory systems in others, and you only interpret reports of sensory information by reference to your own extremely similiar hardware
<BJKlein> ehh .. always in terms the human can relate to currently.. always in association to experience the brain already has...
<BJKlein> so our brain is like an onion in a way...
<Michael^2> understanding the sensory experiences of others would either require configuring your own sensory hardware temporarily and then referring to it by experiencing it a bit on your own, or watching a simulation of their entire mind and somewhat understanding it, or simulating the sensory input they would have felt
<BJKlein> always building on the current information..
<Michael^2> we suck at making up novel thinking contexts anew
<Michael^2> yep, building on recent hardware
<Michael^2> if two human-equivalent species evolved independently, we would have extreme trouble communicating unless we co-evolved specifically for it
<Michael^2> especially communicating precise aspects of sensory experience
<Coyote> somehting like...
<Coyote> The eyes/ brain recieves a pre processed signal of specific wavelength of light, this signal is further processed in the visual areas of the brain to categorize it within a pre assembled structure that can classify and identify this wave in the "yellow" band, this is also referenced with past memory associations to review and confirm the signal, this categorized qualified signal is then made available to the attention centers, where attenti
<Michael^2> "where atteni.."
<Michael^2> nice description Coyote
<Davidov> ya
<Coyote> but im no neuroscientist
<BJKlein> so the brain is born with certain maping.. ?
<Coyote> brobably
<Coyote> probably
<BJKlein> which is receptive to yellow
<Coyote> however soome studys have shown it has to be learned very early
<BJKlein> thus this is encoded within dna
<Coyote> probably
<Coyote> "yellow" is just somehting that the brain uses to classify a waveband
<Coyote> IMHO
<BJKlein> maybe the very basics of yellowishness.. and only with practice do we get better at seeing...
<Michael^2> we only have evolved to communicate those aspects of sensory experience which have been ancestrally relevant to communicate, of course
<Michael^2> so that means there are so many more aspects of experience we just don't communicate
<Coyote> yes the machine level
<Michael^2> like extreme details about our cognitive structure
<Michael^2> that would be a huge different in interaction with aliens, or AIs, for example
<BJKlein> heh.. talk about an inherent communications problem..
<Michael^2> difference*, bleh
<BJKlein> talking about the mind with humans
<Coyote> we all have a slightly diggerent interpreter layer for our machine code
<Mermaid> hey john boy
<Coyote> different
<John_Ventureville> Hello Mermaid!
<Coyote> (heres my symbol system _ theres yours - lets learn each others interpretive structures)
<John_Ventureville> I just got here, but now I have to go to dinner.
<John_Ventureville> brb
<BJKlein> seya John_Ventureville
<Michael^2> it would probably take individuals from two human-equivalent species entire lifetimes to barely get a glimpse of the implications of processing within one another's conceptual and sensory structures
<Michael^2> depends on the difference I guess
<Michael^2> even humans have trouble communicating sometimes, the more abstract you get
<John_Ventureville> *the vittles are real good around here*
<John_Ventureville> brb!
<Michael^2> I wonder if the US government would endorse heavy duty neurosurgery if aliens appeared and people were completely unable to understand them
<BJKlein> the bigest problem I see with human thinking.. is that we have a hard time with the details that if remembered would give the general concepts more credibility...
<BJKlein> for instance.. if I could remember in my head certain math formulas or certain percentages and numbers...
<BJKlein> it do much better with the whole.
<BJKlein> if I could memorize the periodic table for instance...
<BJKlein> but my brain has not evolved to remember such nonsense
<BJKlein> Michael^2:: if aliens appeared, we'd probably be dead
<Michael^2> yeah
<Michael^2> possibly
<Michael^2> if aliens appeared then I'd be in a much more different universe than I would have thought
<Michael^2> humans only pay attention to enough details to survive and get laid, however indirect that method may be
<Coyote> and?
<BJKlein> well put
<Coyote> sounds good to me
<John_Ventureville> I look forward to all of you seeing the film version of the great science fiction novel "Citizen Termite" which is last I heard going to get the Hollywood big budget treatment.
<Michael^2> most of the problems I have seen with consciousness research and theory so far is that they are all trying to integrate humans into some grand overarching framework for everything where human consciousness ends up having emotional and moral value, magically
<BJKlein> luckily some humans are 'waking up' to the idea of physical immortality and the Singularity
<John_Ventureville> *back to dinner*
<Michael^2> the only difference between us and everybody else is that we want to change the way our minds are designed, but that obviously doesn't make it inordinately different or anything
<Michael^2> it's interesting than evolved minds sometimes reach a state where their consciously represented goals are to change the underlying dynamics of the mind that is producing the goals to begin with
<Michael^2> so much of evolution seems coincidentally recursive
<Coyote> because we have a recursive process that can put attention on itself
<Coyote> we can put attention upon atention
<BJKlein> yes Michael^2... life itself is a constant breaking down and rebuilding.. our minds seem to be no different..
<Michael^2> imagine knowing humans minds on such a fine level of granularity that you have a model to predict which conceptual or sensory cues can make big overall differences
<Coyote> thats power
<BJKlein> on your previous point.. about an 'overarching framework'
<BJKlein> can you tell me more...
<BJKlein> such as who's talking about such.. and an example maybe
<Michael^2> hmm
<Michael^2> I tried using one of those "concept-mapping" software jobbers the other day :D
<Michael^2> allowed me to organize my thoughts much better than wordpad or a pad of paper
<BJKlein> interesting... freeware?
<Michael^2> anyone doing psychology is incrementally contributing to the sort of model I'm talking about
<Michael^2> no :\
<Michael^2> I want to find a freeware version but I only find trial ones, again and again
<BJKlein> incidentally, im working on a 'map' of immortalist and deathist ideology
<Michael^2> I can't wait for entirely 3D VR workplace environments that take complete advantage of the natural human abiltity to navigate and think visuospatially
<Lukian> Michael^2, i may have one or two
<Michael^2> mapping the memespace has always been an ambition of mine, however low the resolution
<Michael^2> Lukian, I would really appreciate if you could send
<Lukian> i have (the original, non M$) VisioModeler and SmartDraw (which is downloadable anywhere)
<BJKlein> we're getting so close.. there trying to do some of that 3d graphics with stocks etc.
<Michael^2> I will look for SmartDraw
<Utnapishtim> hey
<BJKlein> "Welcome Back Fellow Immortalist!"
<Lukian> is rar format okay for VisioModeler?, i'll see how small it goes
<Michael^2> yep
<Michael^2> SmartDraw isn't explicitly for thoughtmapping
<Michael^2> I don't think it offers the same support as others do
<Lukian> not much is, but they are all good "mappers"
<Coyote> what about visio
<Coyote> (what about a whiteboard)
<Lukian> hehe
<Lukian> 8.71mb, want it Michael^2?
<BJKlein> do you have ftp Lukian?
<Lukian> BJKlein, if you can connect in, i'll give you 10 bucks
<Coyote> ?
<Coyote> I can open an FTP server if needed
<BJKlein> umm, is the connection difficult/unstable?
<Lukian> 203.109.238.27
<Lukian> ftp
<Coyote> 203-109-238-27.ultrawholesale.com.au?
* Lukian sits back and laughs
<Lukian> yup
<Michael^2> sure, I do want it
<Lukian> well hurry up and connect BJKlein/Coyote
<Coyote> prolly takes unicode chars or somehting
<Lukian> Coyote, nope
<Coyote> ftp: connect :Connection timed out
<Coyote> port?
<Lukian> okay, http to it
<Michael^2> I'll bet there are zero psychological modelling applications out there
<Lukian> (21, 80)
<Michael^2> or, very few
<Coyote> want to write one?
<Michael^2> I've never tried out those "decision helper" applications, doubt they would help
<Michael^2> hm, I've only a newbie coder
<Coyote> me 2
<Lukian> Coyote, any luck with connecting yet?
<BJKlein> doesnt one need a user/pass Lukian
<Lukian> anonymous
* Michael^2 can't connect
<Lukian> Michael^2, is the dcc send working?
<Lukian> would you like me to email it?
<Coyote> This web site is under construction
<Coyote> subfolders?
<Michael^2> does the ftp work?
<Lukian> LMAO
<Michael^2> I would appreciate an email: altima@yifan.net
<Michael^2> SmartDraw also has a trial
<Michael^2> I've been using Inspiration 7 lately
<Lukian> Coyote, BJKlein, Michael^2 there's a big fat Squid proxy in the way
<Michael^2> forget it then
<Coyote> can you PUT ?
<Michael^2> have you used any of these softwares very extensively, Lukian?
<Lukian> I used Visiomodeler and SmartDraw for high school assignments
* Lukian formats some extra space, he's running low
<Utnapishtim> what happened to the philosophy of mind?
<Lukian> haha
<Lukian> 11:44 <rhino> heh, the #immortal chat has evolved to ftp downloads
<Michael^2> lol
* BJKlein immortal practices the next step in evolution
<Michael^2> it seems that we all agreed on philosophy of mind
* Lukian ponders a format
<BJKlein> yeh.. we need MermaidAFK to tell us we don't know jack
<Michael^2> I'm usually more interested in "mechanics of mind" than philosophy of it, though the two obviously overlap
<Lukian> k BJKlein
<BJKlein> maybe Omni|AFK will show up later.. he's quite good with pom
<Lukian> k BJKlein
<BJKlein> ?
<Lukian> n/m
<Michael^2> what were you guys talking about last week when Dan King volunteered for moderate a pom chat? heh
<Michael^2> I'm just curious what brought it up
<BJKlein> let's see...
<BJKlein> Dan is a phil student.. and quite interested in the topic..
<Michael^2> he talks about it a good amount
<BJKlein> I wanted him to be here to moderate the room..
<BJKlein> last time we had to much chatter going on..
<BJKlein> it sees this time the war is keeping most people preoccupied
<Michael^2> the other day me and celindra were talking about whether a completely altruistic mind could even exist in principle, and the only point at which I had him convinced is when I postulated the idea of a mind that only operates according to direct information input from the minds of others
<Michael^2> true
<Michael^2> hah, I was just talking about you Mike ;\
<Michael^2> [Michael^2] the other day me and celindra were talking about whether a completely altruistic mind could even exist in principle, and the only point at which I had him convinced is when I postulated the idea of a mind that only operates according to direct information input from the minds of others
<Lukian> anyone wanna buy me a hdd?
<BJKlein> speak of the devil.. welcome celindra
<celindra> Howdy
<celindra> I don;t think you had me convinced neccessarily
<Michael^2> hm, okay
<Michael^2> how about the example when the larger mind is actually constituted from the emergent interaction of the lower sentients
<celindra> Oh yeah. I consented that it could be a possiblity.
<celindra> Depending on your definitions of the terminology.
* Anand thinks Michael's a dork
* Michael^2 pokes Anand with a plastic pipe
* Anand runs away with it
<Anand> Take that, fiend
* Michael^2 taps his foot
* Davidov glares
* Lukian eats Michael^2's foot and the plastic pipe
* Michael^2 is wearing steel toed boots then..?
<BJKlein> hmm was is chalmers that introduced 'qualia'
* Lukian eats them too
<Anand> Hmm, good question Bruce
<Michael^2> come on Mike, it's a reducio ad absurdium argument, I don't see how you can deny that a bunch of interacting sentients can't create a being with no "interests" outside of its subcomponents
<Anand> I think the term has been around since at least the 70's
<Anand> With Thomas Nagel
<Michael^2> I guess this shows that the interests of a meta-being like that would be so different than the interests of its subsentients that you could hardly put it into the same class
<Michael^2> interesting
<BJKlein> http://www.u.arizona...ne1.html#qualia
<BJKlein> for reference sakes
<celindra> Sorry Mike, I'm not exactly convinced that meta being-being and its subparts are seperate beings
<Michael^2> hm, what if they claimed they were
<celindra> What if I claimed I was a time traveller?
<Michael^2> I would attribute a very low level of likelihood to your statement, heh
<John_Ventureville> a traveller in time....
<John_Ventureville> one second at a time
<John_Ventureville> like the rest of us
<celindra> From the perspective of the metabeing, would it consider its subparts as individuals
<Michael^2> we could be part of a metabeing right now
<Michael^2> if we heard the influence it had over something, we might even wrongly assume we weren't a part of it
<Michael^2> our own agency would escape our detection..!
<BJKlein> ahh, damn.. what's the name of that group that wishes to plan the extinction of the human race
<BJKlein> it starts with a v
<celindra> The Republcans?
<BJKlein> heh.. good try
<John_Ventureville> valedictorians??
<John_Ventureville> lol
<BJKlein> http://www.disinfo.c...sier/id831/pg1/
<celindra> Your metabrain creature would still have to assign priority to incoming signals just like any system
<BJKlein> ahh here we golll VHEMT :: Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
<celindra> That would be quite a limiting factor
<Michael^2> celindra, yes, it would, so what
<Michael^2> limiting factor in what?
<Michael^2> if I am being egoistic, and my body parts are independently sentient, then I am being altruistic
<Michael^2> if I am being egoistic, and I am the universe, then I am being maximally altruistic ^^
<Rotaerk> hey, could you contrast egoistic and egotistic?
<Rotaerk> I ran across that question in Spanish,...never got a good answer
<Michael^2> hm, no clue
<celindra> I just say self-centered instead of egotistic or egoistic
<celindra> Clears up semantic confusion
<BJKlein> egoistic: concered with the person rather than society
<BJKlein> etotistic: Concerned only with oneself
<Rotaerk> ok good, thanks
<BJKlein> egotistic*
*Michael^2* no idea
<BJKlein> i'm an alien.. tell me what do humans do?
<BJKlein> what are they good for?
<BJKlein> why shouldn't I just eat you?
<celindra> why should you eat me?
*Anand* Hey Bruce, 'you going to be able to make it to the Accelerating Change Conference?
<Rotaerk> technically, we really cant pose questions as aliens
<Rotaerk> because we dont know how they think exactly
<Michael^2> we can do gedankenexperiments tho
<Rotaerk> they could think like us...they might approach a new species like us...where they dont first ask whether or not to eat it
<Michael^2> to an alien that hasn't evolved to appreciate arbitrary, large classes of intelligent beings, they may have no reason *not* to eat humans simply because humans might represent a useful source of protein
<Rotaerk> but they may think unlike us in an infinite number of specific ways
<Rotaerk> the..simpleton "Do I eat it?" thought system is...just one
<Rotaerk> one that I think might be improbable...since that mindset may mean the canibalization and extinction of that species...
<Rotaerk> with some exceptions...
<celindra> Uhmm... does anyone here approach new situations with the question "Should I eat it?"
<celindra> Didn't think so.
<Rotaerk> ...that's the way BJ's alien was thinking
<BJKlein> why else would an alien visit us?
<Rotaerk> depends on the alien
<BJKlein> if not to use us for spare parts
<Rotaerk> one reason may be the same reason we'd visit aliens
<PD>
<BJKlein> welcome Dan
<PD> Sorry, I'm kinda late.
<BJKlein> np.. we're just warming up
<BJKlein> i'm talking crap.. glad you showed up
<PD> What's going on?
<BJKlein> we had an interesting discussion of qualia before..
<PD> Heh.
<PD> What did you conclude?
<Rotaerk> hey, one thing I am wondering is
<BJKlein> but i'd love to refresh that topic.. as it's great way to understand that we don't know much about our brain
<Rotaerk> a while back I realized...that the future is "determined"...everything (including sentient brains) is the interaction of particles and energy and such....
<PD> philosophy-irc seems to have a discussion about qualia every other night.
<BJKlein> maybe we could talk about all the things we don't know about the brain yet..
<Rotaerk> so knowing the status of the whole universe, one could predict the future
<Rotaerk> but then I saw that on some tv show
<Rotaerk> that same concept
<Rotaerk> and they contradicted it
<Davidov> Not entirely though, as a knowing everything means knowing yourself entirely, which ain't to easy to do
<BJKlein> Rotaerk, unless consciousness is the monkey wrench
<Rotaerk> I want to know if this is real ...science:
<PD> Incidentally, I stumbled onto some philosophy radio records you might want to listen to. They have some easy listening phil of mind stuff there. And there's even a debate between Rorty and Dennett about science. It's not much of a debate though; they seem to agree on 90% of everything.
<BJKlein> that's why we call is a 'philosophy' rather than a science.. heh
<BJKlein> PD that'd be quite helpful..
<BJKlein> another form of information input would be wonderful
<PD> http://www.angelfire...hilosophyradio/
<Rotaerk> according to quantum mechanics, subatomic particles...knowing more about their positions means you know less about their velocities and vice versa
<Rotaerk> or something like that
<celindra> People would say the uncertainty principal prevents full knowledge
<PD> Some of them don't work on my RP for some reason.
<Rotaerk> I didnt understand it exactly
<Rotaerk> BJ: I personally think consciousness is a result of the interactions of neurons which are a result of biology -> chemistry -> physics
<BJKlein> PD, do you know the history of qualia per chance?
<Rotaerk> so consciousness is predetermined
<PD> The history of qualia? Well, Ayer was pushing them in the 50's.
<Michael^2> people need to stop talking about qualia eventually, heh
<BJKlein> Rotaerk, I sympathize with your view.. as i'm a somewhat hard determinist myself
<PD> I agree.
<PD> With MA.
<PD> Qualia are just not a very useful concept.
<BJKlein> what should we be talking about..
<PD> In some variations, just plain incoherent.
<BJKlein> expeciall if we wish for physical immortality?
<Rotaerk> of course, you shouldnt sit down and whine that you cant do anything because things are predetermined....because your consciousness is driven by physics...so you DO have control...that control IS a result of physics...
<Rotaerk> and that's my final statement on that unless someone responds...
<Rotaerk> just dont want to keep up on something no one else is talking about
<Dutchman> arg...qualia is not in the Oxford dictionary
<PD> Really? Try "quale".
<Rotaerk> http://plato.stanfor...entries/qualia/
