|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 16, 2022 22:48:28 GMT
There's some assumptions here.
One is the self, or I.
The other is this clumsy idea of is/am/be. What exactly does it mean to exist anyway? There's no answer with any sort of deductive reasoning to it.
Something else. Why is it "I think therefore I am" instead of "I experience therefore I am"? Does it matter? Computers think but don't experience anything. I don't think it matters except to say a computer would have to get pretty smart before it came up with cogito ergo sum.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 19, 2022 23:20:12 GMT
or, it is the very nature of the I in that it is the part that impels the thinking. Meaning it could be worded, the ability I have to think is what causes me to be able to be.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 20, 2022 9:22:33 GMT
Something else. Why is it "I think therefore I am" instead of "I experience therefore I am"? Because our experiences can be doubted, but what can't be doubted is doubt itself as that's a contradiction in terms. And since doubt is a form of thought, therefore thought must exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 20, 2022 21:37:48 GMT
or, it is the very nature of the I in that it is the part that impels the thinking. Meaning it could be worded, the ability I have to think is what causes me to be able to be. What is the reason or argument for the idea that the self is what causes thought (or vice versa, which you also seemed to indicate)?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 20, 2022 21:47:43 GMT
or, it is the very nature of the I in that it is the part that impels the thinking. Meaning it could be worded, the ability I have to think is what causes me to be able to be. What is the reason or argument for the idea that the self is what causes thought (or vice versa, which you also seemed to indicate)? Well I can determine that I am separate from things right? I am separate from this door handle I can reach out and grab it. So what is the 'I', what is my essential nature. I can move my body by thinking, I can use my thoughts to move my body and to stop my body from moving, and I have made a conscious decision to control my body, the essential I cannot therefore be the body, I can conceive of the two as separate. I can think of a cat, or a bird or a plane, I can (again) consciously choose to make my brain think of things, or (to be fair to a somewhat lesser extent, although I am getting better) I can stop my brain from thinking of things, so therefore the essential "I" must be separate from and removed from my thoughts. Similarly I can control (again to a lesser extent, and again I am working on it) my emotions, and can conceive of myself as separate from them, so again my essential "I" is not my emotions. What does that leave? It leaves the force that impels me to act, that impels me to think, my essential "I" is not my body, thoughts or emotions, it is the thing that controls my body, thoughts and emotions. So how does this relate to I think therefore I am. The simple fact that there is a part of me (perhaps the only part that is actually me) that causes these thoughts and actions, it is the nature of the intention or will I use on my physical body that causes me to think, therefore in a very real sense, my essential nature ("I") causes me to think and be in the material world, my thinking makes me exist. I think therefore I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 20, 2022 22:58:12 GMT
What is the reason or argument for the idea that the self is what causes thought (or vice versa, which you also seemed to indicate)? Well I can determine that I am separate from things right? I am separate from this door handle I can reach out and grab it. So what is the 'I', what is my essential nature. I can move my body by thinking, I can use my thoughts to move my body and to stop my body from moving, and I have made a conscious decision to control my body, the essential I cannot therefore be the body, I can conceive of the two as separate. I can think of a cat, or a bird or a plane, I can (again) consciously choose to make my brain think of things, or (to be fair to a somewhat lesser extent, although I am getting better) I can stop my brain from thinking of things, so therefore the essential "I" must be separate from and removed from my thoughts. Similarly I can control (again to a lesser extent, and again I am working on it) my emotions, and can conceive of myself as separate from them, so again my essential "I" is not my emotions. What does that leave? It leaves the force that impels me to act, that impels me to think, my essential "I" is not my body, thoughts or emotions, it is the thing that controls my body, thoughts and emotions. So how does this relate to I think therefore I am. The simple fact that there is a part of me (perhaps the only part that is actually me) that causes these thoughts and actions, it is the nature of the intention or will I use on my physical body that causes me to think, therefore in a very real sense, my essential nature ("I") causes me to think and be in the material world, my thinking makes me exist. I think therefore I am. I don't know that we can be sure of any separateness. I've heard this world once referred to as a "shared fabric of reality". If that's the case, maybe we're not separate from other people/things. I don't know that we can move our bodies by thinking either. That could be an illusion. Also that reminds me. There is a Ted Talk about controlling your emotions. I need to go back and rewatch it sometime soon. 
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Oct 20, 2022 23:09:05 GMT
Maybe I'm straying too far off topic, but what about all the things that one could think about but doesn't have any words for? What should we make of that?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 20, 2022 23:48:36 GMT
Well I can determine that I am separate from things right? I am separate from this door handle I can reach out and grab it. So what is the 'I', what is my essential nature. I can move my body by thinking, I can use my thoughts to move my body and to stop my body from moving, and I have made a conscious decision to control my body, the essential I cannot therefore be the body, I can conceive of the two as separate. I can think of a cat, or a bird or a plane, I can (again) consciously choose to make my brain think of things, or (to be fair to a somewhat lesser extent, although I am getting better) I can stop my brain from thinking of things, so therefore the essential "I" must be separate from and removed from my thoughts. Similarly I can control (again to a lesser extent, and again I am working on it) my emotions, and can conceive of myself as separate from them, so again my essential "I" is not my emotions. What does that leave? It leaves the force that impels me to act, that impels me to think, my essential "I" is not my body, thoughts or emotions, it is the thing that controls my body, thoughts and emotions. So how does this relate to I think therefore I am. The simple fact that there is a part of me (perhaps the only part that is actually me) that causes these thoughts and actions, it is the nature of the intention or will I use on my physical body that causes me to think, therefore in a very real sense, my essential nature ("I") causes me to think and be in the material world, my thinking makes me exist. I think therefore I am. I don't know that we can be sure of any separateness. I've heard this world once referred to as a "shared fabric of reality". If that's the case, maybe we're not separate from other people/things. I don't know that we can move our bodies by thinking either. That could be an illusion. Also that reminds me. There is a Ted Talk about controlling your emotions. I need to go back and rewatch it sometime soon. Agreed, we are all of the same stuff, we all are one, and yet we are all alone and individual, this is one of the fun paradoxes. My stance in this instance is that I can think of moving or not moving my body indepentantly to the fact of my existence, so therefore my body must not be the essential "I" Ahh yes, it all might be a trick, as long as it seems real we have to act as if it is
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 20, 2022 23:56:11 GMT
Maybe I'm straying too far off topic, but what about all the things that one could think about but doesn't have any words for? What should we make of that? googly moogly?
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 21, 2022 0:01:33 GMT
I don't know that we can be sure of any separateness. I've heard this world once referred to as a "shared fabric of reality". If that's the case, maybe we're not separate from other people/things. I don't know that we can move our bodies by thinking either. That could be an illusion. Also that reminds me. There is a Ted Talk about controlling your emotions. I need to go back and rewatch it sometime soon. Agreed, we are all of the same stuff, we all are one, and yet we are all alone and individual, this is one of the fun paradoxes. My stance in this instance is that I can think of moving or not moving my body indepentantly to the fact of my existence, so therefore my body must not be the essential "I" Ahh yes, it all might be a trick, as long as it seems real we have to act as if it is Maybe alone and individual is just an illusion brought about by culture? Same for the idea that we control our bodies. There are native tribes still in the world today that live on a completely spiritual rather than materialistic plane. I agree the body is not the self btw. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 22, 2022 3:58:43 GMT
There's some assumptions here. One is the self, or I. The other is this clumsy idea of is/am/be. What exactly does it mean to exist anyway? There's no answer with any sort of deductive reasoning to it. Something else. Why is it "I think therefore I am" instead of "I experience therefore I am"? Does it matter? Computers think but don't experience anything. I don't think it matters except to say a computer would have to get pretty smart before it came up with cogito ergo sum. I think either phrasing demonstrates existence because thinking is an experience. I “think” is a reference to cognition, which is an aspect of personality and personhood. Computers don’t actually “think” (at least not yet). Computers process data and render responses to inputs, but true AI doesn’t really exist yet. Computers can only absorb, retain, and output data in a manner consistent with their programming. They can calculate the best next move in a chess game based on the position of the pieces left on the board, the legal moves available to both sides, and the probability of winning based on making certain moves. The “smartest” computers can “anticipate” or guess based on observing patters of behavior in opponents, and can even learn from their mistakes. But that is essentially the extent of their cognitive abilities. They are not self-aware and thus cannot ponder what it means to “be” anything. Sentience requires intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness. Computers may be described as “intelligent” (depending on how advanced it is). But they lack consciousness and self-awareness. Thus there is no qualia or subjective experience of existence there. Computers do exist, but they do not think. Consequently, their existence cannot be demonstrated by thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2022 2:55:58 GMT
There's some assumptions here. One is the self, or I. The other is this clumsy idea of is/am/be. What exactly does it mean to exist anyway? There's no answer with any sort of deductive reasoning to it. Something else. Why is it "I think therefore I am" instead of "I experience therefore I am"? Does it matter? Computers think but don't experience anything. I don't think it matters except to say a computer would have to get pretty smart before it came up with cogito ergo sum. I think either phrasing demonstrates existence because thinking is an experience. I “think” is a reference to cognition, which is an aspect of personality and personhood. Computers don’t actually “think” (at least not yet). Computers process data and render responses to inputs, but true AI doesn’t really exist yet. Computers can only absorb, retain, and output data in a manner consistent with their programming. They can calculate the best next move in a chess game based on the position of the pieces left on the board, the legal moves available to both sides, and the probability of winning based on making certain moves. The “smartest” computers can “anticipate” or guess based on observing patters of behavior in opponents, and can even learn from their mistakes. But that is essentially the extent of their cognitive abilities. They are not self-aware and thus cannot ponder what it means to “be” anything. Sentience requires intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness. Computers may be described as “intelligent” (depending on how advanced it is). But they lack consciousness and self-awareness. Thus there is no qualia or subjective experience of existence there. Computers do exist, but they do not think. Consequently, their existence cannot be demonstrated by thinking. Descartes wasn't demonstrating his existence to anyone but himself, making the point that that's all any of us can do. I'm not sure why computers would be an exception.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 23, 2022 3:17:47 GMT
There's some assumptions here. One is the self, or I. The other is this clumsy idea of is/am/be. What exactly does it mean to exist anyway? There's no answer with any sort of deductive reasoning to it. Something else. Why is it "I think therefore I am" instead of "I experience therefore I am"? Does it matter? Computers think but don't experience anything. I don't think it matters except to say a computer would have to get pretty smart before it came up with cogito ergo sum. I think either phrasing demonstrates existence because thinking is an experience. I “think” is a reference to cognition, which is an aspect of personality and personhood. Computers don’t actually “think” (at least not yet). Computers process data and render responses to inputs, but true AI doesn’t really exist yet. Computers can only absorb, retain, and output data in a manner consistent with their programming. They can calculate the best next move in a chess game based on the position of the pieces left on the board, the legal moves available to both sides, and the probability of winning based on making certain moves. The “smartest” computers can “anticipate” or guess based on observing patters of behavior in opponents, and can even learn from their mistakes. But that is essentially the extent of their cognitive abilities. They are not self-aware and thus cannot ponder what it means to “be” anything. Sentience requires intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness. Computers may be described as “intelligent” (depending on how advanced it is). But they lack consciousness and self-awareness. Thus there is no qualia or subjective experience of existence there. Computers do exist, but they do not think. Consequently, their existence cannot be demonstrated by thinking. Computers can beat the grand masters at chess 10 out of 10 times. You think that's not thinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 23, 2022 3:21:02 GMT
I think either phrasing demonstrates existence because thinking is an experience. I “think” is a reference to cognition, which is an aspect of personality and personhood. Computers don’t actually “think” (at least not yet). Computers process data and render responses to inputs, but true AI doesn’t really exist yet. Computers can only absorb, retain, and output data in a manner consistent with their programming. They can calculate the best next move in a chess game based on the position of the pieces left on the board, the legal moves available to both sides, and the probability of winning based on making certain moves. The “smartest” computers can “anticipate” or guess based on observing patters of behavior in opponents, and can even learn from their mistakes. But that is essentially the extent of their cognitive abilities. They are not self-aware and thus cannot ponder what it means to “be” anything. Sentience requires intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness. Computers may be described as “intelligent” (depending on how advanced it is). But they lack consciousness and self-awareness. Thus there is no qualia or subjective experience of existence there. Computers do exist, but they do not think. Consequently, their existence cannot be demonstrated by thinking. Descartes wasn't demonstrating his existence to anyone but himself, making the point that that's all any of us can do. I'm not sure why computers would be an exception. That was the point in the OP. Computers think too. But a more refined version, again as stated above, is I experience therefore I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2022 3:54:25 GMT
Descartes wasn't demonstrating his existence to anyone but himself, making the point that that's all any of us can do. I'm not sure why computers would be an exception. That was the point in the OP. Computers think too. But a more refined version, again as stated above, is I experience therefore I am. Experience without thought? hmm.
|
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Oct 23, 2022 9:52:17 GMT
I would put it this way. I think I think, therefore I think I am but I am not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 23, 2022 14:17:15 GMT
That was the point in the OP. Computers think too. But a more refined version, again as stated above, is I experience therefore I am. Experience without thought? hmm. Like a buddhist monk? 
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 23, 2022 18:03:02 GMT
I think either phrasing demonstrates existence because thinking is an experience. I “think” is a reference to cognition, which is an aspect of personality and personhood. Computers don’t actually “think” (at least not yet). Computers process data and render responses to inputs, but true AI doesn’t really exist yet. Computers can only absorb, retain, and output data in a manner consistent with their programming. They can calculate the best next move in a chess game based on the position of the pieces left on the board, the legal moves available to both sides, and the probability of winning based on making certain moves. The “smartest” computers can “anticipate” or guess based on observing patters of behavior in opponents, and can even learn from their mistakes. But that is essentially the extent of their cognitive abilities. They are not self-aware and thus cannot ponder what it means to “be” anything. Sentience requires intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness. Computers may be described as “intelligent” (depending on how advanced it is). But they lack consciousness and self-awareness. Thus there is no qualia or subjective experience of existence there. Computers do exist, but they do not think. Consequently, their existence cannot be demonstrated by thinking. Descartes wasn't demonstrating his existence to anyone but himself, making the point that that's all any of us can do. I'm not sure why computers would be an exception. That’s actually a good point… …consequently, disregard my last sentence. 👍🏽 However, the previous point still stands until someone can demonstrate that a computer can “think” in the way we associate with even the intelligent animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 23, 2022 18:09:50 GMT
I think either phrasing demonstrates existence because thinking is an experience. I “think” is a reference to cognition, which is an aspect of personality and personhood. Computers don’t actually “think” (at least not yet). Computers process data and render responses to inputs, but true AI doesn’t really exist yet. Computers can only absorb, retain, and output data in a manner consistent with their programming. They can calculate the best next move in a chess game based on the position of the pieces left on the board, the legal moves available to both sides, and the probability of winning based on making certain moves. The “smartest” computers can “anticipate” or guess based on observing patters of behavior in opponents, and can even learn from their mistakes. But that is essentially the extent of their cognitive abilities. They are not self-aware and thus cannot ponder what it means to “be” anything. Sentience requires intelligence, consciousness, and self-awareness. Computers may be described as “intelligent” (depending on how advanced it is). But they lack consciousness and self-awareness. Thus there is no qualia or subjective experience of existence there. Computers do exist, but they do not think. Consequently, their existence cannot be demonstrated by thinking. Computers can beat the grand masters at chess 10 out of 10 times. You think that's not thinking? It depends on how you define “thinking”, but for me - no. Like I said, thinking equates to “cognition” to me. This is the ability to conceive of and imagine concepts that one hasn’t been programmed to learn or understand. Computers do not have the element of curiosity or wonder that we equate with human (or even animal) thinking. When a computer demonstrates that it’s capable of pondering life as a computer, or anticipating what it will do with its time in the near or distant future, then I’d be willing to call it a “thinking” agent.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Oct 23, 2022 19:19:16 GMT
Computers can beat the grand masters at chess 10 out of 10 times. You think that's not thinking? It depends on how you define “thinking”, but for me - no. Like I said, thinking equates to “cognition” to me. This is the ability to conceive of and imagine concepts that one hasn’t been programmed to learn or understand. Computers do not have the element of curiosity or wonder that we equate with human (or even animal) thinking. When a computer demonstrates that it’s capable of pondering life as a computer, or anticipating what it will do with its time in the near or distant future, then I’d be willing to call it a “thinking” agent. True. It's common language to say computers think but Descartes was probably more talking about the experience of thinking, what you call cognition.
|
|
