Steve Klinko
Registered Senior Member
The OP defines what Knowledge is. It is Information plus Awareness of the Information. Without Awareness there is no Knowledge.
A House Cat Knows More Than The IBM Watson
- Thread starter Steve Klinko
- Start date
So you've defined it as something which requires consciousness. Okay. It's not a definition that everyone will agree with.
Yet, once defined, you then spend the OP, and every post since, pretty much waffling. I mean, why post a simple syllogism when a thousand words will do, right?
P1. Knowledge requires awareness
P2. IBM Watson is not aware
C. IBM Watson has no knowledge.
If you can then demonstrate that a cat, something aware, has even one bit of knowledge, then you have proven your argument.
See how pointless your thread is, once you have defined the concept to prove your point?
"I have defined concept X as requiring consciousness. Thus X can not apply to anything non-conscious! Look how intelligent I am with such insights!"
The issue I have with your approach, other than that it leads to the incessant waffling, is that you don't address the actual crux of your argument: the definition.
And until you bother to address WHY you think that it requires awareness, and why everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, then you're not actually discussing anything: you're simply posting a valid syllogism with no care as to its soundness.
Yet, once defined, you then spend the OP, and every post since, pretty much waffling. I mean, why post a simple syllogism when a thousand words will do, right?
P1. Knowledge requires awareness
P2. IBM Watson is not aware
C. IBM Watson has no knowledge.
If you can then demonstrate that a cat, something aware, has even one bit of knowledge, then you have proven your argument.
See how pointless your thread is, once you have defined the concept to prove your point?
"I have defined concept X as requiring consciousness. Thus X can not apply to anything non-conscious! Look how intelligent I am with such insights!"
The issue I have with your approach, other than that it leads to the incessant waffling, is that you don't address the actual crux of your argument: the definition.
And until you bother to address WHY you think that it requires awareness, and why everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, then you're not actually discussing anything: you're simply posting a valid syllogism with no care as to its soundness.
Steve Klinko
Registered Senior Member
Now you are getting it. I post things like this to keep an Awareness about Consciousness in Peoples Minds. The AI Hype has gotten to the point where People really think there is Consciousness in Computers and Robots. Just want to keep throwing up interference at that Science Fiction notion. But further, I just want to have discussions about Consciousness because it is one of the current big challenges for Science, and Science does not have a Clue
No it hasn't, and no they don't. You're tilting at windmills.
Then be honest in your threads, and stop starting with definitions that assert the conclusion you want to reach. It's begging the question, and what's worse: you know it is.
If you want an honest discussion, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be on your radar, you're going to need to change your M.O.. By all means argue that computers aren't (yet) capable of things, but don't do so through definition, but by examining the process/concept in question. Define what knowledge is absent any up-front question-begging notion that it requires consciousness, or awareness. It may well be that, upon examination of such a concept, that yes, it does require awareness. But don't just assume it or define it to be the case. That is simply a dishonest approach.
So let's start, if you can, with the "usual" definition of knowledge as "Justified True Belief"... which you'll note makes no assumption as to what is or is not capable of holding knowledge.
Now then, what is it within that definition that you think necessitates awareness. Truth? No, something is true or not without needing to be aware of it. Justified? I would say no, as justification can take many forms, even as little as "because X told me so", but the issue of justification in the role of knowledge is a widely discussed topic (e.g. Gettier et al). Belief? Well, here is where it may get more interesting. What is it to hold a belief? A level of confidence in the truth of the answer? Then sure, Watson has that, and can even tell you how confident it is that the answer it is giving is correct.
So, let's discuss, if that's really what you're here to do.
Or are you here to simply promote your astounding insights and your pet "theory" that lacks anything either astounding or insightful?
So if YOU are not using Science to put forward your pronouncements what are you using you validate yourself?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
"we" ?
"we know" ?
"we" being conventional mainstream science ?
in theory "we" already know this because delusions & disorders like schizophrenia clearly define this
though its real working "how" "where" "when" "why" is all shrouded in mystery
Freud discussed some of these aspects
it was a prominent mainstream concept around early Catholic based psychology where the mind was divided into religious constructs of realms.
interesting
knowledge of knowing you have no knowing of something
is that knowledge or awareness ?
the sum value of content stored is a representation of nothing
or is this the mathematics debate around the value of 0
arrogance
delusion
pretense
mental illness
all define a sense of knowing something of what there is no knowing of
is that "knowledge" ? , or is that "awareness" ? or something else?(define)
real world we can look at a generic manager who displays the fake reality(delusion through manipulation) to assert they have knowledge when they do not.
is that "awareness" a delusional state ? is it a real state of knowledge or mental illness by collective hallucination via indoctrinated belief ? etc ...
"we know" ?
"we" being conventional mainstream science ?
in theory "we" already know this because delusions & disorders like schizophrenia clearly define this
though its real working "how" "where" "when" "why" is all shrouded in mystery
Freud discussed some of these aspects
it was a prominent mainstream concept around early Catholic based psychology where the mind was divided into religious constructs of realms.
interesting
knowledge of knowing you have no knowing of something
is that knowledge or awareness ?
the sum value of content stored is a representation of nothing
or is this the mathematics debate around the value of 0
arrogance
delusion
pretense
mental illness
all define a sense of knowing something of what there is no knowing of
is that "knowledge" ? , or is that "awareness" ? or something else?(define)
real world we can look at a generic manager who displays the fake reality(delusion through manipulation) to assert they have knowledge when they do not.
is that "awareness" a delusional state ? is it a real state of knowledge or mental illness by collective hallucination via indoctrinated belief ? etc ...
Last edited:
Why? You are posting your atrocious grammar here. This is a forum intended for learning; if you can learn a bit about how to write, it has achieved a bit of its purpose.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
https://www.psychologytoday.com/int...202004/ai-translates-human-brain-signals-text
AI Translates Human Brain Signals to Text
UCSF neuroscientists' brain-computer interface decodes at natural-speech rates.
To achieve their recent breakthrough, the UCSF researchers used the approach of decoding a sentence at a time, similar to how modern machine translating algorithms work.
Can technology and neuroscience one day enable people to silently type using only the mind? Now scientists are one step closer towards a computer interface driven by human thoughts. Neuroscientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) published a study last week in Nature Neuroscience that shows how their brain-computer interface (BCI) is able to translate human brain activity into text with relatively high accuracy and at natural-speech rates using artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
e.g ...
what is the difference between a human decoding a event or object
a person displaying knowledge of a event or object
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
This second recurrent neural network learns to predict the next word in a sequence.
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in my early study into humans
i found this possible to predict a potential next word,
given environmental & conversation known variables subjective emotional disposition & s stylized concept of personality disposition
later i discovered magicians do this as part of their magic tricks but to a much higher degree.
AI Translates Human Brain Signals to Text
UCSF neuroscientists' brain-computer interface decodes at natural-speech rates.
To achieve their recent breakthrough, the UCSF researchers used the approach of decoding a sentence at a time, similar to how modern machine translating algorithms work.
Can technology and neuroscience one day enable people to silently type using only the mind? Now scientists are one step closer towards a computer interface driven by human thoughts. Neuroscientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) published a study last week in Nature Neuroscience that shows how their brain-computer interface (BCI) is able to translate human brain activity into text with relatively high accuracy and at natural-speech rates using artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
e.g ...
what is the difference between a human decoding a event or object
a person displaying knowledge of a event or object
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
This second recurrent neural network learns to predict the next word in a sequence.
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in my early study into humans
i found this possible to predict a potential next word,
given environmental & conversation known variables subjective emotional disposition & s stylized concept of personality disposition
later i discovered magicians do this as part of their magic tricks but to a much higher degree.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Descartes is rolling over in his grave.
It is not a human "brain in a vat" driven by a computer, it's a artificial "computer in vat" driven by a human mind....
Who'd have thought. Maybe the concept of emergent consciousness from brain patterns is not so outlandish after all.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
& so in theory
given adequate computer capability, the computer can learn potential sequenced variables of normal human mental process
i am reading the article and commenting on it at the same time
"250-word vocabularies"
what is the average persons rough word vocabulary ?
given controlled circumstances of theme
bar
office
dinner party
etc
finished
i would imagine surgical implant of conductive plugs through the skull which would then have a hat on the top.
the special hat would be protected from interference
encoding the hat to the material of the conductive plugs might be a good safety protocol
to help prevent exterior interference in the event of the hat coming off
and of a material that would not allow direct current exchange at harmful levels directly into the brain
just finished shoveling around 20 wheel barrows of damp clay into a trailer then out of a trailer
wrists cramping up
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
We are witness to the beginning of a new age. The age of artificially extended mind.
And if the system can be made self-referential, the computer can theoretically feed patterns back into the brain and make the entire internet instantly available.
Hair in my neck is standing up.......!.
If the AI can create text from brain patterns, it can also look up the definitions on the internet and achieve an unlimited vocabulary.
And if the system can be made self-referential, the computer can theoretically feed patterns back into the brain and make the entire internet instantly available.
Hair in my neck is standing up.......!.
I put the above in Google and got back
According to lexicographer and dictionary expert Susie Dent, “the average active vocabulary of an adult English speaker is around 20,000 words, while his passive vocabulary is around 40,000 words.”
https://wordcounter.io/blog/how-man...ictionary,vocabulary is around 40,000 words.”
- the first 25 words are used in 33% of every day writing
- the first 100 words are used in 50% of adult and student writing
- the first 1,000 words are used in 89% of every day writing
Click on the links for more
just finished shoveling around 20 wheel barrows of damp clay into a trailer then out of a trailer
wrists cramping up
HYDRALYTE
Half the dilution on the packet and a banana
Check ingredients on package first make sure no allergic stuff or medication interference. Also consider buying from chemist and getting more advice
Stay safe always
Steve Klinko
Registered Senior Member
I think you shot yourself in the foot with this one. Belief is clearly the Conscious Activity of a Mind. Computers cannot in any way be said to have Beliefs. You definitely don't understand Programming and Computers if you think that the percent confidence that a Computer is programmed to calculate has anything to do with Belief. Yikes!
Steve Klinko
Registered Senior Member
The point about saying that Science does not have a Clue is that Science really really does not have a Clue.So if YOU are not using Science to put forward your pronouncements what are you using you validate yourself?
Steve Klinko
Registered Senior Member
Yes.
And yet Science still has no Clue. Science should be Speculating and testing new Theories and Perspectives. But it is mostly not doing this. The Physicalist/Materialist Doctrines prohibit this.
Knowledge is Awareness of Information, but Awareness can be of different things. Most notably, we can be Aware of our Conscious Experiences like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste.
Are you talking about Lying? Awareness can be Delusional.
Steve Klinko
Registered Senior Member
You must be some kind of Grammar Zombie. Go find a Grammar Forum. If you cannot understand what's going on here because the Grammar is not suitable for you then, Sorry. But if you do understand what's going on, and then make Grammar complaints, then you are a Grammar Troll (and Zombie).
But but but YOU are saying science does not have a clue implies YOU are not using science because YOU HAVE a clue
Sooo what method did YOU used which produced this clue for YOU
This clue which you seem to struggle with, so try explaining the method you used
If others use said method perhaps they will be able to explain the clue better than yourself. Personally I think YOU don't have any such clue
There you go again simply defining something as necessarily requiring consciousness.
Belief: confidence in a proposition as true. Watson is certainly confident, or it would have not provide the answer it does. It can even display how confident it is. It doesn't do it with emotion, like humans do, but with cold hard logic.
So, where is the need for consciousness in this notion of belief?
Yes they can, if belief is, say, examined under the definition I have exampled.
So you accept that computers can demonstrate confidence. That's a start. Now apply that to the definition of belief I have offered.
See, all you're doing is deliberately defining things to remove the possibility of anything unconscious being able to demonstrate it. What you need to do is define things without that a priori assumption built in, and then examine that definition so as to see who/what can demonstrate it. It may lead to obvious absurdities, or even contradictions, in which case the definition would need to be rejected or at least refined. Until then it's quite clear you're not here for discussion.
Steve Klinko
Registered Senior Member
I don't know what twisted logic you are using here. I wanted to understand how "I See". I studied everything I could over a period of 25 years, including Biochemistry, Brain Physiology, and Philosophy. At least Philosophy admits that there is no Explanation for Conscious Experience and this lack of Explanation is known as the Hard Problem of Conscious Experience. Science was equally as bad with providing any Explanations. They have a Physicalist/Materialist Doctrine which Mandates that Conscious Experience must be in the Neurons or that it Emerges from the Neural Activity. But they have no Clue as to how this happens. Science has gotten very good at Measuring Neural Activity and making Correlations with Personal Reports of Conscious Experience. But they are always just Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience and not the Conscious Experience itself. Here is what we know:But but but YOU are saying science does not have a clue implies YOU are not using science because YOU HAVE a clue
Sooo what method did YOU used which produced this clue for YOU
This clue which you seem to struggle with, so try explaining the method you used
If others use said method perhaps they will be able to explain the clue better than yourself. Personally I think YOU don't have any such clue
View attachment 4200
1) Neural Activity happens
2) A Conscious Experience Happens
The Hard Problem of Conscious Experience is: given that 1 happens, How does 2 happen?