First of all, the so-called algorithms in BI are algorithms in imitation of the AI algorithms. They belong properly to human consciousness, which is a complex of millions of mainly brain-based neurons (their sub-neurons, sub-sub-neurons, etc.) and their activities which, together, very much connect and coordinate the consciousness within the body as “embodied” and the world. We do not discuss the brain science of the neurons and their sub-sub-… parts. To a great extent, the activities of the BI and the consciousness that embodies BI as a minute part of it are connected and coordinated within the brain-body nexus and to some extent by the world. This coordination takes place in such a manner that the ontological, connotative, and denotative universals can be conceived only by consciousnesses and not even by BI, let alone AI. If BI may be isolated from consciousnesses, their algorithms and functions may be comparable to those of AI, but BI never exists in isolation from the other brain-and-body functions.
It may be claimed that advanced AI as in some robots and ChatGPT is not a result of memory but generalization. [Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFS90-FX6pg] But here the claims of “generalization”, “sentiment neurons”, and “states of mind” are not enough. First of all, the neurons that AI specialists speak of are not living neurons. Secondly, it should be proved that the so-called procedures in neurons due to the results (‘state neurons’ and the unity of many of them called ‘state space’) of input memory (that is clearly learned as mechanically induced, not exactly learned in the manner in which consciousness learns) are themselves being termed generalization based on other imaginative names like sentiment neurons and states of mind, merely due to the generalizations involved in the very machine memory and the receptacles of such memory. Here, generalization is falsely being interpreted by claimants of fantastic AI as something done in consciousness by the intelligence alone.
The learning and recognition of patterns by decreasing entropy is also not a matter of generalization in the sense of what happens in animate objects. Even in children the manner of learning is not merely a result of an intelligence exercise; instead, many other brain functions are involved in this in consciousnesses. Thus, BI is not a prediction machine for AI to be termed so. AI algorithms and strictly BI (i.e., only intelligence, and not the other functions of the brain) algorithms never go beyond the quantitively processed, quantitively defined, and quantitatively interpretable properties of any of the data fed into its procedural memory. It becomes procedural memory and happen to be termed generalization merely because of the volume of state neurons involved in what is termed a state space (of course, it is not a “space”). When intelligence is isolated from all other functions of consciousness, the demerits of BI begin exactly from there and indicate regions far beyond.
For the above reasons, it is not acceptable to describe the demerits of BI in terms merely of the absence of willing, emotions, intentionality, intentions, love, social life, morality, etc. of persons. Unlike in the case of AI, BI has at least some direct organismically based connections to these and to the three theoretical functions of consciousness mentioned above: (1) to discover the foundational Categories and ontological universals behind the objects, phenomena, and data, (2) to find out the social or genetic causes of the abiding emotions, and (3) to imagine the possible non-answers or non-solutions for the problems. It is the mechanistic-scientistic thinking of the experts that delinks from BI these and other non-BI functions of consciousnesses.
Raphael Neelamkavil
“First of all, the so-called algorithms in BI are algorithms in imitation of the AI algorithms. They belong properly to human consciousness, which is a complex of millions of mainly brain-based neurons (their sub-neurons, sub-sub-neurons, etc.) and their activities which, together, very much connect and coordinate the consciousness within the body as “embodied” and the world.”
First of all, you have to show that consciousness is something that exists in objective reality.
Only after that will it be possible to mention it as background for further scientific discussion.
The same is related to any of the so-called mental functions, for example, “Intelligence.”
No one has proved that a set of algorithms determines our behavior in all its varieties.
Michael A. Zeldich
Thanks. If the various neurons and other activities in the brain-body nexus are really there, there is nothing wrong in calling their stream or togetherness as consciousness. Just as I call my body as the togetherness of many parts, the neurons and other parts of the brain together can form the consciousness, which cannot be differentiated from the brain in an absolute manner. The activity of circulation of blood in my body is part of my body, but I do not call it my body. Even so, a certain togetherness of parts and their activities in the brain-body nexus can be called consciousness.
Whether we accept it or not, we speak of our mind, our thoughts, our feelings, etc. If they do not exist, we will have to stop speaking of them....
I think it is possible for science to be broader than strict mechanism. As you know, today there exists the science of consciousness. However much we may speak against such a science, it will continue to exist. Please be sure that I am trying to confront. I am voicing my opinion, which happens to be in affirmative sentences, due to the difficulty in repeating in each statement that this is my opinion.
Raphael Neelamkavil
I am sorry, but what you and many call the "science of consciousness" is not science at all. Mind, consciousness, and all other mental functions do not exist. Feelings of the mind, for example, result from inner (silent] speech and cannot serve as evidence of a mind's existence.
All living organisms are controlled by themselves automatically and higher order of them have the ability to explain to themselves how it could happen, which does not provide an explanation about how it happens in reality but serves as a mechanism helping them to expand their subjective experience.
Your speculative reasoning will not help go beyond replacing objective reality with subjective one.
Where did I substitute objective reality with subjective experiences? Any writing of mine where you can show that?
Now, this science of consciousness is not mine. There are many scientists who do the science of consciousness in relation to psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, etc. You have to bring them to discussion on the conversion of the objective to the subjective. Have you heard of the objectual that makes the objective and intersubjective more rational than otherwise?
I do think positively about the possibility of the science of consciousness evolving into a full-fledged science -- as do many others. I think there is nothing wrong in attempting various methods in order to create such a science more and more acceptable. After all, what we call consciousness and mind is no supernatural stuff!
Raphael Neelamkavil
Where did I substitute objective reality with subjective experiences? Any writing of mine where you can show that?"
How many times have you mentioned consciousness, mind, intelligence, and so on? That is how many times you substitute objective reality with subjective one.
The subjective reality is only a kind of reality accessible to us, but by comparing expected results with experienced we could move closer to objective one.
The widespread belief in the reality of the existence of minds, consciousness, intelligence, and so on, cannot serve as a basis for recognizing these subjectively perceived phenomena as really existing in the objective reality.
Very clever and intelligent of you, if you have a consciousness / mind! If you do not have it, then I would withdraw my congratulation....
Let me frankly ask you: Do you think and feel? If no, then I am just feeling absolutely subjectively that you have the capacity to think and feel. Well. If you do think and feel, are thinking and feeling merely subjective or also objective?
Do we have to use merely subjectively formed thoughts and feelings (say, a mere imagination, a dream, etc.) as the activity of thought and feeling? If you think only with the ("objective") body and have no consciousness, well.
But I feel that I have thoughts, feelings, etc. and also merely subjective feelings, say, that you have thoughts and feelings. Now, can there be subjective thoughts or feelings other than the thought or feeling that you have thoughts and feelings? I think there can be: e.g., that the imagination that I could have about possessing wings and flying in the air.
Is there any subjectivity-objectivity difference between (1) my thought and your thought that you have thoughts, and (2) my thought that your thought that I have wings and am flying in the air now?
If thoughts and feelings are not merely in the brain, then could they be in the body-brain nexus? I would like to know also whether these thoughts and feelings (if it is permissible to say that they do happen) are one and the same thing as my body brain.
Further, do you think and feel that you have a body and within it a brain? If you do think and feel so, are these thoughts and feelings the same as your body-brain or just a subjective thought or feeling?
Please note: I am making ironic questions and statements here. I am asking my doubts in the light of what you said.
Raphael Neelamkavil
Raphael, I can save my temper because I am right. Your irony results from a misunderstanding, and you could correct that.
We do not have access to the objective reality by our feelings.
For that reason, we have to construct our subjective representations about it and correct them by bodily interactions with our surroundings.
The last remark: I do not take away anything from anybody. My intention is to provide a factual, non-contradictory point of view.
I do not make any irony. The questions are about our own minds, for this reason there appears the ironic sense.
But you did not reply whether you and I are conscious, have consciousness, etc.
“If perception is input from the world to the mind and action is output from the mind to the world, then the mind as distinct from the world is what the input is to and what the output is from. So, despite the web of causal relations between organisms and environments, we suppose the mind must be in a separate place, within some boundary that sets it apart from the world.” [Susan L. Hurley, Consciousness in Action, 1998: 2]
And can consciousness / mind be of the same status as information? I doubt.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples
Where could the “ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES OF CHARACTERISTICS OF ARTIFICIAL AND BIOLOGICAL INTELLIGENCE ALGORITHMS AND PROCEDURES” be found?
“First of all, the so-called algorithms in BI are algorithms in imitation of the AI algorithms.” If such algorithms exist, it is more natural to believe that AI algorithms are an imitation of BI algorithms. “They belong properly to human consciousness, which is a complex of millions of mainly brain-based neurons (their sub-neurons, sub-sub-neurons, etc.) and their activities, which, together, very much connect and coordinate the consciousness within the body as “embodied” and the world.” No natural phenomenon that could be called “human consciousness” exists! Ideas about human consciousness were introduced based on subjective feelings, which cannot serve as a basis for confirming the reality of this supposed phenomenon. “We do not discuss the brain science of the neurons and their sub-sub-… parts. To a great extent, the activities of the BI and the consciousness that embodies BI as a minute part of it are connected and coordinated within the brain-body nexus and to some extent by the world.” Because receptors are unable to derive information about processes leading to changes in their respective states, the brain is not connected to the world at all. “It may be claimed that advanced AI as in some robots and ChatGPT is not a result of memory but generalization. [Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFS90-FX6pg] But here the claims of “generalization”, “sentiment neurons”, and “states of mind” are not enough. First of all, the neurons that AI specialists speak of are not living neurons. Secondly, it should be proved that the so-called procedures in neurons due to the results (‘state neurons’ and the unity of many of them called ‘state space’) of input memory (that is clearly learned as mechanically induced, not exactly learned in the manner in which consciousness learns) are themselves being termed generalization based on other imaginative names like sentiment neurons and states of mind, merely due to the generalizations involved in the very machine memory and the receptacles of such memory. Here, generalization is falsely being interpreted by claimants of fantastic AI as something done in consciousness by the intelligence alone.”
The so-called intelligent behavior of living beings is the result of accessing their own subjective experience, which, to some extent, is the result of generalization.
Michael A. Zeldich
You: "Accessing their own subjective experience".
Raphael: Does subjective experience happen? In that case, the totality of events / processes (not merely the subjective experiences) in the embodied person must be something, because it is not nothing.
You. "Because receptors are unable to derive information about processes leading to changes in their respective states, the brain is not connected to the world at all."
Raphael: The brain is not in the body, the body is not on earth, the earth is not in the solar system, ....?
Raphael Neelamkavil
I operate by factual knowledge, not by opinions.
If you know how a plurality of receptors build their view of surroundings and transmit it to a brain for processing, please share that unique knowledge.
What you said is "Because receptors are unable to derive information about processes leading to changes in their respective states, the brain is not connected to the world at all."
This means that you opine that the receptors are unable to derive information. I think it is common knowledge that our receptors do receive SOME information. This is via energy transfer of some kind. And this can only be causal, and not non-causal.
Now, if this does not happen, then, as you said, our body too does not have any information about the brain. And then we do not have to speak of the brain at all.
Please note: I write only the core argument here, bluntly. For that reason, one may get the impression that I am attacking. I am not. The same also from you. I do not take it offensive when you write just the argument. This is acceptable.
Raphael Neelamkavil
Yes, receptors send to a CNS information about changes in their respective states, but information about processes leading to changes in their states is inaccessible to each of them. Changing energy levels accompany the process of receptors' state changes, but there is no information about events in the surroundings.
I was not offensive and did not like to be. My arguments were not personal. They are about facts overlooked by millennia.
I think if we analyse changes in states, we need to admit that a state is not a thing. A state is a name given by us for a few changes put together, where each part of a changing stuff itself has changes. Now, the brain, the CNS, the PNS, the body, etc. need not be mutually fully differentiated things. They have changes within themselves, too. Thus, if the brain may be called not as a state but instead as a conglomeration of some organic parts situated (in humans) in the head, and connected to the CNS, PNS, the body, etc., then would it not be possible to avoid the name 'state'?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DOES_CONSCIOUSNESS_EXIST_OR_IS_IT_LIKE_INFORMATION_A_Very_Short_Text_for_Discussion
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377358519_WHY_EXACTLY_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...
1. “First of all, the so-called algorithms in BI are algorithms in imitation of the AI algorithms.”
If such algorithms exist, it is more natural to believe that AI algorithms are an imitation of BI algorithms.
2. “They belong properly to human consciousness, which is a complex of millions of mainly brain-based neurons (their sub-neurons, sub-sub-neurons, etc.) and their activities, which, together, very much connect and coordinate the consciousness within the body as “embodied” and the world.” No natural phenomenon that could be called “human consciousness” exists! Ideas about human consciousness were introduced based on subjective feelings, which cannot serve as a basis for confirming the reality of this supposed phenomenon.
3. “We do not discuss the brain science of the neurons and their sub-sub-… parts. To a great extent, the activities of the BI and the consciousness that embodies BI as a minute part of it are connected and coordinated within the brain-body nexus and to some extent by the world.”
Because receptors are unable to derive information about processes leading to changes in their respective states, the brain does not receive information about events in the surroundings directly.
4. “It may be claimed that advanced AI as in some robots and ChatGPT is not a result of memory but generalization. [Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFS90-FX6pg] But here the claims of “generalization”, “sentiment neurons”, and “states of mind” are not enough. First of all, the neurons that AI specialists speak of are not living neurons. Secondly, it should be proved that the so-called procedures in neurons due to the results (‘state neurons’ and the unity of many of them called ‘state space’) of input memory (that is clearly learned as mechanically induced, not exactly learned in the manner in which consciousness learns) are themselves being termed generalization based on other imaginative names like sentiment neurons and states of mind, merely due to the generalizations involved in the very machine memory and the receptacles of such memory. Here, generalization is falsely being interpreted by claimants of fantastic AI as something done in consciousness by the intelligence alone.”
The so-called intelligent behavior of living beings is the result of accessing their own subjective experience, which, to some extent, is the result of generalization.
When we generalize, does something happen in the brain? If yes, generalization should be explained in terms of the organismically physical causality within the brain.
Raphael Neelamkavil
Could be. But I am not attempting to design a physical model of a brain.
Instead, I am interested in designing a functional analogy of a system (body).
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...
Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...
Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME
Sorry for the negative opinion, but it is logical.
Most statements, provided so far, are based on feelings, not on factual knowledge.
Intelligence, mind, and meaning cannot be produced by a brain, nor by a body as a whole, if there is no homunculus controlling our behavior.
Facts tell us that receptors cannot derive information about events leading to changes in their respective states.
That discovery overlooked by 70, or so, millennia, put psychology from its head back on its feet.
So, the body does not receive information about events in surroundings from outer, in relation to receptors, space.
Because of that, our body is reconstructing an area of the surroundings, which is of interest at present, and determines its own behavior based on a subjective representation of that reconstruction.
That is wrongly called “attention” to a part of a mental world model. Due to the information explosion limitations, the existence of such a “world model” is pure fantasy. That is the next discovery. I did not state that it is original for now.
So, no facts supporting the hypothesis about the existence of so-called mental functions are known. It is more logical to accept the fact that our behavior is determined automatically based on the inner properties of a body. Observable behavior leads the observer to a conclusion about it based on its own subjective experience and is perceived as belonging to a demonstrator.
Factually that is an illusion.
Observer is perceiving its own reconstruction of events.
Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)
Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...
Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY
Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...
Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Statistics
- Survey