Much of the next exchange consists of further elaboration of themes already mentioned. I will not, therefore, comment in detail about them. There are, however, a couple of important points introduced which should be mentioned.
Richard is at pains to point out that there is a bigger picture which we should not lose sight of, namely, the explanation for why any of us are here at all. Many modern philosophers argue that we don't, and can't, ever know and so that should be an end to it. Further speculation is pointless. Richard takes the view that we cannot make sense of the human predicament without this perspective.
My own response, at this juncture is to return, this time in detail, to the issue I raised originally concerning the difference between a computer thinking and a human being thinking.
Richard's post was made on 08 Jun 2008 at 05:32 pm:
Hi Peter, in continuity in response to your last post, I think that the reason humans have aims, but computers don't, is because they have reasons for having an aim to achieve a certain goal which relates to human life. Life seems to reflect an aim, a process and a result in everything we do, which is just part of how we live our lives, if we choose not to have an aim, then you get what you are given, if you choose not to do the process, then you live with the ambition and not the drive to complete it, and the result is just what comes afterwards from ambition and the work process.
Solipsism is the route of thought I always try to avoid, because I disagree with it, yet it exists as an argument for the meaning of life, but, Solipsists think that you only live your life, and when you die, the world you lived in ceases to exist, in effect making your life unmaterialistic. I do wonder what a Solipsist response would be to historical artefacts, which obviously involve other people's lives, I would imagine something along the lines of that it is made up, as irrelevant information in one's life that isn't really "real". In response to a question of yours, we relate to materiality all the time as sources of evidence in the court of law for example. Myself I believe experience is only half the story, the other half is the material world we relate to in order to experience.
I believe personally that Philosophical flair unlocks mysteries, rather like when people believed you would fall off of the face of the Earth if you sailed too far, yet the sailor (sorry cannot remember names) kept sailing to find the end of the Earth, even though people thought he was barking mad, and how Sir Isaac Newton revolutionally discovered gravity. Without this kind of thinking outside of the box, answers to mysteries will never come, and until the day a computer can do this without humankind, then it is only the human mind who can achieve the unlocking of the great mysteries in the present day.
Richard Debnam
My response to Richard's post was made on 09 Jun 2008 at 04:45 pm:
Hi Richard. Like you, I don't believe in solipsism and I hope no one will suggest otherwise. When I say that anything other than my own direct experience, my unique point of view, is inferred I don't mean to cast doubt that there really is something to be inferred. So we are in agreement about your second paragraph. Similarly, I think we have to accept that it is probably impossible to do away with either the material world or the world of experience and very difficult to argue that they are one and the same. Describing them is another matter!
With regard to your third paragraph, I can only applaud your enthusiasm and since you believe any ability a computer might have to do away with humankind remains in the future we can safely postpone any disagreement on that issue.
What really interests me, however, is your first paragraph. You seem to be maintaining that a computer can have aims of its own and it is that which I would like to examine with you. Before I say too much can I ask you if you are familiar with the analogy of the chinese room? If not I will go into greater detail but I don't want to teach Aunt Nelly to suck eggs.
Peter Rayner
Richard's response is included here in order to complete the exchanges up to the introduction of the analogy of the chinese room. His post was made on 14 Jun 2008 at 07:15 pm:
Hi again Peter, I'm glad we both agree to disagree with Solipsism, and yes I also think it is impossible to reject either the material world or the world of experience too.
I think a computer cannot have aims without human input to start the processing. I have some hazy idea in the future that a computer will be soon be powerful enough to do things such as be your personal planner, tidy your house, etc.. But, we're forgetting one thing in this idea, computers can only be made from the idea of a human, then the engineering piece it together to create a computer. Humans created computers for their advantage of speeding things up as well as being lazier. Without humans, computers are isolated pieces of machinery, and they won't know what to do if they did become isolated. However, I have just had an idea, we could be computers made by another lifeform too, who gradually built us more complicated to the point we could not be improved, then do as we wish, this makes this topic quite deep but also rather intruguing, and I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
In reference to your last paragraph, I can safely say I have heard about a chinese room thought experiment, that says if you teach a computer and a human to write chinese in a separate room to yourself, and are not told who wrote which piece of chinese writing, how would you be able to tell the difference between what the computer wrote and what the human wrote?... I hope it's the same one I'm thinking of anyway, I'll end my post here to save extra detail and see if we're thinking of the same thing, otherwise it will be obscured.
Richard Debnam
Tags: afterlife mysteries bigger picture computer thinking aims process solipsism real materiality meaning of life experience point of view analogy chinese room
Richard is at pains to point out that there is a bigger picture which we should not lose sight of, namely, the explanation for why any of us are here at all. Many modern philosophers argue that we don't, and can't, ever know and so that should be an end to it. Further speculation is pointless. Richard takes the view that we cannot make sense of the human predicament without this perspective.
My own response, at this juncture is to return, this time in detail, to the issue I raised originally concerning the difference between a computer thinking and a human being thinking.
Richard's post was made on 08 Jun 2008 at 05:32 pm:
Hi Peter, in continuity in response to your last post, I think that the reason humans have aims, but computers don't, is because they have reasons for having an aim to achieve a certain goal which relates to human life. Life seems to reflect an aim, a process and a result in everything we do, which is just part of how we live our lives, if we choose not to have an aim, then you get what you are given, if you choose not to do the process, then you live with the ambition and not the drive to complete it, and the result is just what comes afterwards from ambition and the work process.
Solipsism is the route of thought I always try to avoid, because I disagree with it, yet it exists as an argument for the meaning of life, but, Solipsists think that you only live your life, and when you die, the world you lived in ceases to exist, in effect making your life unmaterialistic. I do wonder what a Solipsist response would be to historical artefacts, which obviously involve other people's lives, I would imagine something along the lines of that it is made up, as irrelevant information in one's life that isn't really "real". In response to a question of yours, we relate to materiality all the time as sources of evidence in the court of law for example. Myself I believe experience is only half the story, the other half is the material world we relate to in order to experience.
I believe personally that Philosophical flair unlocks mysteries, rather like when people believed you would fall off of the face of the Earth if you sailed too far, yet the sailor (sorry cannot remember names) kept sailing to find the end of the Earth, even though people thought he was barking mad, and how Sir Isaac Newton revolutionally discovered gravity. Without this kind of thinking outside of the box, answers to mysteries will never come, and until the day a computer can do this without humankind, then it is only the human mind who can achieve the unlocking of the great mysteries in the present day.
Richard Debnam
My response to Richard's post was made on 09 Jun 2008 at 04:45 pm:
Hi Richard. Like you, I don't believe in solipsism and I hope no one will suggest otherwise. When I say that anything other than my own direct experience, my unique point of view, is inferred I don't mean to cast doubt that there really is something to be inferred. So we are in agreement about your second paragraph. Similarly, I think we have to accept that it is probably impossible to do away with either the material world or the world of experience and very difficult to argue that they are one and the same. Describing them is another matter!
With regard to your third paragraph, I can only applaud your enthusiasm and since you believe any ability a computer might have to do away with humankind remains in the future we can safely postpone any disagreement on that issue.
What really interests me, however, is your first paragraph. You seem to be maintaining that a computer can have aims of its own and it is that which I would like to examine with you. Before I say too much can I ask you if you are familiar with the analogy of the chinese room? If not I will go into greater detail but I don't want to teach Aunt Nelly to suck eggs.
Peter Rayner
Richard's response is included here in order to complete the exchanges up to the introduction of the analogy of the chinese room. His post was made on 14 Jun 2008 at 07:15 pm:
Hi again Peter, I'm glad we both agree to disagree with Solipsism, and yes I also think it is impossible to reject either the material world or the world of experience too.
I think a computer cannot have aims without human input to start the processing. I have some hazy idea in the future that a computer will be soon be powerful enough to do things such as be your personal planner, tidy your house, etc.. But, we're forgetting one thing in this idea, computers can only be made from the idea of a human, then the engineering piece it together to create a computer. Humans created computers for their advantage of speeding things up as well as being lazier. Without humans, computers are isolated pieces of machinery, and they won't know what to do if they did become isolated. However, I have just had an idea, we could be computers made by another lifeform too, who gradually built us more complicated to the point we could not be improved, then do as we wish, this makes this topic quite deep but also rather intruguing, and I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
In reference to your last paragraph, I can safely say I have heard about a chinese room thought experiment, that says if you teach a computer and a human to write chinese in a separate room to yourself, and are not told who wrote which piece of chinese writing, how would you be able to tell the difference between what the computer wrote and what the human wrote?... I hope it's the same one I'm thinking of anyway, I'll end my post here to save extra detail and see if we're thinking of the same thing, otherwise it will be obscured.
Richard Debnam
Tags: afterlife mysteries bigger picture computer thinking aims process solipsism real materiality meaning of life experience point of view analogy chinese room
No comments:
Post a Comment