[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/g/ - Technology

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

File: ai_0[1].jpg (154 KB, 1500x1000)
154 KB
154 KB JPG
Matter can only produce emergent properties. Emergent properties don't exist; that is, they only exist as ideas. There is no such thing as mind-independent, objective emergent properties, in the same way there is no such thing as mind-independent, objective information. Only the mind gives these things meaning. The mind exists; this is self-evident. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property. Thus the mind can't be produced by matter. Thus the mind is immaterial. Computers can't produce immaterial things. Thus computers can't produce minds.

It can be deduced, not just induced, that matter cannot produce consciousness, because there is no such objective thing as "emergent properties." An electron, or any number of electrons, passing between any number of points, in any permutation, through any combination or permutation of mediums, cannot produce consciousness, because of the simple fact that matter is never objectively more than its parts.

The mind necessarily precedes quantification. Without it, no computation even has any meaning.

A fine argument, but I think you missed one consideration: What if consciousness is, has always been, and will always be present, but what humans experience as consciousness only occurs when it gains something to focus on?
I would argue that the "Mind" as you call it is nothing more than consciousness, which doesn't have any computing power, but instead merely allows a person to look at the "logs" of the brain, which does have a great deal of computing power, and to experience reality through them.
Humans are born as a result of matter interacting with other matter, so at some point during the formation of the brain, either consciousness(a non-physical entity) was created during the(purely physical) process of human development as a result of the interaction of matter, which we both likely find implausible, or it gained something to focus on, some "logs" to read at some point during the process.
If the brain can somehow bind to a consciousness or create one, why can't a computer that works on different principles? Would you say that a fully accurate, particle-level simulation of the brain is conscious? Or are you claiming that there something unique to organic matter that allows it to be called a mind rather than a computer?
babby's first philosophy
You're assuming that emergent properties don't exist just because they are external to the mind. You are right that one cannot find existence of them through reduction to material particles. But you're making the same mistake many gaytheists make, in assuming locality.

If you make the jump to non-locality, and realize that the emergent properties are encoded in the configuration of the material particles and not the particles themselves, and that this encoding is in fact substrate independent and can be transferred from one medium to another, or transformed from one configuration to another, as information in the abstract, than you are now on the right track.

Now consider the following postulate: Information is the neutral monism from which everything emerges, including matter. It's matter that emerges from information, not vice versa.
That is an interesting contention, but I would hold that "consciousness" is and only is that "focusing" - not that the universe is somehow vaguely or potentially conscious. I also don't thing the mind is necessarily a consequence of matter, which I also hold not to be in any way nonsensical.
I don't think I'm assumming what you seem to mean by "locality." I understand that emergent properties arise from configurations of matter, but I hold that those emergent properties don't exist without meaning, as their meaning is fundamentally necessary to their definition. Information, or "properties," are nothing without definition and there is no definition without precedence of the mind.
File: 1487636881507.jpg (272 KB, 1200x675)
272 KB
272 KB JPG
OP is a faggot, can't even bump his own thread.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.