Who are you? What makes you "you"?

[Wesrock]

I’ve no issues with what you said about the learning process. We agreed earlier in this topic that knowing is having information that is congruent to the object being known. My question, since you missed it, is how are sequences of electrochemical reactions congruent to the object being known?

And the coding in computers or the displays they generate don’t mean anything or qualify as information in itself except in reference to people (with minds) who use it. Apart from any minds there’s no information there.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I’ve no issues with what you said about the learning process. You said that knowing is having information that is congruent to the object being known. My question, since you missed it, is how are sequences of electrochemical reactions congruent to the object being known?

By acceptance. By applying them to the external reality. Let’s consider a simple example. According to our observations the sand and acid have no nutritional value. On the other hand, bread and water are nutritious. By attempting to take them, we shall verify that our electro-chemical processes correctly describe the reality.

Let’s take an example about learning, even though you already understand it. But an example might still be useful. (Personally, I am very visual.)

Suppose we (you and I) have no common language, but wish to learn to communicate. (You speak English, and I speak Hungarian. I do speak several languages, and Hungarian is one one of them. ) You pick up an “apple”, show it to me, and say: “apple”. I will see the object, hear the word you said, and associate the object with the word. I look at it, and in my language (let it be Hungarian - good, esoteric language) it is “alma”. Now the elecro-chemical neural “footprint” in your brain (when thinking about the apple) is very different from mine (when I think about the Hungarian equivalent “alma”). How do we know that we MEAN the same thing? By silent AGREEMENT. Usually we both repeat the words, to allow the proper modification of the neural network, to memorize the new words. And that is all. For the same object, we both store an electro-chemical “footprint” (for lack of a better word) and even though the neurons and their surroundings are very different, we AGREE that they point to the same object - and as such they are congruent.

Moreover, how do you KNOW that I understand you? By conducting a conversation (as long as necessary), and as long as I use the words according to the rules of grammar, and the conversation “makes sense” you you, you will accept that I understand you - even though you have no access to my neural network, and even you had, my neurons are totally different from yours. This is why the Turing test is so important, and that is why the “Chinese room” (Chinese room - Wikipedia) is so udderly irrelevant. (Yes, the pun was intentional or “indentional”? )

And the coding in computers or the displays they generate don’t mean anything or qualify as information in itself except in reference to people (with minds) who use it. Apart from any minds there’s no information there.

Of course. The information is not the same as the encoding. In every informational channel there needs to be a sender, a recipient and the encoded signals. If the sender and the receiver “understand” the signals equally, we have good communication. If they don’t, we have miscommunication.

 

[Gorgias]

Small children, who are not exposed to the peer-pressure type of behavior modification are uniformly cruel, jealous and prone to torture others and animals.

That doesn’t mean that they don’t have an inherent moral code, just that they cannot control their desires. You’re conflating “act” with “moral code”.

They all behave according to their “ingrained” moral system.

Again… where’s the proof?

You can “claim” whatever you want. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Do you have any for yours?

How do we know that we MEAN the same thing? By silent AGREEMENT .

Meh. I could say “foo” or “bar” or “baz”, and your understanding of ‘meaning’ wouldn’t change – on the other hand, only your understanding of labels would.

This is why the Turing test is so important, and that is why the “Chinese room”

Gorgias:

It seems that you studied the same kinds of things I did as an undergrad, with respect to the philosophy of the mind. Is the “Chinese box” experiment the next thing on the agenda to talk about?

No. Not really.

“No. Not really”? I saw that coming a mile away…

 

[Thinker_Doer]

You’re conflating “act” with “moral code”.

If you act contrary to your “moral code == nature”, then you are insane.

Again… where’s the proof?

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. And, of course the “duck principle”.

Meh. I could say “foo” or “bar” or “baz”, and your understanding of ‘meaning’ wouldn’t change – on the other hand, only your understanding of labels would.

It would be a different encoding system, and we would AGREE that they have the same meaning. Different languages assign the same meaning to the differently encoded propositions. Word, sentences do not have intrinsic meanings.

“No. Not really”? I saw that coming a mile away…

Must be wonderful to consider oneself to be a genius. Even if not a “very stable genius”.

 

[Gorgias]

If you act contrary to your “moral code == nature”, then you are insane.

Hardly. And, you yourself already stated the counter-example to this assertion: children don’t have the self-control to modulate their behavior. (Psychologists tell us that this doesn’t kick in until after adolescence.) So, although the moral code exists, the real ability to follow it develops.

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. And, of course the “duck principle”.

So… that’s pretty non-responsive.

Must be wonderful to consider oneself to be a genius.

It’s a burden.

But, nah… not a genius. Just able to see your moves, two or three moves ahead of time.

Even if not a “very stable genius”.

Thanks. You have a wonderful day, too.

 

[lelinator]

(Psychologists tell us that this doesn’t kick in until after adolescence.)

But this would seem to be problematic if one wants to assert that morality is intrinsic to all humans. Because by the time one reaches adolescence society must have played a major role in defining what constitutes moral behavior. Such that it would seem to be impossible to discern what’s nature and what’s nurture.

 

[PetraG]

From a science fiction standpoint, there is always hay to be made from the difference between “I think, therefore I am” and “I think, therefore I am what I think I am.”

The question is whether or not “I think, therefore I am” implies that the existence or non-existence (or inavailability) of your memories has a single thing to do with whether or not your identity changes from one day to the next. Maybe it only has to do with a certain minimal physical connection between the structures that were accepted as belonging to the entity that I or that other people would define as “me.” After all, what if some alien race did not account those we account as individuals as being individual any more than our foot is individual from our hand? What if their definition of “you” did not divide the human race into smaller units merely because different units could act with some small degree of autonomy?

After all, we Catholics do believe–do we not?–that Our Lord was right when He said, “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.” John 15:5-6

Is it offensive to think that someone who is severed from God is alive only in the sense that a rose in a vase is alive? Certainly an alien could consider a single human apart from others as non-viable and therefore a non-entity in the big picture of what is alive and what is not, what has a legitimate individual identity and what does not?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Hardly. And, you yourself already stated the counter-example to this assertion: children don’t have the self-control to modulate their behavior.

So they simply act out their raw, basic nature. That is what I said, too. And it takes a lot of effort and training, followed by teaching to change them from little, selfish brutes to well behaving children.

The environment counts for a lot. If the environment is a bunch of supremacists (of any pigmentation) they will be one of them, too. If the environment is a bunch believers (of any flavors), they will follow the example.

There is a nature vs. nurture debate. Of course we have our genes, and they play a great role in our behavior, and nature. But there is no “inborn” nature that would tell us to be monogamous. On the very contrary. Males have a biological urge to spread their genes as much as possible. Females have the biological urge to keep their partners to protect their young ones. No “generic” human nature in the propagation of the species.

So… that’s pretty non-responsive.

Only if you don’t understand it. So I will explain it below.

But, nah… not a genius. Just able to see your moves, two or three moves ahead of time.

Ah, so now you are a chess grand master. Except you did not foresee anything. The “Chinese room” is just an incorrect approach and means nothing. And it was NOT an argument, merely an illustration. The “Turing test” is the only way to verify (not prove!) that the conversation partners have mutual understanding. I have to remind you the question of different languages using different encryption systems to designate the same concepts and the same meanings. The different neural systems will have different patterns established for the same concept. How do we know that they “mean” the same thing? By observing what they say and the referents of their sentences. That is EXACTLY what the “proof of the pudding” describes in a succinct format. Far from being non-responsive, it cuts to the chase.

 

[Gorgias]

But this would seem to be problematic if one wants to assert that morality is intrinsic to all humans. … Such that it would seem to be impossible to discern what’s nature and what’s nurture.

I would assert that this makes the problem ‘complex’, not ‘problematic’ or ‘impossible to discern.’ Who ever said that understanding human intellect and behavior was easy?

Thinker_Doer:

So they simply act out their raw, basic nature.

Wow… that’s a really clever, subtle move to attempt to slam-dunk your claim without seeming to have done so! Kudos!

We’re making a distinction here between ‘faculty’ and ‘expression of faculty’, and you’ve just attempted to say – without argument or attribution – “there’s no faculty at all”. Congrats! That kind of sleight-of-hand might work in certain audiences, but… not here, brother! You can’t just shimmy from point A to point B without demonstrating why that’s reasonable!

Just to make sure you understand my objection: what you’re saying here is akin to saying “babies cannot ambulate at birth, and therefore, it is not within their nature to ambulate; rather, mobility is foreign to human nature, and is only inculturated.” I mean… subtle! But wrong.

Thinker_Doer:

Of course we have our genes, and they play a great role in our behavior, and nature.

We’re in a ‘philosophy’ forum, right?

Philosophical argument would tell us that ‘nature’ is distinct from ‘genes’ and even ‘extant behavior’.

Thinker_Doer:

Only if you don’t understand it. So I will explain it below.

Yawn.

Ah, so now you are a chess grand master.

LOL!

Nah… just a chess player who sees what you’re up to.

Thinker_Doer:

The “Turing test” is the only way to verify (not prove!) that the conversation partners have mutual understanding.

Ahh, but the Turing test may be fooled by the Chinese room. Worse yet, insertion of the Chinese room demonstrates that it’s possible that the interlocutors don’t necessarily understand one another, but that a third – non-interlocutor! – is necessary to provide the illusion of understanding!

“Incorrect approach”? And it “means nothing”?!? Time to hit the books again, my friend…

Thinker_Doer:

That is EXACTLY what the “proof of the pudding” describes in a succinct format. Far from being non-responsive, it cuts to the chase.

Yes, we all know what the proverb “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” means. However, your use of the proverb is faulty. Your claim was not that there was behavior (i.e., the ‘pudding’ in this case), but that the behavior was “according to the ‘ingrained’ moral system.” To extend the metaphor, you’re not talking about the taste of the pudding… you’re trying to tell us that we know who the cook is by witnessing that the pudding is on the table. And that, my friend, is untrue… and therefore, your response really was non-responsive. (Check… and mate? )

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Just to make sure you understand my objection: what you’re saying here is akin to saying “babies cannot ambulate at birth, and therefore, it is not within their nature to ambulate; rather, mobility is foreign to human nature, and is only inculturated.” I mean… subtle! But wrong.

Mobility is not the same as ambulation. Ambulation needs to be learned. The ability is not the same as the actuality. Aquinas 101. And to make your argument even worse, you confuse the physical ability with the “morality” of that ability.

If you wish to argue that “morality” is scribbled unto the human “heart”, present some actual argument for it, along with an epistemological method to substantiate your assertion. I am willing to accept your hypothesis, if you can present evidence for it. But an ex-cathedra declaration will not cut it - even if it comes from the Catechism. (After all, this is philosophy, not theology.)

Ahh, but the Turing test may be fooled by the Chinese room.

On the very contrary. The Turing test shows that the Chinese room presents an incorrect question. An analogous example: “Which one of the three legs holds up the tripod table?” Or where is the “beauty” in a poem? Or which water molecule floats the boat?

Worse yet, insertion of the Chinese room demonstrates that it’s possible that the interlocutors don’t necessarily understand one another, but that a third – non-interlocutor! – is necessary to provide the illusion of understanding!

Back to the ancient problem. What is the difference between the real McCoy and the simulation of it? If both parties act as if they understood each other - and this “seeming” understanding keeps going on, it is ridiculous to ask: “but MAYBE they don’t understand each other, they just SEEM to understand each other.” Can you present some epistemological method for your “MAYBE”?

Since you have a problem with the “pudding example”, I present the “duck principle”. If they seem to understand each other, then they do understand each other. If you wish to argue the opposite (namely they don’t REALLY understand each other, they merely SIMULATE the understanding), it is YOUR job to present argument for your assertion. What is the difference between “seeming understanding” and “real understanding”?

Going back to the example from a previous discussion: “reality is what we perceive as reality. There is no way to find out if we are just brains in a vat, or if we are simulations in the Matrix.”

Yes, we all know what the proverb “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” means.

Looks like you don’t. It only means that reality can be be discovered by our senses. Your attempt to “extend” the metaphor is rejected. Deal with it as it has been presented.

 

[Gorgias]

And to make your argument even worse, you confuse the physical ability with the “morality” of that ability.

Nah. It was an analogy, showing how you’re confusing the nature with the expression of that nature.

If you wish to argue that “morality” is scribbled unto the human “heart”, present some actual argument for it, along with an epistemological method to substantiate your assertion. I am willing to accept your hypothesis, if you can present evidence for it.

Nice try. I demonstrate that you don’t have any “actual argument”, let alone “epistemological method”, and show that an alternate explanation fits the conditions you provide, and what’s your answer? Not a substantiation of your own assertion, but a demand that I substantiate the counter-example! Predictable…

Since you have a problem with the “pudding example”, I present the “duck principle”.

At best, the “duck principle” is an estimation. “It seems to be a duck” doesn’t demonstrate anything other than your ability to squint and say that you perceive a duck.

What is the difference between “ seeming understanding” and “ real understanding”?

Only one is real. The other is a mere conjecture.

Looks like you don’t. It only means that reality can be be discovered by our senses.

Ahh… no. You might want to look it up. It means that substance, not appearance, is the key.

Deal with it as it has been presented.

I did. I showed you that your take on the aphorism was flawed.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Nah. It was an analogy, showing how you’re confusing the nature with the expression of that nature.

Without being able to express that “nature”, it is irrational to assume that there is such “nature”.

At best, the “duck principle” is an estimation. “It seems to be a duck” doesn’t demonstrate anything other than your ability to squint and say that you perceive a duck.

Again, what is the difference? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck… looking at every attribute and they cannot be differentiated from the attribute of a duck, then it is irrational to assume that it is not a duck. Only in axiomatic system can we have “proofs”, in inductive systems we can only have some amount of evidence. And the evidence which is beyond any reasonable doubt is the one which cannot be doubted by reasonable observers.

Only one is real. The other is a mere conjecture.

How can you tell which one is which? This is the question. What is the difference between “real” understanding and “simulated” understanding?

Ahh… no. You might want to look it up. It means that substance, not appearance, is the key.

What is that “substance”? And how does it differ from the appearances?

I will wait for your argument to show the difference between “real” and “simulation” and the method to decide which one is which. Go for it. I will wait.

 

[Gorgias]

Without being able to express that “nature”, it is irrational to assume that there is such “nature”.

Yet, we’re still working with the notion that the nature itself really does exist, right? And so, whether we have an “expression of the nature” (and by that, I mean “how that nature is expressed in the person”) or not, it’s not irrational to continue to assert that the nature exists.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck… looking at every attribute and they cannot be differentiated from the attribute of a duck, then it is irrational to assume that it is not a duck.

If you’re good with “I can only say that my perception is reality”, then you’re on solid ground. Otherwise, you’re falling into a trap…

How can you tell which one is which? This is the question. What is the difference between “real” understanding and “simulated” understanding?

That’s the question that philosophers of the mind have been wrestling with for millennia. Without success.

I will wait for your argument to show the difference between “real” and “simulation” and the method to decide which one is which. Go for it. I will wait.

We’ve been waiting on that from better minds than yours and mind for ages, friend. We both keep waiting.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Yet, we’re still working with the notion that the nature itself really does exist, right?

I don’t. The human “nature” is an undefined concept. Just like what is the difference between the original and the replica - if there is no way to decide it.

If you’re good with “I can only say that my perception is reality”, then you’re on solid ground. Otherwise, you’re falling into a trap…

As long as I follow my perceptions and my life continues, I am on solid ground. Another example of validity of the “duck principle”.

That’s the question that philosophers of the mind have been wrestling with for millennia. Without success.

We’ve been waiting on that from better minds than yours and mind for ages, friend. We both keep waiting.

Well, the solution is simple. If there is no way (even in principle!) to tell apart the “real” from the “simulation”, then the question is irrelevant. Meaningless questions are just that. Meaningless. And if people still contemplate them it is their problem. It would be better to chase them out onto the fields so they could perform some useful, productive work. So they could earn their living.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t. The human “nature” is an undefined concept.

Hmm… it sure seems like it’s defined. The devil in the details, of course, is in the specification, not the definition, though.

As long as I follow my perceptions and my life continues, I am on solid ground.

Until you have an experience that demonstrates that your experiences aren’t absolute and canonical, that is…

If there is no way (even in principle!) to tell apart the “real” from the “simulation”, then the question is irrelevant.

No… “unresolved”, not “irrelevant”. (Hopefully, not “intractable”. But, unless you’ve got a “P=NP” proof at hand, to show that it is intractable, then the best you can claim is “unsolved”. (And, of course, we know the state of the “P=NP?” question… )

And if people still contemplate them it is their problem. It would be better to chase them out onto the fields so they could perform some useful, productive work. So they could earn their living.

I think I might start calling you “Karl Marx” rather than “Thinker_Doer”…

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Hmm… it sure seems like it’s defined. The devil in the details, of course, is in the specification , not the definition, though.

A definition, which lacks the details to apply to a specific question, is again… useless. Exactly like “substance”. A typical “philosophical” approach. You could declare a brand new category, like “bwingos”. When someone asks if an object called “noibous” belongs to this category or not, and you answer, well, it is “unresolved”… then you did not give us even one bit of new information.

Until you have an experience that demonstrates that your experiences aren’t absolute and canonical, that is…

As long as my experience helps me to survive, it works as intended. If it fails me, I must modify my theory.

No… “unresolved”, not “irrelevant”.

If a question cannot be resolved - even in principle - it is a meaningless question. Maybe there are some philosophers who contemplate which “side” of a Moebius strip is “up”, but I would not consider them better minds than you or I… well, I am not sure about… ahem… remember: “All the world is crazy except thee and me, and sometimes I am not sure about thee.”

I think I might start calling you “Karl Marx” rather than “Thinker_Doer”…

No problem. Actually Marx was a pretty good economist, but a lousy philosopher.

For a short time I thought that we are in synch. That the question of “real” vs. “simulated” is a worthless distinction - because it cannot be resolved. I guess, I was mistaken.

 

[Gorgias]

You could declare a brand new category, like “bwingos”. When someone asks if an object called “noibous” belongs to this category or not, and you answer, well, it is “unresolved”… then you did not give us even one bit of new information.

The problem is that ‘nature’ isn’t a “brand new category”. I recommend that you read up on it in a good anthology of philosophy.

As long as my experience helps me to survive, it works as intended. If it fails me, I must modify my theory.

Fair enough. So, we’re agreed, then, that your ‘method’ is merely heuristic at best.

If a question cannot be resolved - even in principle - it is a meaningless question.

Umm… there are plenty of theoretical physicists and mathematicians
who would disagree with you.

That the question of “real” vs. “simulated” is a worthless distinction - because it cannot be resolved.

I’m not ready to assent to that claim. (Nor, at the moment, to delve into it.)

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

You said that knowing is having information that is congruent to the object being known. My question, since you missed it, is how are sequences of electrochemical reactions congruent to the object being known?

By acceptance. By applying them to the external reality. Let’s consider a simple example. According to our observations the sand and acid have no nutritional value. On the other hand, bread and water are nutritious. By attempting to take them, we shall verify that our electro-chemical processes correctly describe the reality.

Let’s take an example about learning, even though you already understand it. But an example might still be useful. (Personally, I am very visual.)

Suppose we (you and I) have no common language, but wish to learn to communicate. (You speak English, and I speak Hungarian. I do speak several languages, and Hungarian is one one of them. ) You pick up an “apple”, show it to me, and say: “apple”. I will see the object, hear the word you said, and associate the object with the word. I look at it, and in my language (let it be Hungarian - good, esoteric language) it is “alma”. Now the elecro-chemical neural “footprint” in your brain (when thinking about the apple) is very different from mine (when I think about the Hungarian equivalent “alma”). How do we know that we MEAN the same thing? By silent AGREEMENT. Usually we both repeat the words, to allow the proper modification of the neural network, to memorize the new words. And that is all. For the same object, we both store an electro-chemical “footprint” (for lack of a better word) and even though the neurons and their surroundings are very different, we AGREE that they point to the same object - and as such they are congruent.

Moreover, how do you KNOW that I understand you? By conducting a conversation (as long as necessary), and as long as I use the words according to the rules of grammar, and the conversation “makes sense” you you, you will accept that I understand you - even though you have no access to my neural network, and even you had, my neurons are totally different from yours. This is why the Turing test is so important, and that is why the “Chinese room” (Chinese room - Wikipedia) is so udderly irrelevant. (Yes, the pun was intentional or “indentional”? )

I think a philosophical idealist would try to rip you a new one, but I’m not an idealist so I’ll let that part slide for now.

But you’re still not answering the question. You’re pointing out that we do do these things, and I agree. That’s not the issue. Yes we do these things and the material in our brains is in no way congruent with an external reality. There’s the rub. There’s a gap. Yes, our neuropatterns are obviously casually related, but they are not in themselves congruent to any external reality. The external reality is in no way present in your brain, nor is there any resemblance or model of it in your brain. You have not reached knowing, only a causal relationship and correlation.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

And the coding in computers or the displays they generate don’t mean anything or qualify as information in itself except in reference to people (with minds) who use it. Apart from any minds there’s no information there.

Of course. The information is not the same as the encoding. In every informational channel there needs to be a sender, a recipient and the encoded signals. If the sender and the receiver “understand” the signals equally, we have good communication. If they don’t, we have miscommunication.

The neural patterns in the brain don’t have any meanining in themselves as matter qua matter. They are just reactions. The point is that the signals in a materialist view are never interpreted.

That we can speak to different languages and reach agreement is in fact actually evidence of the realism of universals (or at minimum Idealism) , by the way, as you’re right that nothing in the actual matter itself between the two brains are congruent with each other.

 

[Wesrock]

Please let me know if I missed a post relevant to our discussion. The other new posts seem to be an unrelated conversation with Gorgias.

Edit: I will work on a brief explanation of the Thomist resolution and post it at a later time, which may help clarify for you what I’m saying the problem is. I’m not an Idealist, but I’ll comment on both their agreement and disagreement with Thomists.