|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 5, 2018 10:10:40 GMT -5
Colin Wilson, whose first book The Outsider is a kind of beginner's manual on consciousness, existentially, came to use the terms conditioned ego-autopilot and robot, interchangeably. The human expression is always conditioned, as there is no other way for intelligence to operate but on the basis of it's input from it's environment. There is no such thing as intelligence acting in the absence of that input. That input, collectively, is what you call conditioning, and the term only exists because somebody had the idea that intelligence could operate independently of it's environment. To what end? It's not the fact of conditioning that defines an autonomous being, but rather the intelligence that operates on that conditioning. Your post shows why the middle layer is necessary, it's the aspect of the human condition, not conditioned. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 5, 2018 10:12:22 GMT -5
sdp likes twice. I first read it in January 1974. I sat In my car in the parking lot of the bookstore and read the whole thing. I recognized myself as chapter 20, and still...do...You're nourished by the Great Mother? And have been for 44 years?  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2018 10:31:29 GMT -5
Yes, that CC is one I have had, so I can relate to that. If there is a slight problem with the CC, is that having had it, folks might then ascribe aliveness/intelligence/consciousness to the AI robot, in a sense, they see no difference at all between the human and the AI robot. The temptation is to then declare both AI robot and human to be both just 'appearances in consciousness' or 'expressions of intelligence', and although that's not wrong, we all know (and pretty much agree I think) that there is a significant difference between AI and sentient being. That would be a classic context mix, hehe. It's easy to start mixing contexts on this topic. There is no robot and there is no human in a CC context as there are no others. So in that context this robot/human discussion we are having right now has no basis. That's why I posted the Icke quote. He spells out the the contextual framework for this discussion in a very eloquent way, IMO. Yep I liked it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 5, 2018 13:07:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2018 21:43:24 GMT -5
Words like aliveness, life, consciousness, experience, are defined in the most 'common' context of the person, and so they result in staring when applied more broadly. Same thing that happens with Awareness, Consciousness, Love, Peace. I would say a flower has aliveness, consciousness and experiences, but a flower doesn't have a brain or the same senses as a person, so I would first have to redefine those terms a bit. Interesting article. One perennial focus of the article is on how plants don't do human things, but rather do remarkable plant things. Our thinking toward life is anthropocentric. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2018 21:55:07 GMT -5
What consciousness is, is what we have defined it to be for the purpose of differentiating between that which autonomously interacts with the world in complex ways, and that which doesn't. If we had been wrestling with the issue of AI when the word was taking hold in the English lexicon, it would mean something different than it does.
Hencely, consciousness isn't a particularly useful word in this context. It seems to me that the distinction is between autonomous intelligence, and intelligence that manipulates information in a way defined by an autonomous intelligence. IOW, true intelligence vs artificial intelligence. , we should have a talk with the fine men and women who run the Ministries about straightening out the language.  But until then, if I want to understand where peeps like Sophia's creators are coming from, play straw man for them in a talk like this, and perhaps even eventually be able to reach out to folks like them, I'll have to make certain allowances along the way. These people didn't just appear out of nowhere, there is a continuity of culture behind them, and it seems to me that the one that they're emerging from has just recently started to acknowledge the limits of objectivity in their approaches to conceiving of the nature of consciousness. I really don't expect people living the existential misconception to ever discover the fallacy behind functionalism in any collective, objective sense. Self-inquiry never plays out exactly the same way twice. That would be under the jurisdiction of the ministry of Truth. Problem is, any interference would result in a memo being sent to the ministry of Love, and nobody really wants that.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2018 22:44:57 GMT -5
The human expression is always conditioned, as there is no other way for intelligence to operate but on the basis of it's input from it's environment. There is no such thing as intelligence acting in the absence of that input. That input, collectively, is what you call conditioning, and the term only exists because somebody had the idea that intelligence could operate independently of it's environment. To what end? It's not the fact of conditioning that defines an autonomous being, but rather the intelligence that operates on that conditioning. Your post shows why the middle layer is necessary, it's the aspect of the human condition, not conditioned. If you didn't turn conditioning into a demon, you wouldn't need to invent a conditioning free layer to escape it's clutches. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 5, 2018 23:48:34 GMT -5
Yes, we should have a talk with the fine men and women who run the Ministries about straightening out the language. But until then, if I want to understand where peeps like Sophia's creators are coming from, play straw man for them in a talk like this, and perhaps even eventually be able to reach out to folks like them, I'll have to make certain allowances along the way. These people didn't just appear out of nowhere, there is a continuity of culture behind them, and it seems to me that the one that they're emerging from has just recently started to acknowledge the limits of objectivity in their approaches to conceiving of the nature of consciousness. I really don't expect people living the existential misconception to ever discover the fallacy behind functionalism in any collective, objective sense. Self-inquiry never plays out exactly the same way twice. That would be under the jurisdiction of the ministry of Truth. Problem is, any interference would result in a memo being sent to the ministry of Love, and nobody really wants that. Yes, certainly not the peeps at the ministry of Peace. I mean. Being as their job is to promote Peace and harmony and stuff.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 3:26:28 GMT -5
You're nourished by the Great Mother? And have been for 44 years? That Great Mother is your own body and not an infantalising ideal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 3:35:16 GMT -5
Your post shows why the middle layer is necessary, it's the aspect of the human condition, not conditioned. If you didn't turn conditioning into a demon, you wouldn't need to invent a conditioning free layer to escape it's clutches. Conditioning becomes demonic due to the want for conditioning to be angelic. Which qualifies it as parallelogramatic in nature. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 6, 2018 10:15:07 GMT -5
If you didn't turn conditioning into a demon, you wouldn't need to invent a conditioning free layer to escape it's clutches. Conditioning becomes demonic due to the want for conditioning to be angelic. Which qualifies it as parallelogramatic in nature. Conditioning is not "demonic" or angelic, it is mechanical. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 6, 2018 10:18:31 GMT -5
That Great Mother is your own body and not an infantalising ideal. The Great Mother is the Tao. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 6, 2018 11:01:40 GMT -5
Conditioning becomes demonic due to the want for conditioning to be angelic. Which qualifies it as parallelogramatic in nature. Conditioning is not "demonic" or angelic, it is mechanical. I know what you mean, but do you see....let's say....the fact that I like chicken casserole to be 'mechanical'? I see value in talking about conditioning as 'mechanical' in the context of talking about absence of free will, but by the same token, I also see desire and preference as a quality of 'true' intelligence (as opposed to 'artificial' intelligence), so in this sense, I wouldn't characterize my liking chicken casserole as 'mechanical'. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 6, 2018 11:12:18 GMT -5
Conditioning is not "demonic" or angelic, it is mechanical. I know what you mean, but do you see....let's say....the fact that I like chicken casserole to be 'mechanical'? I see value in talking about conditioning as 'mechanical' in the context of talking about absence of free will, but by the same token, I also see desire and preference as a quality of 'true' intelligence (as opposed to 'artificial' intelligence), so in this sense, I wouldn't characterize my liking chicken casserole as 'mechanical'. Yes, precisely. Example, when I was a kid I did not like either squash or okra. But I didn't know this was for different reasons. Later, I learned that the body very much liked squash, but the body still despises okra (especially boiled okra), in an I will throw-up way. IOW not liking squash was "psychological" (about conditioning), but not liking okra, is not "psychological". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 13:06:03 GMT -5
That Great Mother is your own body and not an infantalising ideal. The Great Mother is the Tao. I shall only go round once. That, Great Mother is your own body and not, an infantalising ideal. |
|
