4 ms·

It's an excellent presentation, and I'm grateful that you shared it and agree that people should watch it. But I still say that using the word "thinking" for no

by ebg13 6y ago

It's an excellent presentation, and I'm grateful that you shared it and agree that people should watch it. But I still say that using the word "thinking" for non-macro-scale biomechanical processes is charlatanism. We don't know how we get from molecules to thoughts, but saying "therefore thoughts" is a bridge too far. If you start doing that, the words we reserve for discussing the leap from mechanism to self lose their meaning because suddenly an automatic door is thinking, which is just...not...necessary.

outworlder 6y ago
> But I still say that using the word "thinking" for non-macro-scale biomechanical processes is charlatanism. This is some pretty strong language. We all use words to abstract concepts. It's not clear what "thinking" even means from a scientific standpoint. We can be pretty broad on the definition if this is a philosophical discussion. > suddenly an automatic door is thinking It is certainly performing an action in response to stimuli. And, given that more electronics are shifting to microcontrollers, a modern automatic door might as well have the machinery required to 'think', or at least, it will have a computer. There's no evidence that our brain is any different from an automatic door – or more specifically, from an enormous collection of automatic doors.
- yetihehe 6y ago
  > There's no evidence that our brain is any different from an automatic door – or more specifically, from an enormous collection of automatic doors. "specifically" is key here. People want to differentiate between one tree and whole forest. Maybe you don't, but there is a reason why those two words exist. The same is with one door and enormous collection of doors acting as a whole big brain. The same is with intelligence of automatic doors and of humans. They live on continuum like light and dark, but we still have words for light and dark.
perfmode 6y ago
historically, it is simply called consciousness in various traditions
carapace 6y ago
> It's an excellent presentation, and I'm grateful that you shared it and agree that people should watch it. Cheers! Thank you. > I still say that using the word "thinking" for non-macro-scale biomechanical processes is charlatanism. Fair enough. (FWIW, Galileo turned the charlatans' toys into telescopes.) > We don't know how we get from molecules to thoughts, but saying "therefore thoughts" is a bridge too far. If you start doing that, the words we reserve for discussing the leap from mechanism to self lose their meaning because suddenly an automatic door is thinking, which is just...not...necessary. Meaning no disrespect, this sounds like a philosophical rather than a scientific objection to me. Which is fine, but I want to ask, necessary for what? I actually don't know if I think cells are robots or tiny people. It seems to me that slime molds think, and already must have some kind of "self", but do they count as a person? Or the lowly trichoplax[1], a kind of tribe of cells, is it a person? Cybernetics has a result that says that any efficient self-regulating system must contain an image of itself to function. - - - - [1] > There are no neurons present, but in the absence of a nervous system the animal use short chains of amino acids known as peptides for cell communication, in a way that resembles how animals with neurons use neuropeptides for the same purpose. Individual cells contain and secrete a variety of small peptides, made up of between four and 20 amino acids, which are detected by neighbouring cells. Each peptide can be used individually to send a signal to other cells, but also sequentially or together in different combinations, creating a huge number a different types of signals. This allows for a relatively complex behavior such as crinkling, turning, flattening, and internal churning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax#Signal_processing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax#Signal_processing

by ebg13 6y ago

outworlder 6y ago

> But I still say that using the word "thinking" for non-macro-scale biomechanical processes is charlatanism. This is some pretty strong language. We all use words to abstract concepts. It's not clear what "thinking" even means from a scientific standpoint. We can be pretty broad on the definition if this is a philosophical discussion. > suddenly an automatic door is thinking It is certainly performing an action in response to stimuli. And, given that more electronics are shifting to microcontrollers, a modern automatic door might as well have the machinery required to 'think', or at least, it will have a computer. There's no evidence that our brain is any different from an automatic door – or more specifically, from an enormous collection of automatic doors.

yetihehe 6y ago
> There's no evidence that our brain is any different from an automatic door – or more specifically, from an enormous collection of automatic doors. "specifically" is key here. People want to differentiate between one tree and whole forest. Maybe you don't, but there is a reason why those two words exist. The same is with one door and enormous collection of doors acting as a whole big brain. The same is with intelligence of automatic doors and of humans. They live on continuum like light and dark, but we still have words for light and dark.

perfmode 6y ago

historically, it is simply called consciousness in various traditions

carapace 6y ago

> It's an excellent presentation, and I'm grateful that you shared it and agree that people should watch it. Cheers! Thank you. > I still say that using the word "thinking" for non-macro-scale biomechanical processes is charlatanism. Fair enough. (FWIW, Galileo turned the charlatans' toys into telescopes.) > We don't know how we get from molecules to thoughts, but saying "therefore thoughts" is a bridge too far. If you start doing that, the words we reserve for discussing the leap from mechanism to self lose their meaning because suddenly an automatic door is thinking, which is just...not...necessary. Meaning no disrespect, this sounds like a philosophical rather than a scientific objection to me. Which is fine, but I want to ask, necessary for what? I actually don't know if I think cells are robots or tiny people. It seems to me that slime molds think, and already must have some kind of "self", but do they count as a person? Or the lowly trichoplax[1], a kind of tribe of cells, is it a person? Cybernetics has a result that says that any efficient self-regulating system must contain an image of itself to function. - - - - [1] > There are no neurons present, but in the absence of a nervous system the animal use short chains of amino acids known as peptides for cell communication, in a way that resembles how animals with neurons use neuropeptides for the same purpose. Individual cells contain and secrete a variety of small peptides, made up of between four and 20 amino acids, which are detected by neighbouring cells. Each peptide can be used individually to send a signal to other cells, but also sequentially or together in different combinations, creating a huge number a different types of signals. This allows for a relatively complex behavior such as crinkling, turning, flattening, and internal churning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax#Signal_processing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax#Signal_processing