• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

Consciousness as Cosmic Sex

The Grey Man

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday, 19:38
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
577
Location
Canada
I submit that if one reads between the lines, Kant's seminal work The Critique of Pure Reason is all about consciousness (perception) as a medium between sensation and thought.

By now, some of you are probably tired of hearing me talk about multiplicity and unity, but I must ask you to indulge my mania once more, and consider that Kant's extreme epistemic poles—nature and the unity of original apperception—are stand-ins for these very principles, the male and female principles, as it were. All objects of perception—rocks, plants, animals, men, machines, planets, suns, and galaxies alike—are actualized, inseminated with being, by subjective sensation, the Cartesian "I think." As Eckhart says, "all creatures are nothings."

Man is like Michelangelo's "prisoners," those captives of mere materiality who yearn for an Eden that is denied to them. He is Adam, at once a transcendental Platonic 'One' created in God's image and a 'Nous' dissipated in immanent multiplicity, in that tempting Eve that is the world. He is the hero of that matchless tragedy which we see unfolded, in one stroke, by the same artist on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Time is the way from sensuality to thought, from eros to logos, and vice versa. It is as Heraclitus said: "The way up and the way down are one in the same."

I've been trying to wrap my head around Kant's theoretical philosophy for a while now. As I've said before, he was not a good writer, and he sometimes contradicted himself, so it is not always easy to discern his meaning—indeed, it is often virtually impossible to do so without the aid of secondary literature on the topic—yet I am quite confident in this interpretation of his epistemological doctrine. What think you?
 

Animekitty

I am all of my perception (Sally 666)
Local time
Yesterday, 18:38
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,145
Location
subjective
Every code that is rewritten becomes mirrored.

Self is the strongest mirror but it is what you accept as yourself that the next mirror appears.

All is self. The reason multiplicity is the divergence of asymmetry.

Creationism. The hall of mirrors - A hall of records. (superiority falsity)

Mass doubles is the quantum foam each interaction. Nothing lost.

Nothing lost . partition happens.
entanglement is the greatest gate keeper.
Will be there when both hemispheres are gone.

Anima - Animus
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,299
All objects of perception—rocks, plants, animals, men, machines, planets, suns, and galaxies alike—are actualized, inseminated with being, by subjective sensation, the Cartesian "I think." As Eckhart says, "all creatures are nothings."
Subjective experiance isn't some magical ether that pervades all things, a security camera's footage is subjective only in that it is dependent on the subject's (the camera's) literal point of view. As such what the camera sees might not actually be the truth, someone might put a picture in front of it depicting an empty room when in fact the room is full of people.

The camera can't feel anything, even if it had temperature sensors enabling it to "feel" temperature it wouldn't feel anything emotionally unless it had a capacity for subjective bias. That subjective bias is a variable that affects the outcome of a decision making process, an artificially intelligent robot could have subjective experiance but only by virtue of having all the requisite mechanisms to perceive the world around it (even if that world is virtual) and make decisions based on those perceptions.

If the robot saw fire and reached out to touch it and its temperature sensors tell it the fire is hot and the robot is programmed to experience excessive heat as pain then the robot has the subjective experiance that fire is a bad thing that ought to be avoided.
 

The Grey Man

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday, 19:38
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
577
Location
Canada
Subjective experiance isn't some magical ether that pervades all things, a security camera's footage is subjective only in that it is dependent on the subject's (the camera's) literal point of view. As such what the camera sees might not actually be the truth, someone might put a picture in front of it depicting an empty room when in fact the room is full of people.
Gautama called experience illusion and Kant called it mere appearance. Who was right? The answer: both of them, because Nature does not tell lies, but we can and, in fact, very often do deceive ourselves by misinterpreting what she tells us.

If the camera sees an empty room, it does not follow that the room that it is (intellectually) believed to be representing is empty. As long as we distinguish between what appears to be the case and what is actually the case, experience need not be thought of as unreliable or suspect.

I consider this a minor problem that has only a subordinate relation to the eroticism of subject and object.
 

DoIMustHaveAnUsername?

Active Member
Local time
Today, 01:38
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
165
If the robot saw fire and reached out to touch it and its temperature sensors tell it the fire is hot and the robot is programmed to experience excessive heat as pain then the robot has the subjective experiance that fire is a bad thing that ought to be avoided.
You cannot program a robot to experience heat as 'pain'. You can program it to perform behaviors similar to what one would do in pain. You cannot even make it experience heat or the qualitative warmth of heat, you can only program it to record some quantitative information representing degree of heat, and make it act in response to it.
 

Polaris

Radioactive vision
Local time
Yesterday, 13:38
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,112
Humans are just advanced flesh robots, experiencing pain through a process called nociception. It is obviously a highly complex process involving neuroanatomical, neurochemical and cognitive faculties. Information about potential for, or severity of tissue damaged is relayed via these complex pathways to the brain, so the level of pain we are feeling are interpreted cognitively - in other words, pain is a subjective perception. Because nociception is a process that can be dissociated from the experience of pain, humans can experience pain without stimuli, or experience absence of pain even during severe trauma. There is an interesting TED talk by a neuroscientist that covers this concept as well as the general human experience of reality:


So a robot's experience of pain would be less complex than that of a human, and it would be an experience without emotion. Unless of course, and as Cog proposed, one could program a robot's brain to experience pain similarly to humans - but of course, this would require a computer more powerful than any computer currently available. And of course, there is the question of the unknown: what is the difference between something 'alive' and some object that has been given a super-computer consciousness? Could it be that the difference lies in DNA and "intrinsic" knowledge, such as in bird's inborn ability to navigate large distances around the world without any prior experience? That our sense of self, consciousness and integrity is in fact rooted in ancient coded molecular knowledge from the inception of early humans, and therefore life in general? Apologies for the thread diversion, but I think it is sort of crudely relevant in that consciousness 'bytes' could be linked across life/death boundaries through DNA.

Edit: did a search and found a neuroscience editorial that proposes a theory of DNA as possible carriers of consciousness:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/neurogenetics-and-human-consciousness-2329-6895.1000e109.php?aid=22382

By the same guy:

http://publicationslist.org/data/john.grandy/ref-2/IJAS 2011.pdf

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814719063_0060

He doesn't seem to have a lot of citations....although the journals are respectable enough, it seems. I guess this stuff may still be considered crackpot-material.
 
Top Bottom