# Did an Architect create Existence?



## rapidfox1

According to intelligent design, a creator, not the Christian Judeo God of the Old and New Testaments, but an architect, was the creator of the existence, the universe, the world.

I'm agnostic so this might be true or it might now be true.









If it's not real.


----------



## Dysthymia

Depends how you look at things really.

My perspective is as follow:

1. Everything is either energy or mass
2. Energy and mass are equivalent
3. Mass is all made of the same stuff at its base.
4. We are conscious and we are mass and energy.

so logically (at least to me) all mass and energy should be sentient at the least.

So i dont think an architect made the universe, i think the universe guided itself


----------



## Gurosan

are u high from ur legal perscription drugs mate?

but to answe ur question, it just is what it is. man is not meant to have all universe as wiki article in his head. learn what u can and use fantasy when learning gets boring^^


----------



## Dysthymia

Gurosan said:


> are u high from ur legal perscription drugs mate?
> 
> but to answe ur question, it just is what it is. man is not meant to have all universe as wiki article in his head. learn what u can and use fantasy when learning gets boring^^


you mean me? na im sober. Took me a long time to come to that conclusion, too much philosophy IMO.

I'd love to know why you think im wrong =D


----------



## Gurosan

Dysthymia said:


> I'd love to know why you think im wrong =D


i think i didn't sait you were wrong, i just stated my opinion.
we all have something to say and we do, thing is not to start flame wars. just agree with stuff you are on same page and agree to disagree when different opinion from your own arises. make a discussion out of it not to prove who got better opinion but toy with them around and see what you can come up with, it is way how to get to know person better and have fun at the same time^^

as for universe, it might be all ne huge intelligence that is self aware and is also materialized. or it can be random chaos that makes sense when looking at bigger pictures and each picture makes sense of it's contens. or indeed we are an alien experiment or we are fools in god's kingdom and he is a clown himself


----------



## Dysthymia

Gurosan said:


> i think i didn't sait you were wrong, i just stated my opinion.
> we all have something to say and we do, thing is not to start flame wars. just agree with stuff you are on same page and agree to disagree when different opinion from your own arises. make a discussion out of it not to prove who got better opinion but toy with them around and see what you can come up with, it is way how to get to know person better and have fun at the same time^^
> 
> as for universe, it might be all ne huge intelligence that is self aware and is also materialized. or it can be random chaos that makes sense when looking at bigger pictures and each picture makes sense of it's contens. or indeed we are an alien experiment or we are fools in god's kingdom and he is a clown himself


oh im not about to go full flame mode =D i love talking about this kind of thing. i find the whole order from chaos thing quite an interesting idea, just can't get my head around it yet


----------



## Gurosan

Dysthymia said:


> oh im not about to go full flame mode =D i love talking about this kind of thing. i find the whole order from chaos thing quite an interesting idea, just can't get my head around it yet


i come look if i got any replies daily, if you feel like changing messages with this sort of centent feel free to hit me, im also into these kinds of convos 

i reply 1-2 per day to any1 daring enough to discuss wonders of universal existence and other nonsense


----------



## ugh1979

Good answers here.


----------



## ugh1979

Dysthymia said:


> Depends how you look at things really.
> 
> My perspective is as follow:
> 
> 1. Everything is either energy or mass
> 2. Energy and mass are equivalent
> 3. Mass is all made of the same stuff at its base.
> 4. We are conscious and we are mass and energy.
> 
> so logically (at least to me) all mass and energy should be sentient at the least.


Mass is condensed energy, so _everything _is some form of energy, including consciousness.

Therefore, your points 1-4 are correct but could be condensed in to one. 

However, I don't see how you can then come to the conclusion that _all _mass and energy should then be sentient.

That would require _everything _to be conscious, including matter, heat, sound etc.

IMO it makes far more logical sense to say that the fundamental energy of the universe gives rise to things like matter and consciousness (in the likes of humans), along with many other energy forms. (magnetic, electrical, light etc)

Also, the fact sentience involves significant complexity indicates it's not the most fundamental form of energy.


----------



## mfd

One of my biggest criticisms of intelligent design is that if it were true, why have species gone extinct?

If there was an intelligence behind designing nature, than shouldn't nature have remained the same forever? And if the argument is made that nature was designed to evolve, than why not just design it in the final state to begin with?

My parents are staunch creationists. They employ the argument that everything works together too well to be an accident. They refuse to consider how the survival of the fittest naturally leads to some sort of balance emerging.


----------



## Tensor

Dysthymia said:


> 1. Everything is either energy or mass
> ...
> 4. We are conscious and we are mass and energy.
> 
> so logically (at least to me) all mass and energy should be sentient at the least.


Bananas are fruit
Bananas are yellow
Therefore, all fruit is yellow


----------



## Azazello

Tensor said:


> Bananas are fruit
> Bananas are yellow
> Therefore, all fruit is yellow


... and designed to fit perfectly in a human hand (thus spaketh Ray 'Bananaman' Comfort)


----------



## PickleNose

Of course not (IMHO)

But an interesting thought. If it was an architect, it was an evil genius that would make a comic book villain look like a bumbling fool.


----------



## Brad

No


----------



## GetOutOfMyHouse

...


----------



## Xenos

Obviously not; there weren't any degrees or licensing programs in architecture back then.


----------



## SpyNumber403

Xenos said:


> Obviously not; there weren't any degrees or licensing programs in architecture back then.


Ah how words can break down conversation :b


----------



## AngelClare

Well I don't believe that matter can exist apart from conscious beings. I'm an idealist. In other words, consciousness is all there is.

How does unconscious matter become conscious beings? It's logically impossible.


----------



## max87

AngelClare said:


> Well I don't believe that matter can exist apart from conscious beings. I'm an idealist. In other words, consciousness is all there is.
> 
> How does unconscious matter become conscious beings? It's logically impossible.


That's a very interesting take...


----------



## max87

I voted "I don't know" and before anyone here flames me for it, let me explain: no believer or atheist can honestly say they are a 100% sure on their beliefes. They would be intellectually dishonest. The idea of order emerging from chaos has left me with more questions than answers BUT... there are so many imperfections, so many things that aren't suppose to happen (like someone mentioned: the extintion of certain species) reveals that - if an architect created everything - he was a rather bad architect.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> Well I don't believe that matter can exist apart from conscious beings. I'm an idealist.


*idealist*​_1. Someone whose conduct stems from idealism rather than from practicality.
2. An unrealistic or impractical visionary.​_
That sounds about right.



> In other words, consciousness is all there is.
> 
> How does unconscious matter become conscious beings? It's logically impossible.


Can you explain why? Or is it just your idealistic mentality talking so you can't, and it's just a case of that you want it to be?


----------



## AngelClare

ugh1979 said:


> *idealist*​_1. Someone whose conduct stems from idealism rather than from practicality.
> 2. An unrealistic or impractical visionary.​_
> That sounds about right.
> 
> Can you explain why? Or is it just your idealistic mentality talking so you can't, and it's just a case of that you want it to be?


An idealist in the philosophical sense is someone who believes thoughts are the only reality.

I think a lot of people take it for granted that it makes sense that unconscious matter can become conscious. Matter can explain behavior but it can't explain the qualia of consciousness.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> An idealist in the philosophical sense is someone who believes thoughts are the only reality.


So everything is conscious, from light, to gas, to rocks?



> I think a lot of people take it for granted that it makes sense that unconscious matter can become conscious. Matter can explain behavior but it can't explain the qualia of consciousness.


Not yet anyway. That's the age old hard problem of consciousness. I don't see any reason why that means you have to completely reject the material though.

It seems far more logical to me that we just don't yet know enough about the mind to understand how consciousness exists, rather than saying nothing but consciousness exists.


----------



## AngelClare

ugh1979 said:


> So everything is conscious, from light, to gas, to rocks?


No. I'm simply saying that the idea that you can combine matter in such a way as to produce a conscious entity is a vague and confused idea. People just accept this idea without thinking about too much. It's really just magical thinking.

I recommend you look up Searle's Chinese room thought experiment. It really shows you why behavior and consciousness are totally different things.



ugh1979 said:


> It seems far more logical to me that we just don't yet know enough about the mind to understand how consciousness exists, rather than saying nothing but consciousness exists.


The problem is we can never UNDERSTAND how consciousness exists. Simply put science only works on observable things. Science can take an observed behavior and "explain" it by reducing it to simpler explantory entities. But science can't explain anything that can't be observed.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> No.


No? So everything isn't fundamentally conscious like you said? (Re your quotes, "I don't believe that matter can exist apart from conscious" and "thoughts are the only reality")

Are you sure you aren't a dualist rather than an idealist? Maybe you are confused?



> I'm simply saying that the idea that you can combine matter in such a way as to produce a conscious entity is a vague and confused idea. People just accept this idea without thinking about too much. It's really just magical thinking.
> 
> I recommend you look up Searle's Chinese room thought experiment. It really shows you why behavior and consciousness are totally different things.


I can assure you i've thought and read about it at length, and am still open to the idea that consciousness is emergent rather than fundamental. I suggest you look up the responses to it.

In fact I find the idea that consciousness is fundamental to be "magical thinking".

To me it makes far more sense that the complex (such as consciousness) emerges from the simple rather than the other way around.



> The problem is we can never UNDERSTAND how consciousness exists. Simply put science only works on observable things. Science can take an observed behavior and "explain" it by reducing it to simpler explantory entities.


How about if we create an exact replica of the human brain which is as apparently conscious as your or I? If we did, (and we are working on it), then we'd also gain immense insight in to how it emerges.

Consciousness emerges in human foetuses, so why not in advanced enough artificial human foetuses?

Yes the idea of how is still vague, but it's very very early days in the study of it, and I just don't think anyone can rule out not _ever _knowing how consciousness exists.



> But science can't explain anything that can't be observed.


We do observe consciousness. I'm observing your responses here as being an apparent example of consciousness.

Then again, maybe you're a Chinese Room.


----------



## arnie




----------



## AngelClare

ugh1979 said:


> Are you sure you aren't a dualist rather than an idealist? Maybe you are confused?


And idealist doesn't believe rocks are conscious. An idealist believes that rocks are ideas.

Materialist: (rock made of matter) ---->(eyes)--->(brain)-->(image of rock in mind)
Idealist: (image of rock in mind)

The idealist feels that matter is an unnecessary explanatory entity. You can use Occam's razor to eliminate matter.



ugh1979 said:


> To me it makes far more sense that the complex (such as consciousness) emerges from the simple rather than the other way around.


Isn't that circular thinking? A building can be complex. Behavior can be complex. Consciousness just is. It's hard (I say impossible) to understand but that doesn't make it "complex."



ugh1979 said:


> How about if we create an exact replica of the human brain which is as apparently conscious as your or I? If we did, (and we are working on it), then we'd also gain immense insight in to how it emerges.


If we study the brain we can get insight into how a seizure emerges. We can observe a seizure in the brain. Thus we can observe how the brain went from a state before seizure to seizure. The problem with consciousness is that you can't observe it. If you can't observe something then you can't explain it.



ugh1979 said:


> We do observe consciousness. I'm observing your responses here as being an apparent example of consciousness.
> 
> Then again, maybe you're a Chinese Room.


You have no way of knowing I'm conscious. Haven't you ever had a dream? Are the characters in your dream conscious? Just because the characters in your dream talk and behave like conscious beings doesn't mean they really are.

And that's true, I could be in a Chinese room.

I used to think as you do but I assure you the more you look into the question, "What is matter?" The more you'll find that it's really a confused idea. The idea of matter makes no sense at all.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> And idealist doesn't believe rocks are conscious. An idealist believes that rocks are ideas.
> 
> Materialist: (rock made of matter) ---->(eyes)--->(brain)-->(image of rock in mind)
> Idealist: (image of rock in mind)


So where does the image of the rock come from in your opinion?



> The idealist feels that matter is an unnecessary explanatory entity. You can use Occam's razor to eliminate matter.


I'd say you can use Occam's razor to eliminate consciousness being fundamental.



> Isn't that circular thinking? A building can be complex. Behavior can be complex.


I don't see how. I can start with the simplest most basic value (1) and go on to X amount of more complicated values by combining it with others of it's kind. A building is a good example. No building existed before the first atom that it comprises of did. The building is an immensely complicated arrangement of multiple basic atoms.



> Consciousness just is. It's hard (I say impossible) to understand but that doesn't make it "complex."


What is consciousness? If your reply is anything more than an 1 or 0 then it's more complex that what I'm proposing. (Don't take the 1 or 0 too literally, think existence or no existence, or on and off)



> If we study the brain we can get insight into how a seizure emerges. We can observe a seizure in the brain. Thus we can observe how the brain went from a state before seizure to seizure. The problem with consciousness is that you can't observe it. If you can't observe something then you can't explain it.


Can you clarify your definition of observe?

*observe *
Verb
1. Notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
2. Watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively.​
I don't see how we can't notice or perceive consciousness. If you can't notice or perceive consciousness then how are you talking about it?



> You have no way of knowing I'm conscious. Haven't you ever had a dream? Are the characters in your dream conscious? Just because the characters in your dream talk and behave like conscious beings doesn't mean they really are.
> 
> And that's true, I could be in a Chinese room.


Of course I don't think they are, just as when I play a computer game with AI characters I don't think they are conscious. However I do know that that my mind can generate virtual worlds and people just like a computer game can, so I'm not sure what your point is.



> I used to think as you do but I assure you the more you look into the question, "What is matter?" The more you'll find that it's really a confused idea. The idea of matter makes no sense at all.


I can say exactly the same thing to you in reverse. However, until we gain further insight in to the mind-body problem this can be a relatively futile debate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to my questions though as it's still a very interesting subject and I enjoy my beliefs being challenged.


----------



## AngelClare

ugh1979 said:


> I don't see how we can't notice or perceive consciousness. If you can't notice or perceive consciousness then how are you talking about it?


This is really a big topic. I'll just focus on one issue within this greater topic at a time.

We have first hand experience of our own consciousness. I think therefore I am. But I have no way of knowing that you are conscious. I merely infer that because you behave like me you must be conscious too.

The characters in your dreams behave like conscious beings but they are merely figments of your imagination.

Again the Chinese Room problem explains this problem better than I can:



> The *Chinese room* is a thought experiment presented by John Searle.[1] It supposes that there is a program that gives a computer the ability to carry on an intelligent conversation in written Chinese. If the program is given to someone who speaks only English to execute the instructions of the program by hand, then in theory, the English speaker would also be able to carry on a conversation in written Chinese. However, the English speaker would not be able to understand the conversation. Similarly, Searle concludes, a computer executing the program would not understand the conversation either.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

In the Chinese room the person carries on a conversation in Chinese (behaves like a conscious being) but he doesn't understand the conversation (is not conscious of the conversation).


----------



## Azazello

AngelClare said:


> ... the Chinese Room problem explains this problem better than I can:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
> 
> In the Chinese room the person carries on a conversation in Chinese (behaves like a conscious being) but he doesn't understand the conversation (is not conscious of the conversation).


Ironic you should bring up John Searle, considering 'his' thought experiment was adapted from an idea of Ned Block, a philosopher and a strong supporter of the very thing that you and John Searle are trying so hard to reject. So who is right, John Searle or Ned Block?

The reason why this thought experiment might baffle you is because you are working under a compulsion of having to anthropomorphise physical events. If you remove this particular bias by simply sticking to physical events rather than some vague notions of what might or might not constitute as understanding or consciousness and speed up the whole thing to reflect the computational power of the brain circuitry then there is no reason why this experiment can't describe the actual learning process.


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> This is really a big topic. I'll just focus on one issue within this greater topic at a time.


Which I was doing. Please don't duck the questions. It's your argument for consciousness being everything I am directly addressing and cross examining.



> We have first hand experience of our own consciousness. I think therefore I am. But I have no way of knowing that you are conscious. I merely infer that because you behave like me you must be conscious too.
> 
> The characters in your dreams behave like conscious beings but they are merely figments of your imagination.


OK i've already said all that, noting the possible reality that nothing is "real" but our own consciousness, (but even that can be debated as it could be a simulated illusion), so what are you actually trying to respond with?

Let's just take this step by step and you answer my direct questions? If you don't I can only take it as ducking and assume unwillingness for various reasons.



> Again the Chinese Room problem explains this problem better than I can:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
> 
> In the Chinese room the person carries on a conversation in Chinese (behaves like a conscious being) but he doesn't understand the conversation (is not conscious of the conversation).


Yes as i've said i'm more than familiar with the Chinese Room argument. However, as i've said, there are several valid replies to it, most which are actually documented in that very Wikipedia entry you posted, which I suggested you read.

As Azazello has said, the Chinese Room argument isn't considering that the go between might actually be integrated and part of the learning process. (Just as an infant repeats sentences without actually understanding what they are saying)

The Chinese Room argument is an old thought experiment from the early days of the philosophy of computational thought, and computational AI, and the widely accepted potential for computational AI, has moved on significantly since then.

tbh this is like many religion vs science based arguments where the religious based proponent is basing their argument on long outdated 20th century science/arguments.

Unsurprisingly religious debaters are slow to update their knowledge of contemporary science. Are you one of them?

Your argument appears to be a contemporary justification for an intelligent deity. Is that correct?


----------



## niacin




----------



## ugh1979

niacin said:


>


What's that supposed to mean?


----------



## niacin

ugh1979 said:


> What's that supposed to mean?


I saw the title, thought "Ted Mosby", dropped that in there during a pretty intense discussion, and left.


----------



## ugh1979

niacin said:


> I saw the title, thought "Ted Mosby", dropped that in there during a pretty intense discussion, and left.


Who's Ted Mosby and what does he have to do with this discussion? :lol


----------



## niacin

ugh1979 said:


> Who's Ted Mosby and what does he have to do with this discussion? :lol


He's a fictional architect


----------



## ugh1979

niacin said:


> He's a fictional architect


I see. :lol

Do you usually post pictures that irrelevantly link to a word in thread topics?


----------



## niacin

ugh1979 said:


> I see. :lol
> 
> Do you usually post pictures that irrelevantly link to a word in thread topics?


----------



## AngelClare

ugh1979 said:


> tbh this is like many religion vs science based arguments where the religious based proponent is basing their argument on long outdated 20th century science


When you say things like that it makes me feel that you don't really understand the Chinese room experiment. What advances in science have impacted this problem? The whole point of the Chinese room is to explain why complex behavior does not produce consciousness.

I'm on my iPhone so I can't respond completely right now. But it should be intuitively clear to anyone that behavior is not consciousness. They are different kinds of stuff.


----------



## TheAzn

People don't know yet, but the natural explanation (without any deities) appears to have the most evidence.

My vote would be "no"

*Celebrating my 666th posts*


----------



## ugh1979

AngelClare said:


> When you say things like that it makes me feel that you don't really understand the Chinese room experiment. What advances in science have impacted this problem? The whole point of the Chinese room is to explain why complex behavior does not produce consciousness.


Do you honestly think the Chinese Room experiment is complex enough to even begin to be close to becoming self aware? No where near. What the experiment fails to acknowledge is that AI which uses machine learning algorithms will be able to start learning by itself as it experiences the world. Just like how human babies do. Any human in the experiment will after a short time have learned Chinese and not have to look up the guide. This is how we learn new languages. Exposure and referencing/copying, repeatedly until we no longer have to even think about it as the data is stored firmly in our own minds ready for instant utilisation. The Chinese room argument can't discount for a future learning enabled AI actually learning Chinese and not having to look up references. Just as humans do.

We aren't born with any knowledge and self awareness only emerges in us at around 18 months. Current AI is still at a foetal stage, with all the component parts of the brain in different stages of development. Only once enough parts are unified should we expect to see consciousness emerge, as otherwise there is no reason for it. Evolution ultimately only spends energy on what it needs, so I believe once we have a far better map of the brain (as some billion dollar projects are working on right now) will we be in a far better position to attempt to build an advanced human like brain with all the simulated analogue parts all intricately connected as required.

Only then can we begin to think about consciousness emerging in synthetic life, and the Chinese room argument is an old argument from a time where the potential for AI and machine learning wasn't fully realised yet.

It appears to many contemporary scientists in the neural fields that consciousness is emergent in systems which develop to form the right conditions to harbour a need for consciousness.



> I'm on my iPhone so I can't respond completely right now. But it should be intuitively clear to anyone that behavior is not consciousness. They are different kinds of stuff.


Who said it was? Behaviour can of course just be caused by instinct, a programme or sub-conscious for example.

I really do hope you come back and answer my earlier questions when you get back to a computer. I'm genuinely interested to hear explanations from "the other side".


----------



## Dysthymia

ugh1979 said:


> Mass is condensed energy, so _everything _is some form of energy, including consciousness.
> 
> Therefore, your points 1-4 are correct but could be condensed in to one.
> 
> However, I don't see how you can then come to the conclusion that _all _mass and energy should then be sentient.
> 
> That would require _everything _to be conscious, including matter, heat, sound etc.
> 
> IMO it makes far more logical sense to say that the fundamental energy of the universe gives rise to things like matter and consciousness (in the likes of humans), along with many other energy forms. (magnetic, electrical, light etc)
> 
> Also, the fact sentience involves significant complexity indicates it's not the most fundamental form of energy.


Yeah but most people ignore me if i just use one point.

And yeah i see your point on the sentience point, ill review that particular idea, im not dead set on it anyway, changes with my mood.



Tensor said:


> Bananas are fruit
> Bananas are yellow
> Therefore, all fruit is yellow


No... just no... think about it...


----------



## F1X3R

ugh1979 said:


> Which I was doing. Please don't duck the questions. It's your argument for consciousness being everything I am directly addressing and cross examining.


Cross examining him, as in you see him as your opponent and you are trying to discredit him?


----------



## ugh1979

F1X3R said:


> Cross examining him, as in you see him as your opponent and you are trying to discredit him?


Yes that is often the situation and purpose for debate. Why?


----------



## F1X3R

ugh1979 said:


> Yes that is often the situation and purpose for debate. Why?


The purpose of debate isn't really to discredit a person or even an argument though.


----------



## ugh1979

F1X3R said:


> The purpose of debate isn't really to discredit a person or even an argument though.


Why not? Why would you even be arguing about a lot of stuff if you didn't deem your opponents claims/views to be unworthy of credit?


----------



## Azazello

AngelClare said:


> When you say things like that it makes me feel that you don't really understand the Chinese room experiment. What advances in science have impacted this problem? The whole point of the Chinese room is to explain why complex behavior does not produce consciousness.


And when _you _ say things like that, it makes people think you haven't read anything beyond the 30-40 year old philosophical problem. Do you by any chance also believe that Achilles would never catch the Tortoise? You keep pressing Chinese Room as if it is gospel without addressing any of the many arguments against it that have been raised since this problem was published. Is that because you are not aware of those arguments or because you believe they don't stand up to scrutiny? If it's the former then, shame on you for getting into this discussion without bothering to read up on the subject, if it's the later, then you have your work cut out, because in order for you to advance Chinese Room as an _explanation _of anything you would first need to address the many criticisms against it. So let's see which one it is...


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> And when _you _ say things like that, it makes people think you haven't read anything beyond the 30-40 year old philosophical problem. Do you by any chance also believe that Achilles would never catch the Tortoise? You keep pressing Chinese Room as if it is gospel without addressing any of the many arguments against it that have been raised since this problem was published. Is that because you are not aware of those arguments or because you believe they don't stand up to scrutiny? If it's the former then, shame on you for getting into this discussion without bothering to read up on the subject, if it's the later, then you have your work cut out, because in order for you to advance Chinese Room as an _explanation _of anything you would first need to address the many criticisms against it. So let's see which one it is...


Exactly. Theists are generally behind the curve when it comes to contemporary thought and up to date knowledge so debating with them is like going back in time. It's their conservative traditional nature that lives in the past at fault I believe. They often get one simple idea in their head then close the doors to any more learning on the subject. It's sad, and a cancer on humanity.


----------



## fredbloggs02

Azazello said:


> Ironic you should bring up John Searle, considering 'his' thought experiment was adapted from an idea of Ned Block, a philosopher and a strong supporter of the very thing that you and John Searle are trying so hard to reject. So who is right, John Searle or Ned Block?
> 
> The reason why this thought experiment might baffle you is because you are working under a compulsion of having to anthropomorphise physical events. If you remove this particular bias by simply sticking to physical events rather than some vague notions of what might or might not constitute as understanding or consciousness and speed up the whole thing to reflect the computational power of the brain circuitry then there is no reason why this experiment can't describe the actual learning process.


And if I close my eyes, cover my ears, tap my heels and count to ten, or after Ugh's advice wish on a star somewhere in the future of human robotic advances Heaven: that too would equally suffice.

1. Get rid of your tendency to anthropomorphize.
2. We will be able to do it one day.

If I didn't know better I would have said this were the beginning of a vicious hell fire sermon. How open. How receptive to new thoughts. How conversational.... How blackguard!

As if the "actual learning process" weren't equally opaque. Human being is more than memory, receptivity to definitions, symbols and arithmetic notions of existence. Whether the unique dance of sounds, consciousness of freedom, associations, continuous flow of images inner and outer, impetus and whatever else is lacking- including the individuality of each human life will be formed one day or not: the thought experiment was at least explicit in that respect.


----------



## Azazello

fredbloggs02 said:


> And if I close my eyes, cover my ears, tap my heels and count to ten, or after Ugh's advice wish on a star somewhere in the future of human robotic advances Heaven: that too would equally suffice.
> 
> 1. Get rid of your tendency to anthropomorphize.
> 2. We will be able to do it one day.
> 
> If I didn't know better I would have said this were the beginning of a vicious hell fire sermon. How open. How receptive to new thoughts. How conversational.... How blackguard!
> 
> As if the "actual learning process" weren't equally opaque. Human being is more than memory, receptivity to definitions, symbols and arithmetic notions of existence. Whether the unique dance of sounds, consciousness of freedom, associations, continuous flow of images inner and outer, impetus and whatever else is lacking- including the individuality of each human life will be formed one day or not: the thought experiment was at least explicit in that respect.


I'm just curious, is there ever any point to your condescension and haughtiness? Or are you just here to wax lyrical about... lemme see... nothing? You butt in with all guns blazing minus any actual contribution to the subject in question other than a regurgitation of same ol' dualist ideals.

If you have a point to make about Chinese Room thought experiment, which is what my comment was about, then please do so, otherwise curb your enthusiasm because behind all of your lyricism lies zero comprehension of the subject.

If you do choose to get involved in a conversation then may I suggest that you should address the points that I have raised so far, as no one else seems to bother.

1) Compared to the thought experiment of Ned Block, on which Chinese Room problem is based, how do you conclude that the latter and not the former is the _true _representation of 'understanding' and/or 'consciousness'?

2) As a follow up to the first question, define in biological terms 'understanding' and 'consciousness'.

2) Name and then provide a rebuttal to the arguments proposed against the Chinese Room problem.

Once you have done that, then we can discuss the subject. Until then I see absolutely no point to this conversation other than stroking your ego.


----------



## Arthur Pendragon

Architect or nature, intelligence or not, these are just perspectives of what is and isn't. All that matters is what will, or will not, be. Nobody will force you to accept any solidified perception; you are the architect of your own reality.


----------



## markwalters2

Obviously, nobody knows for sure now. Who knows what we will discover in the future?


----------



## nullptr

If there was an architect they would be a programmer.


----------



## MurrayJ

I don't think it was architect.

More of a lazy mathmatician

Blowing some stuff up, time will do the rest.

And every now and then, when the circumstances are ok, creatures getting born who think they are made by 'intelligent design'.


----------



## love is like a dream

I always think of how we " the no important humans " have access to not only talk about such a great think like the history/origin of the universe , but we are truing to figure out the secret behind the miracle of existence as well ,, the most confusing is why the laws of physics well why the universe is understandable to human beings in the first place !


----------



## Dysthymia

Coincidence said:


> I always think of how we " the no important humans " have access to not only talk about such a great think like the history/origin of the universe , but we are truing to figure out the secret behind the miracle of existence as well ,, the most confusing is why the laws of physics well why the universe is understandable to human beings in the first place !


The idea being that the universe is understandable to us because we evolved inside of it... so it sort of had to be. But then again we don't really understand it.

There are argument from both sides of the coin, designed universe or not, and both make plenty of sense. I find the notion that the universe is entirely its own creation to be far more awe inspiring that the idea that it was created by an architect.


----------



## ugh1979

Dysthymia said:


> I find the notion that the universe is entirely its own creation to be far more awe inspiring that the idea that it was created by an architect.


Agreed. It's beautiful.


----------



## slider

lol only idiots think it was made by a "god"
laugh my *** off thanks


----------

