Ai Forums Home Welcome Guest    Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Ai Site > Ai Forums > Language Mind and Consciousness > Intinct and consciousness. Last PostsLoginRegisterWhy Register
Topic: Intinct and consciousness.

Aleon
posted 12/25/2015  07:27Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hello, my name is Sebastiaan.

Have you ever thought that instinct can be the root of human behavior? Well I did and I wrote a model that uses instinctual instruction sets that either makes a human feel pleasant or unpleasant about something and it works! As it turns out humans have two groups of behavioral instincts. One primitive group of instincts and one evolved group of instincts. The primitive group of instincts stem from gorilla behavior and they make a human feel selfish in many ways. This is the non-cooperating animal instinct group a human has. The evolved group of instincts is based upon equality and cooperation and they make humans humane. One has for instance the ability to share equal in all things. Like breaking a stick in three same sized proportions. This is done by feeling rather than measuring the stick up by its inches. You can try it and you will feel it when you choose the right size to make the breaks. The instinct that allows humans to feel equality has an unpleasant side of feeling guilty. This makes it so that humans rather share equal instead of having to feel bad about inequality. And so there are many more behavioral instincts. I figured them all out and placed them in a document. If anyone is interested in knowing how this works it's not hard to understand luckily. You may read up on it here: www.aleon.info on my website.


 http://www.aleon.info
Last edited by Aleon @ 5/10/2016 2:59:00 AM

tkorrovi
posted 12/25/2015  11:52Send e-mail to userReply with quote
And when i now say that i think that this is only a strawman theory, then you become angry at me, and accuse me of incompetence? What the tactics is. I would say, the coctail mixer theory of consciousness that was written in this forum, was even simpler. This was a more developed version of the concrete mixer theory of consciousness. Neither don't explain much anything, but their importance is that they are simple, occam's razor one may say. The theory of how junkyards can fly to space, is under development.

Fortunately though, you didn't cut the monkeys skulls open when they are alive, and damage their neocortex by electric current, to make a strawman theory. One guy did that too.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 12/25/2015 11:58:00 AM

Aleon
posted 12/25/2015  12:02Send e-mail to userReply with quote
You actually do need to look at it before you claim something false. And its a 89 page theory I doubt you have taken a look at so soon on Christmas morning. But of course there is always people with an agenda.

 http://www.aleon.info

tkorrovi
posted 12/25/2015  12:44Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
Aleon wrote @ 12/25/2015 12:02:00 PM:
You actually do need to look at it before you claim something false. And its a 89 page theory I doubt you have taken a look at so soon on Christmas morning. But of course there is always people with an agenda.

 
Ahah, so because i don't like your theory, i must have an agenda. And the reason why i don't like your theory, is that i don't know it, or then i don't understand it. Both conclusions made from the fact that i don't like your theory. Well, it is not even that i don't like your theory, i rather think it's a strawman theory. Some of these are even funny, but only as long as no one takes them seriously.

Then there was also this, sandwiches making theory of consciousness. Consciousness is an ability to make sandwiches. This was a more advanced theory of consciousness. This theory can be developed further, in that one sees how others make sandwiches, and then makes sandwiches the same way.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 12/25/2015 1:11:00 PM

Aleon
posted 12/25/2015  13:43Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 12/25/2015 12:44:00 PM:
Well, it is not even that i don't like your theory, i rather think it's a strawman theory. Some of these are even funny, but only as long as no one takes them seriously.

 
Oh so my theory is "some of these"? Yet you don't know it but claim its a strawman theory like "some of these". That does indicate an agenda against "some of these".

 http://www.aleon.info

tkorrovi
posted 12/25/2015  15:23Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
Aleon wrote @ 12/25/2015 1:43:00 PM:
Oh so my theory is "some of these"? Yet you don't know it but claim its a strawman theory like "some of these". That does indicate an agenda against "some of these".

 
Does it? If you say so.

Ehh, these discussions are like playing jazz, somewhat feels so. Now you may go on improvisation on "feels so".

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 12/25/2015 3:25:00 PM

nicku
posted 5/2/2016  16:41Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 12/25/2015 3:23:00 PM:
Does it? If you say so.

Ehh, these discussions are like playing jazz, somewhat feels so. Now you may go on improvisation on "feels so".

 
Basically what you describe is a piece of the psychology of altruism, mixed with a little Freud. As Tko says, what you have said has no relevance to expaining consciousness or human thought. What you are dealing with is evolutionary psychology, based around biological drives and pleasure/pain processes. Thought, consciousness and the concept of mind are something that are created by sensory data held in stm/ltm memory. That is the 'stuff' of the self identity. Even in people who have no ability to write new memories, as in the case of Clive Wearing, the conscious, alive bit, is still a memory construct made out of thousands of billions of pieces of sensory information. Take away each sense one by one and the 'thinking being' that you believe is there, stops existing, exactly because without sense data, a person has no sense of self or the illusion of consciousness that we misunderstand on a daily basis.

Cheers, Nick.


tkorrovi
posted 5/3/2016  00:19Send e-mail to userReply with quote
It is like a desktop computer, you take off all the cords that go to it, and guaranteed it doesn't work. Isn't that an oversimplified understanding?


lordjakian
posted 5/9/2016  16:34Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I like snails, and slime molds. I'll leave the human out of it, and I'll still offend someone for the fact that I did compare them to humans.

Aleon, I'm going to nit pick.


"The human eye sees what is interpret as red, yellow and blue. What happens is that the green wavelength is a light particle in size between yellow and blue and it is capable of stimulating the senses of the human eye that both react to yellow and react to blue light. As this happens the human mind sees both yellow and blue in the same place and interprets this as green. Thus the human brain artificially inflates cross over colors, which is neat."

Which is neat? This idea carries over. Your paper sounds like it's trying to hard to convince. Emotional appeals.






Last edited by lordjakian @ 5/9/2016 4:52:00 PM

hakobian
posted 5/24/2016  01:09Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
lordjakian wrote @ 5/9/2016 4:34:00 PM:
I like snails, and slime molds. I'll leave the human out of it, and I'll still offend someone for the fact that I did compare them to humans.

Aleon, I'm going to nit pick.


"The human eye sees what is interpret as red, yellow and blue. What happens is that the green wavelength is a light particle in size between yellow and blue and it is capable of stimulating the senses of the human eye that both react to yellow and react to blue light. As this happens the human mind sees both yellow and blue in the same place and interprets this as green. Thus the human brain artificially inflates cross over colors, which is neat."

Which is neat? This idea carries over. Your paper sounds like it's trying to hard to convince. Emotional appeals.

When you have truth, you don't need emotional appeals.






 
Enter your message here


nicku
posted 6/8/2016  23:29Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi, you miss my point. To use your computer analogy, your idea of what I'm saying is that I take away the cables one by one and it stops, therefore the cables are the pivotal stuff of computers. That's not the issue. I'm not saying that sensory data is responsible for the processing or data organisation, because clearly the chipsets in the computer and the neural networks in the brain do that job. I am arguing about the illusion that consciousness is a thing in its own right. To reveal the mistake that believers in consciousness make, we must first find what it uses, i.e, out of what is it composed. Consciousness is undeniably composed of sensory data, exclusively. I challenge anyone to give one example of non sensory based consciousness. Sensory data is the language of consciousness. A better description of what I'm doing, relative to a computer, is to remove software languages one by one until no commands can be carried out. Therefore from that we could say for sure that a computer operation is dependent on the underlying structured commands and code. So what some people are doing is trying to find out how the computer works by positing a mysterious force or being inside the motherboard. You need to look at what sits beneath the behaviour or thoughts. Most philosphers of mind, to return to the computer analogy, are trying to analyse the minds of computer game characters. They don't exist and neither do we.




The mechanics of how the illusion of consciousness is created is a very trivial matter of secondary importance. It is more pivotal to get rid of our common sense theory of mind and replace it with a conception that sees humans as machines who produce a set of outputs that create a description of an actor who acts in every way, including all internal outputs(thoughts), as if they were consciousness.

So in summary, just because a thought is generated which declares a description of what it is like to experience, that doesn't mean you exist. It just means that you can't get your head around the idea that every single thing that comes in to your brain is an inert report of a fictitious agent, including reports about reports. So when you say, 'but I've just experienced that', the emotions, thoughts, feelings, they are just hundreds of outputs which posit the fictitious being as having awareness. Every thought, every feeling, every reflexive observation, just a biologically generated data stream that makes the animal behave as if there were someone inside that skull, because quite simply, we survive and are preferentially selected when a brain has the ability to process information as a social identity.

Cheers, Nick.


tkorrovi
posted 6/9/2016  00:29Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Nicku, do you think that i'm now starting to argue with you, saying again everything that has been said in the forum over many years, one thing after another? No, it makes no sense, because you simply deny everything.

A conscious system has to be unrestricted in self-development. Do you deny, yes/no? What is the reason why you deny?

Last edited by tkorrovi @ 6/9/2016 12:51:00 AM

nicku
posted 12/28/2016  19:41Reply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 6/9/2016 12:29:00 AM:
Nicku, do you think that i'm now starting to argue with you, saying again everything that has been said in the forum over many years, one thing after another? No, it makes no sense, because you simply deny everything.

A conscious system has to be unrestricted in self-development. Do you deny, yes/no? What is the reason why you deny?

 
So awareness is not important in your model? A severely handicapped individual, is conscious by any measure, but does he or she have unrestricted self-development, I would say no.

I would say that as long as a being senses and has a memory and a sense of persistence of it's own identity, then that would qualify for me. I don't think learning is what consciousness is about, it's about the sensing and reaction to and representation of, itself, as part of that sensing.

Last edited by nicku @ 12/28/2016 7:43:00 PM

maks
posted 3/16/2017  13:11Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Hi!the more information( including sensory inf) you got -the more you consciousness.nevertheless
consciousness may exist without any sensory in/output

stop in/output and you'll be live in the virtual world as well.
you'll be able to be consciousness.
there is only needs a little bit practice.the question is only of the level of your self-consciousness
it can be much better..you can contact to universal field of the universe consciousness.
in/output real time processing consuming a lot of energy.
it's a payment for our survival

  1  
'Send Send email to user    Reply with quote Reply with quote    Edit message Edit message

Forums Home    The Artificial Intelligence Forum    Hal and other child machines    Alan and other chatbots  
Contact Us Terms of Use