Re: artificial intelligence

"Alpha" <OmegaZero2003@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Curt Welch" <curt@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20071204110811.933$IX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Alpha" <OmegaZero2003@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"JGCASEY" <jgkjcasey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e402f991-c415-4aba-bbc6-d5b285dea39e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
...

On Dec 4, 2:55 am, "Alpha" <OmegaZero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


... the thoughts are not activities of the body!
They are thoughts about sensations or concepts,
respectively.

So you don't believe your thoughts are due to the
activity of neurons?

Sure they are.

I was talking about the thought's referent; they have nothing to do
with *moving a part of the body*!!

I.e., nothing that amounts to a precusor even, to moving a part of the
body. Remember, I am talking *specifically* about what you and I were
talking about: for example, a thought about a musical note one had
heard,
or a
thought about intelligent agent architectures.

The sound is physical. It's moving air.

The thought is physical, it's moving brain parts which resulted as a
complex chain reaction from the air movement.

But I was talking about a thought that has nothing to do with mving the
body! Get it!

Of course there are moving "parts" in the brain; the reason for *those*
moving parts is *not* to move the body! They are to think a thought
*only*!!

E.g., there is NO SMC/MC activity cvorrelated with a thought of sadness
for example!!

What is SMC/MC?

Maybe you can't grasp it, but "sadness" is a physical behavior. A "thought
of sadness" is a physical reaction to a previous class of physical
behaviors.

How is any of what you are talking about non-physical?

I NEVER said it was non-physical; you are bring up that strawman again as
you are wont to do whenever someone critiques your approach to AI.

Yes, many people try to hide behind the "I never said that" bull***. What
you said is clear for everyone to read.

What you are actually trying to agure is that you never "meant" what I said
you meant. But your words say otherwise. Your steadfast belief that you
never implied anything was non physical is inconsitent with what you have
written.

Either you have to explain how the words you wrote implied only physical
actions, or you have to face the fact that your thinking and writing is
littered with dualistic ideas which are inconsistent with your
materialistic stance.

How is any of what
you are talking about not physical body motion?

The neuronal activity itself *is* moving parts.

Good.

But the reason, or
outcome of the moving parts is not more moving parts as in moving one's
hand. It is merely the thinking of the thought itself. Get it?

No I do not get it.

The parts move for the same reason all matter in the universe moves. It's
a simple physical chain reaction caused by the movements which happened
before it according to the fairly well understood physical laws of nature.

If a domino falls over and causes a second domino to fall over, why would
you try to argue that second domino is "physical motion" but the first
domino was not, it was just "a thought".

This is in effect the argument you are making here. If chemicals in the
brain moves (thoughts), and causes chemicals in nerves to move all the way
to the arm muscle which causes chemicals in the arm muscle to move which
causes the hand to move, you are calling this collection of body behaviors
"body motion", but if the first parts of that chain reaction happens
without the final parts (we think without acting), you say it's not body
motion? How does that make any sense?

Unless you just have decided to limit the definition of the term "body
motion" to only those motions we can observer externally (which is how you
are using the words and how we are taught to use the words but which is
totally wrong once your words were questioned in the light of dualism in a
philosophy of mind discussion in a philosophy of AI group).

In our training in folk psychology, we are all taught to pretend (and to
believe) that mental activity is not physical. We are trained to use one
set of words to describe physical brain activity, such as "thought", and
"idea", and "feelings", and "qualia", and we are taught to use other words
to describe physical activities, "hand waving", and "body motion". We are
trained from a young age on the proper use of these words and to never mix
them up and talk about mental activity using the language of the physical
word, or to use the language of mental activity to describe physical events
without the implied assumption we have "personified" a thing which is not a
"person". Why we say the sea is angry, we are are taught to believe this
just means "the sea is acting like an angry person" but we know the see can
never be angry because it doesn't have a soul and only things with souls
can "be angry".

All this training we get growing up in a world were everyone around us
assumes folk psychology is a fact, and not must a long standing culturally
myth, makes us all believe that mental activity is somehow not physical
simply because we were trained for years to talk about mental activity as
being "special" and "different" from all the physical activity which exists
in the world.

And in day to day talk, I certainly continue to use the language that way
and talk that way.

But here, in this group, when we debate how things really are, I get really
irritated by people who seem unable to understand the difference between
how we are trained to talk, (and as a result how we are trained to think
since we think by talking to ourselves) and how the universe and the brain
actually work.

After reading multiple posts by you in this thread, I still can't tell if
you understand any of this because at least 6 times you have now said the
same thing, you have said, "It's not motion, it's thought". How is thought
ever not motion? How is thought about thought ever something other than
motion creating other motion by normal physical chain reactions?

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.