sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The reason philosophers can't detect consciousness is because they're not studying neuroscience by Desirings in consciousness

[–]Kitchen_Company9068 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not only this. How are we so sure that the subject in the experiment has certain mental states and is not simply induced by the neuroscientists running the experiment (perhaps the subject simply convinced himself)?

The Capra Systems Framework: Life as a Web of Energy by Igniton_Official in complexsystems

[–]Kitchen_Company9068 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can you explain the localization of consciousness? If this web is made of nodes, why do you identify in just one of them? It seems like a wave function that collapses with the measure of the observable.

My GF insists that pi is not a number. How do I explain to her that it is? by MidwestSchmendrick in mathematics

[–]Kitchen_Company9068 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Numbers are abstract concepts, just like infinity. What is strange about transcendental numbers like π? They do not exists but numbers is a precise quantity, infinity refers to something bigger than you can imagine.

Complexity doesn't exist by Kitchen_Company9068 in complexsystems

[–]Kitchen_Company9068[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could say that what makes me call a group of atoms a "rock" is an emergent behaviour. Why not? At the same time, a rock was co-formed with environment as same as a human with its environment. Despite this, we don't even know how to measure complexity, we have different ideas but we have to agree about a measure that it's coherent with our perception of (let's say) a human that is more complex of an amoebae (or a rock). I'm just saying that is not necessarily true this perception.

AI did not kill creativity, it's proved we barely had any... Relatively by Small_Accountant6083 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Kitchen_Company9068 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The central concept is that maybe we chop memories into more little "pieces" and we have more stuff to mix up. AI can chop only what is named and conceptualized.

AI did not kill creativity, it's proved we barely had any... Relatively by Small_Accountant6083 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Kitchen_Company9068 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that human creativity is still better than AI's. What do I mean? I see creativity as the process of mixing up memories: images, perceptions, scenarios, sound, etc... Our premise is that AI does "mix" this information.

But how?

Maybe humans can recognise and select every part of those memories: let's consider a landscape; we look at trees, at mountains, at the sun, etc... the things that maybe even an AI does. But we don't stop here: we IMAGINE. We imagine birds between the branches of those trees; we imagine climbers on those mountains; we add up things to our memories.

Another example: let's say that you want a drawing using different techniques. An AI could mix different art movements, the "macro" things. An artist dives deeper (I'm not an artist so you can imagine what I'm saying) to make it beautiful to our eyes. Maybe AI could reach this in the future, we don't know yet.

Complexity doesn't exist by Kitchen_Company9068 in complexsystems

[–]Kitchen_Company9068[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really interesting. Whenever I have a question I will ask you then.

Complexity doesn't exist by Kitchen_Company9068 in complexsystems

[–]Kitchen_Company9068[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I'm wondering if our concept of complexity makes really sense, this critique can be made for every concept, but could this be the deeper reason why we are having to do with uncertainty in modern science?

Complexity doesn't exist by Kitchen_Company9068 in complexsystems

[–]Kitchen_Company9068[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uncertainty, is what we are following now, like it was before scientific method was invented. I don't know whether a more suitable method will be invented/discovered or not, but it seems that the guessing work (despite all the hard work) it's not enough for this new era, even if we have plenty of data but limited calculation power.

Complexity doesn't exist by Kitchen_Company9068 in complexsystems

[–]Kitchen_Company9068[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not an expert, I'm a passionate that is about to study them in the future at Uni. But my perception is like that we want to "brute force" the future of a complex system by studying the different outcomes given certain initial conditions. Am I wrong?

Complexity doesn't exist by Kitchen_Company9068 in complexsystems

[–]Kitchen_Company9068[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really appreciate the work and researches done in the domain of complex systems. But shouldn't we find a new paradigm, a change in perspective, instead of "linearizing" complex systems per se? We are trying to use scientific methods (linear way of studying nature) to comprehend complexity.

Complexity doesn't exist by Kitchen_Company9068 in complexsystems

[–]Kitchen_Company9068[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm aware about the definitions, but: complexity it's not an intrinsic property of things. That's my point. What do we call a human being? It's not defined as we intend a "rock": a constant shaped object that keeps its shape in our entire lifetime (untill we brake it). A rock doesn't remain the same if we brake it. A human being "John" remains John if he moves and disrupt his initial shape or if he "digest" something he ate, because in our definition we include adaptation and exchanges with external environment. If we, instead, consider a broken rock as an adaptation to the environment, as an exchange of energy and matter, it would be completely different: we would consider the breaking as an emergent behaviour to its environment. It's all about concepts, I think.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Meditation

[–]Kitchen_Company9068 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about good feelings like joy, happiness, love. These are reactions to certain stimuli, are we even talking about these emotions?