What caused you to turn away from your faith?

[wynn]

And again, sight (or any sense) is merely the input, but without the input we have and are nothing.

It is also reasonably certain to say that there exist no living beings who would be bereft of any and all sensory input. We have no actual living beings whom we could study or communicate with to find out what it is like to be bereft of sensory input.

We don't know what it is like to be bereft of sensory input, so we can't say we would indeed be nothing without sensory input.
Your above premise cannot be tested.

 

[Sarkus]

It remains that sensory input without the means to comprehend it is futile.
This much we can all agree on.

Not disputed, but since computers are capable of comprehending I'm not quite sure where you think LG is going... given that you just seem to regurgitate his words and seem incapable of thinking for yourself.
Was there actually a point you wanted to make?

It is also reasonably certain to say that there exist no living beings who would be bereft of any and all sensory input.

Hmmm - I wonder how much sensory input a zygote has... or are we going to go back to the "abortion" thread and you claim that zygotes aren't alive?

We have no actual living beings whom we could study or communicate with to find out what it is like to be bereft of sensory input.

Amazing, that, isn't it.
Yet you still think that it is not the senses that provide us with the info with which our brain makes assessments?
Or do you honestly think that the first time we get our very first sensory input that we have existing frames of reference?

We don't know what it is like to be bereft of sensory input, so we can't say we would indeed be nothing without sensory input.
Your above premise cannot be tested.

Do you know what it was like prior to your birth? I'm guessing that not only prior to your conception but prior to the development of your sensory organs that you were indeed bereft of sensory input.
So what was it like during those times? :shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Yet you use a catch-all word such as "consciousness" to describe the means to comprehend, yet can come up with nothing that actually defines what consciousness is, other than perhaps "life" - and when pushed on what "life" is you merely offer a comparison between a living body and a dead one.
In otherwords... you don't know but can't bring yourself to admit it.
Hey ho.

the difference between a living organism and a dead one is pretty clear

You can guess all you like, but given your lack of support for even the outright claims you make, I hold little hope for anything here.

If sensory input is built upon sensory input, :shrug:a camera would have brains

If you think a human without frames of reference is like a computer, then you're saying that a computer with frames of reference is like a human??
Wow - this is... very unreligious of you... and goes against almost everything you have been saying so far.
:shrug:

I'm saying computers cannot develop frames of reference (although a sentient being, who certainly does have them, can program a computer to say "Its a wonderful day today" when a certain amount of light enters a camera).

IOW, your whole idea about a living entity being bereft of frames of reference is pretty silly

 

[iceaura]

the difference between a living organism and a dead one is pretty clear

Really.

What is it?

I'm saying computers cannot develop frames of reference

Why not?

 

[lightgigantic]

Really.

yes really

What is it?

go buy a dead dog
they are probably cheaper and way less expensive to maintain

Why not?

because whatever references you care to indicate are reflections of the programmer.
I thought it was pretty obvious

 

[Sarkus]

If sensory input is built upon sensory input, :shrug:a camera would have brains

Who said that it was purely sensory input upon sensory input? You seem to be building up a few strawmen again, LG.

I'm saying computers cannot develop frames of reference.

Your understanding of computing is woefully naive.
I suggest you go and read up about machine learning.
I also suggest you rephrase your arguments so as not to imply what you don't intend to imply.

IOW, your whole idea about a living entity being bereft of frames of reference is pretty silly

It seems that anything that counters your view that you have no answer for is "pretty silly" to you.
As detailed to Signal - I'm sure when you were merely an embryo you had many frames of reference? Many sensory inputs? No?

So, what was it like back in those days of you being a living entity bereft of frames of reference?

 

[lightgigantic]

Who said that it was purely sensory input upon sensory input? You seem to be building up a few strawmen again, LG.

all you've talked about is sensory input.
what else is there, eh?

Your understanding of computing is woefully naive.
I suggest you go and read up about machine learning.
I also suggest you rephrase your arguments so as not to imply what you don't intend to imply.

Feel free to reference that machine that has learnt anything separate from its programmer

It seems that anything that counters your view that you have no answer for is "pretty silly" to you.

Not really
Its just you

As detailed to Signal - I'm sure when you were merely an embryo you had many frames of reference? Many sensory inputs? No?

So, what was it like back in those days of you being a living entity bereft of frames of reference?

actually this is pretty silly since most people's recollection of their earliest moment is around 2 or 3 years ... usually however we attribute that to a fault of memory than a lack of sensory input however ....

 

[wynn]

Not disputed, but since computers are capable of comprehending I'm not quite sure where you think LG is going... given that you just seem to regurgitate his words and seem incapable of thinking for yourself.

You are being rude.

Lightgigantic and I happen to have a similar position, we just don't make the exact same arguments.

Yet you still think that it is not the senses that provide us with the info with which our brain makes assessments?

I never said that.

Or do you honestly think that the first time we get our very first sensory input that we have existing frames of reference?

We obviously must have something that is capable of comprehending that sensory input. Something that makes the difference between a human and a robot.

 

[Sarkus]

all you've talked about is sensory input.
what else is there, eh?

Perhaps you should actually read people's responses and comments, then.
Feel free... they're all there for you to go through.

Feel free to reference that machine that has learnt anything separate from its programmer

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/ai/nn.html

In fact, research is being conducted with a new type of neural net, known as an 'Unsupervised Neural Net', which appears to successfully learn in the absence of an external teacher.

http://www.gatsby.ucl.ac.uk/~dayan/papers/dun99b.pdf

actually this is pretty silly since most people's recollection of their earliest moment is around 2 or 3 years ... usually however we attribute that to a fault of memory than a lack of sensory input however ....

Agreed - but this just highlights the importance of memory AS WELL AS sensory input in the development of consciousness. Give one a memory and no inputs and it is just a blank slate with nothing going on. Give one the inputs with no memory (long or short) and it is just a mass of instinctive responses. Neither would be conscious, even if "alive". And before you respond, yes, babies do have memory - just not as developed.

But you still haven't detailed how one can have sensory input prior to the development of the sensory organs, though. Should be fun.

 

[Acitnoids]

Sarkus,
The last thirty-odd posts seem to stem from your comment towards lightgigantic's reply to me (Post #177).

Post #177

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
How many years of research with the senses would you expect it to take to locate something beyond the senses?

Feel free to indicate anything you have located without one of the senses... and I'm not just talking your classical five senses. And then show how you are locating it without... um... sensing it?

I hope you're not implying that our senses are infallible. They lie to us all of the time. Try this:
.
-Put your right hand into a bucket of hot water and your left hand into a bucket of cold water and then tell me which hand feels hot and which hand feels cold.
-If you take a clear, cherry flavored soda ana put orange food coloring into it, more people will tell you that the soda tastes oranges than it does cherries.
.
Our senses should not be trusted. When that fast food restaurant says, "what you are eating is chicken". Our brains tell the rest of our senses, "we are eating chicken". It's not totally our fault. The nervus system is responsible for all of the known senses and "lines of communication" tend to get crossed. Humans have found a way around this by acquiring the ability to measure things and then reproduce those measurements in a separate location. This provided us with standardized "metersticks" from which we could accurately compare our preceptions. Standardized units in general gave us the opportunity to scrutinized our feeble senses.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus,
The last thirty-odd posts seem to stem from your comment towards lightgigantic's reply to me (Post #177).

I hope you're not implying that our senses are infallible. They lie to us all of the time.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm implying that the only information we get is via the senses. What we make of that information, how we interpret it... up for grabs. But the first point is the information coming from the senses. Without even that.... :shrug:
LG seems to think there is something "beyond the senses" that is possible to know without senses... and yet he is incapable of showing how one can do/be anything without senses.
We wait in hope.