| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"block" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2004 07:04:16 AM |
| Object: |
Potatoes |
If a potato feels pain when it is peeled to be cooked, and realizes it's
life has ended, then would it be possible to get to know a potato on some
alternative collection/dimension/reality and love that potato so much that
we would have a relationship?
Is it possible that all life "feels" and that the intelligence it takes to
create a cloud or a misty morning just doesn't happen to be our kind of
intelligence?
If we lean on something does it resist because those are the rules of our
reality? Or does it resist because it cares?
Does everything that exist have feelings?
Do clouds think?
.
|
|
| User: "Joel Reicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 02:16:18 AM |
|
|
"block" <block@here.com> writes:
If a potato feels pain when it is peeled to be cooked, and realizes it's
life has ended, then would it be possible to get to know a potato on some
alternative collection/dimension/reality and love that potato so much that
we would have a relationship?
Is it possible that all life "feels" and that the intelligence it takes to
create a cloud or a misty morning just doesn't happen to be our kind of
intelligence?
If we lean on something does it resist because those are the rules of our
reality? Or does it resist because it cares?
Does everything that exist have feelings?
Do clouds think?
Stop wasting time guessing whether these things are intelligent and
actually try to communicate with them instead. That's the only thing
that will ever prove anything.
Cheers,
- Joel
.
|
|
|
| User: "block" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 10:27:20 AM |
|
|
"Joel Reicher" <joel@panacea.null.org> wrote in message
news:rnk6sfk46m.fsf@cindy.panacea.null.org...
Stop wasting time guessing whether these things are intelligent and
actually try to communicate with them instead. That's the only thing
that will ever prove anything.
OK so I married a potato - wanna hear about it?
Or am I going to get one of your
"Study all the great philosophers and read every book on every known
intelligence that has married a potato before you waste our time posting
exactly what all the great philosophers have thought already"
Jesus, potatoes, AI - I don't dare speak or even think with a pompous *****
like you around.
Michelle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joel Reicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 04:03:18 PM |
|
|
"block" <block@here.com> writes:
"Joel Reicher" <joel@panacea.null.org> wrote in message
news:rnk6sfk46m.fsf@cindy.panacea.null.org...
Stop wasting time guessing whether these things are intelligent and
actually try to communicate with them instead. That's the only thing
that will ever prove anything.
OK so I married a potato - wanna hear about it?
Or am I going to get one of your
"Study all the great philosophers and read every book on every known
intelligence that has married a potato before you waste our time posting
exactly what all the great philosophers have thought already"
Jesus, potatoes, AI - I don't dare speak or even think with a pompous *****
like you around.
I seriously meant what I said! Communicating is currently the best
test we have for intelligence, i.e. the Turing test. If you are
sincere about your idea that these things are intelligent, you need to
describe, or at least find, the way these things express their
intelligence.
I gave you what I thought was the best answer possible, i.e. a
refinement of the problem. I'll admit I was rude about it, and I
apologise, but I didn't mean you shouldn't ask the question in the
first place.
And yes, hearing about conjugal bliss with a tuber would be
fascinating, but does your spouse know what you think?
Cheers,
- Joel
.
|
|
|
| User: "block" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 07:05:49 PM |
|
|
"Joel Reicher" <joel@panacea.null.org> wrote in message
news:rnzn1a272y.fsf@cindy.panacea.null.org...
I seriously meant what I said! Communicating is currently the best
test we have for intelligence, i.e. the Turing test. If you are
sincere about your idea that these things are intelligent, you need to
describe, or at least find, the way these things express their
intelligence.
And if I communicate with pigeons and turn them into doves I am told they
will wheel me off on a trolley to the nearest lunatic asylum then what's the
point? You are so down to earth and have such clearly defined parameters
that anything unusual, even if it could be true, you don't even consider!
If you don't believe I can have a relationship with pigeons you are hardly
going to believe my thesis on potatoes now are you??? ;)
I gave you what I thought was the best answer possible, i.e. a
refinement of the problem. I'll admit I was rude about it, and I
apologise, but I didn't mean you shouldn't ask the question in the
first place.
And yes, hearing about conjugal bliss with a tuber would be
fascinating, but does your spouse know what you think?
Some of my best friends are potatoes OK? And no, they don't think size
matters. :)
And however fond I did get of that potato, I did not have sex with it, and
no I am not suddenly going to produce a story about potato children, nor
that potatoes make better lovers! OK? ;)
How about you? Have you ever considered any other life forms or do you
think "man" is the only one worth considering? Why do people talk to
plants? Prince Charles talks to trees? Wheel them ALL off to the looney
bin???? Some people even think dogs have intelligence for Christ's sake
and they wolf up the families new baby without a second thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joel Reicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 07:56:32 PM |
|
|
"block" <block@here.com> writes:
"Joel Reicher" <joel@panacea.null.org> wrote in message
news:rnzn1a272y.fsf@cindy.panacea.null.org...
I seriously meant what I said! Communicating is currently the best
test we have for intelligence, i.e. the Turing test. If you are
sincere about your idea that these things are intelligent, you need to
describe, or at least find, the way these things express their
intelligence.
And if I communicate with pigeons and turn them into doves I am told they
will wheel me off on a trolley to the nearest lunatic asylum then what's the
point? You are so down to earth and have such clearly defined parameters
that anything unusual, even if it could be true, you don't even consider!
No, I *do* consider it, but with a view to finding what the
consequences and presuppositions appear to be. That puts it in the
context of everything else we think we know, and suggests ways to
further investigate and perhaps verify the idea.
If you don't believe I can have a relationship with pigeons you are hardly
going to believe my thesis on potatoes now are you??? ;)
Communication with non-human animals is possible. There are no two
ways about it. They also demonstrate intelligence. Self awareness is a
different matter, but current experiments with chimps and so forth are
shedding light on that.
Communication with plants seems a little more tricky, but I've heard
people swear that plants grow better when they're `happy'; listening
to music and things like that. Now *that* seems to be something to
talk about. Down to earth, as you say. ;)
How about you? Have you ever considered any other life forms or do you
think "man" is the only one worth considering?
I think it is of critical important to consider the other life forms
on this planet, and not just from an environmental or scientific point
of view. As *people*, we appear to find it extremely fulfilling to
establish relationships with animals and even plants.
To make the idea more concrete, I suspect we find in animals, as we do
in children, the epitome of innocence. We seem to want such innocence
in our life very much.
Why do people talk to plants?
I think something similar applies to plants, but it's less clear to
me. Perhaps they are pure life, in the basic reproductive and growth
sense?
Prince Charles talks to trees?
Loving a tree I can understand. Talking to it, not really.
Wheel them ALL off to the looney
bin???? Some people even think dogs have intelligence for Christ's sake
and they wolf up the families new baby without a second thought.
It's important to distinguish intelligence from self-awareness. As
I've said, there's no doubt animals are intelligent, and many are
worth talking to, such as dogs, because they are able to learn this
form of communication.
It's interesting to ask whether we credit dogs with what might be
called a `soul' (bad word but I don't have better). I suspect we do,
since we often treat dogs as moral agents ("bad dog" or "good dog"),
but on the the other hand we have less trouble euthenasing dogs than
we do humans.
Cheers,
- Joel
.
|
|
|
| User: "block" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
25 Nov 2004 04:35:24 PM |
|
|
"Joel Reicher" <joel@panacea.null.org> wrote in message
news:rnzn1air3k.fsf@cindy.panacea.null.org...
No, I *do* consider it, but with a view to finding what the
consequences and presuppositions appear to be. That puts it in the
context of everything else we think we know, and suggests ways to
further investigate and perhaps verify the idea.
I cannot somehow see you trying to communicate with a potato! ;)
Communication with non-human animals is possible. There are no two
ways about it. They also demonstrate intelligence. Self awareness is a
different matter, but current experiments with chimps and so forth are
shedding light on that.
But man is trying to understand animals according to and relative to man.
Man should sit in the jungle and try to understand chimps according to
chimps.
I think it is of critical important to consider the other life forms
on this planet, and not just from an environmental or scientific point
of view. As *people*, we appear to find it extremely fulfilling to
establish relationships with animals and even plants.
I agree.
To make the idea more concrete, I suspect we find in animals, as we do
in children, the epitome of innocence. We seem to want such innocence
in our life very much.
There is a big difference between what we would term innocence and what we
would term stupidity.
A child can be innocent, but very intelligent, innocence is a hard word to
define - you can be a young girl of 15 and still be what they would call
"innocent" and yet it is hard to look at a dog and use the word innocence.
Maybe unknowing might be a better word.
I think something similar applies to plants, but it's less clear to
me. Perhaps they are pure life, in the basic reproductive and growth
sense?
If plants respond to music and talking, there is every chance they respond
to vibrations, or maybe it is care and kindness they respond to?
Loving a tree I can understand. Talking to it, not really.
In moments of despair, I am sure a tree helps no end. Better a tree than
nothing at all!
It's important to distinguish intelligence from self-awareness. As
I've said, there's no doubt animals are intelligent, and many are
worth talking to, such as dogs, because they are able to learn this
form of communication.
It's interesting to ask whether we credit dogs with what might be
called a `soul' (bad word but I don't have better). I suspect we do,
since we often treat dogs as moral agents ("bad dog" or "good dog"),
but on the the other hand we have less trouble euthenasing dogs than
we do humans.
It is doubtful that dogs would have the same kind of soul as man - I cannot
see them singing the praises of the wonder of the Universe - and they are
too keen on their food for my liking. I prefer cats.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "danti" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
18 Nov 2004 07:55:01 AM |
|
|
"block" <block@here.com> wrote in message
news:k51nd.505$Ke3.94@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
If a potato feels pain when it is peeled to be cooked, and realizes
it's
life has ended, then would it be possible to get to know a potato on
some
alternative collection/dimension/reality and love that potato so
much that
we would have a relationship?
Is it possible that all life "feels" and that the intelligence it
takes to
create a cloud or a misty morning just doesn't happen to be our kind
of
intelligence?
If we lean on something does it resist because those are the rules
of our
reality? Or does it resist because it cares?
Does everything that exist have feelings?
Do clouds think?
human beings as far as we know are the only true thinking machines in
the universe....others such as chimps, dogs etc can also think but in
a limited fashion and so on down the line......having never conversed
with a cloud i cannot say it is a thinking machine, we can of course
imagine many things....btw a unique human trait......now you have also
said something very much apart from potatoes....
"Is it possible that all life "feels" and that the intelligence it
takes to
create a cloud or a misty morning just doesn't happen to be our kind
of
intelligence"?
by that intelligence i could assume you mean a universal intelligence
or in some circles a god......i would suspect the mind of a god cannot
be fathomed..........and most certainly would be different in far too
many ways.........(assuming a god)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
18 Nov 2004 04:46:20 PM |
|
|
A potato doesn't have the neural network required to think or feel pain,
nor does a cloud.
block schrieb:
If a potato feels pain when it is peeled to be cooked, and realizes it's
life has ended, then would it be possible to get to know a potato on some
alternative collection/dimension/reality and love that potato so much that
we would have a relationship?
Is it possible that all life "feels" and that the intelligence it takes to
create a cloud or a misty morning just doesn't happen to be our kind of
intelligence?
If we lean on something does it resist because those are the rules of our
reality? Or does it resist because it cares?
Does everything that exist have feelings?
Do clouds think?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xs Lover" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
20 Nov 2004 10:25:20 AM |
|
|
In article <cnj8rb$pjb$00$1@news.t-online.com>, AE <hidden@nospam.com>
wrote:
A potato doesn't have the neural network required to think or feel pain,
nor does a cloud.
Pain is an interesting thing though. Preoccupation with other thoughts
can also alleviate pain. Distracting one from their injuries also has
the side effect of minimizing pain. Asking one to speak and formulate
responses distracts attentions from the cognitive aspects of physical
pain. In addition to the physiological networks that you mention, pain
is also a cognitive process.
block schrieb:
If a potato feels pain when it is peeled to be cooked, and realizes it's
life has ended, then would it be possible to get to know a potato on some
alternative collection/dimension/reality and love that potato so much that
we would have a relationship?
Is it possible that all life "feels" and that the intelligence it takes to
create a cloud or a misty morning just doesn't happen to be our kind of
intelligence?
If we lean on something does it resist because those are the rules of our
reality? Or does it resist because it cares?
Does everything that exist have feelings?
Do clouds think?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 02:50:07 AM |
|
|
X's Lover wrote:
AE wrote:
A potato doesn't have the neural network required to think or feel pain,
nor does a cloud.
...
In addition to the physiological networks that you mention, pain
is also a cognitive process.
The cognitive process is the product of the neural network.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 01:45:44 PM |
|
|
In article <cnpkvf$l69$02$2@news.t-online.com>, AE <hidden@nospam.com>
wrote:
X's Lover wrote:
AE wrote:
A potato doesn't have the neural network required to think or feel pain,
nor does a cloud.
...
In addition to the physiological networks that you mention, pain
is also a cognitive process.
The cognitive process is the product of the neural network.
Interesting but unconvincing. Psychology takes the view that thoughts
precede feelings and sensations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chzwmn" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 01:56:51 PM |
|
|
Interesting but unconvincing. Psychology takes the view that thoughts
precede feelings and sensations.
what can this possibly mean.
If I jab you in the arm with a perncil you are aware of the sensation before
you think - Ah that was a pencil in my arm!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 03:15:02 PM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
X's Lover wrote:
AE wrote:
A potato doesn't have the neural network required to think or feel pain,
nor does a cloud.
...
In addition to the physiological networks that you mention, pain
is also a cognitive process.
The cognitive process is the product of the neural network.
Interesting but unconvincing. Psychology takes the view that thoughts
precede feelings and sensations.
Neurobiology does not take this view.
Maybe a good reason to take the view that psychology is not a science?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 06:33:51 PM |
|
|
In article <cnr0k7$k4e$05$2@news.t-online.com>, AE <hidden@nospam.com>
wrote:
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
X's Lover wrote:
AE wrote:
A potato doesn't have the neural network required to think or feel pain,
nor does a cloud.
...
In addition to the physiological networks that you mention, pain
is also a cognitive process.
The cognitive process is the product of the neural network.
Interesting but unconvincing. Psychology takes the view that thoughts
precede feelings and sensations.
Neurobiology does not take this view.
Maybe a good reason to take the view that psychology is not a science?
The neural network for pain is still present in a comatose patient. What
is missing is the ability for the patient to articulate that pain is
present or for others to observe that pain is being experienced. The are
behaviourial and cognitive processes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
22 Nov 2004 02:18:43 PM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
Ron wrote:
AE wrote:
X's Lover wrote:
AE wrote:
A potato doesn't have the neural network required to think or feel pain,
nor does a cloud.
...
In addition to the physiological networks that you mention, pain
is also a cognitive process.
The cognitive process is the product of the neural network.
Interesting but unconvincing. Psychology takes the view that thoughts
precede feelings and sensations.
Neurobiology does not take this view.
Maybe a good reason to take the view that psychology is not a science?
The neural network for pain is still present in a comatose patient. What
is missing is the ability for the patient to articulate that pain is
present or for others to observe that pain is being experienced. The are
behaviourial and cognitive processes.
So what? I claimed that the cognitive process is a product of the neural
network, not that the neural network requires a cognitive process.
The reverse you are suggesting is wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 12:01:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:04:16 GMT, "block" <block@here.com> wrote:
If a potato feels pain when it is peeled to be cooked, and realizes it's
life has ended, then would it be possible to get to know a potato on some
alternative collection/dimension/reality and love that potato so much that
we would have a relationship?
A potato has no illusions of individuality, no need or means of
escape, and no need of the alarm system of pain.
Is it possible that all life "feels" and that the intelligence it takes to
create a cloud or a misty morning just doesn't happen to be our kind of
intelligence?
Our own intelligence is of the same physical nature as nature.
The brain is a lawful chemical machine tuned through natural
selection for our current situation. Basically we are of the
same nature and intelligence of clouds, but we're more vocal
and arrogant about it.
If we lean on something does it resist because those are the rules of our
reality? Or does it resist because it cares?
Does everything that exist have feelings?
Feelings are the consciousness of physical tropisms.
Plants and single celled animals have tropisms that are
explained in chemical mechanical terms. Our sensations
are the same thing, but we are conscious of them.
Do clouds think?
Thinking is the electro-chemical roiling of matter into
ephemeral cumulo nimbus affairs of seeming importance.
There are thoughts and we suppose that we think them with
our separate brains. But what is this process of thought?
It certainly isn't deliberate, since we don't choose to think
and can't direct our thoughts, and don't even know what
they will be until they appear magically and spontaneously
in our minds. (Then we cackle and crow like hens who
have laid another marvelous egg all by ourselves.)
And what do we think about? Potatoes. And the wind and
the mist in the blue sky making shapes of other earthly objects.
Thoughts are basically a mirror of 'external' realities. This may
make us appear practical, but it must include us in the class
of waterfalls and clouds, which also behave naturally in
response to their surroundings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "block" |
|
| Title: Re: Potatoes |
21 Nov 2004 07:05:48 PM |
|
|
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:amk1q0ppfscousmcsmu3cekdeopg6ehoa2@4ax.com...
A potato has no illusions of individuality, no need or means of
escape, and no need of the alarm system of pain.
How do you know? Since when have you become an authority on potatoes? ;)
Our own intelligence is of the same physical nature as nature.
The brain is a lawful chemical machine tuned through natural
selection for our current situation. Basically we are of the
same nature and intelligence of clouds, but we're more vocal
and arrogant about it.
Clouds, IMHO, make statements.
There are thoughts and we suppose that we think them with
our separate brains. But what is this process of thought?
It certainly isn't deliberate, since we don't choose to think
and can't direct our thoughts, and don't even know what
they will be until they appear magically and spontaneously
in our minds. (Then we cackle and crow like hens who
have laid another marvelous egg all by ourselves.)
I think there must be the train of thought, or the thread but also there
must be some kind of source of creativity, inspiration, brainwaves, that is
nothing to do with any of us individually but more as a result of a
collective of some kind of conscious or unconscious universal pool. We
used to pray to the Muses for inspiration, these days, as you say, we cackle
and crow as though we have laid an egg.
And what do we think about? Potatoes. And the wind and
the mist in the blue sky making shapes of other earthly objects.
Thoughts are basically a mirror of 'external' realities. This may
make us appear practical, but it must include us in the class
of waterfalls and clouds, which also behave naturally in
response to their surroundings.
So why do we think? What is listening to the rain purely for the sake of
it? Music for music's sake purely for the appreciation of the beauty of it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
