Correlation vs Causation

I’m still not getting what you are talking about. Help me out by taking one of my examples and explaining where the “solid data model and computationally backed findings and conclusions” comes in to it, like my H. pylori example.

The science “meat” is that I don’t have a stomach ulcer, nor can H. pylori be demonstrated in my stomach.

Linda

Any one data point cannot be scientific meat.  By "meat" I meant analysis of well-formed data that have been backed by experimental or natural setting observations, just as you have been pointing out.

I read article yesterday about a new conjecture asserting causality, that was occurring some 66 million years ago.  It appeared to me to illustrate the general view of science analysis I have been suggesting.  The idea formulated in a paper is that when the earth was hit by a 7 mile long rock from space, did it cause increased magma outflow in the Indian Ocean seabed, as well as the extinction event.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018...cean-floor

There is an accepted science theory that the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan, was an indirect cause of a biological event.  Mechanically, the impact caused a change in the environment and the weather patterns from it.  This mechanical effect is linked to drastically lower reproductive rates in the following years, due to a harsh environment.

Science doesn't say this is the only cause of the extinction of biological organisms, just that there is a significant statistical correlation between impact event and extinction.  The article's take is that there was another mechanical effect, that of major sea bed eruptions - half a world away.

Want to pursue?  The analytical methods sorting the issues would apply to the mind - brain conundrum.

Interesting article by Bernardo in the Scientific American (or at least the SA web site):

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs...l-follies/

Also interesting that he uses the kidney analogy - I wonder whether he's been browsing this thread as some of his arguments seem very pertinent to this discussion.

After all, the mere emulation of a phenomenon isn’t the phenomenon: I can emulate the physiology of kidney function in all its excruciating molecular details in my desktop computer, but this won’t make the computer urinate on my desk.

I had to smile about his observation about the current vogue for AI in SciFi - it is something I have been increasingly aware of lately and, of course he is right: Artificial Intelligence does not equate to artificial consciousness - which is the assumption made in many of these stories. I'm watching the new Netflix show, Altered Carbon (I also read the book years ago) where the idea is taken to the extreme.

I had to smile about his observation about the current vogue for AI in SciFi - it is something I have been increasingly aware of lately and, of course he is right: Artificial Intelligence does not equate to artificial consciousness - which is the assumption made in many of these stories. I'm watching the new Netflix show, Altered Carbon (I also read the book years ago) where the idea is taken to the extreme.
Though Karmy wont see this reply others will. 
It is wise to think the bold is provisional.

I had to smile about his observation about the current vogue for AI in SciFi - it is something I have been increasingly aware of lately and, of course he is right: Artificial Intelligence does not equate to artificial consciousness - which is the assumption made in many of these stories. I'm watching the new Netflix show, Altered Carbon (I also read the book years ago) where the idea is taken to the extreme.
Though Karmy wont see this reply others will. 
It is wise to think the bold is provisional.

Why?  I guess if you are redefining "wise" to mean "deriving from faith" then I could see how one might make such a statement.  Otherwise, the "wise" position would be to make no such assumption considering where our current scientific understanding of consciousness sits.

Why?  I guess if you are redefining "wise" to mean "deriving from faith" then I could see how one might make such a statement.  Otherwise, the "wise" position would be to make no such assumption considering where our current scientific understanding of consciousness sits.

 I just find it utterly remarkable how a simple word, in this case "wise" is misconstrued. No wonder we sometimes talk pass each other. It means: having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.
My comment was meant as sarcasm. You did notice the word "provisional I'm sure. His statement had a tone of it ain't never gonna happen.  But here's the rub. Nobody, Including Karmarling knows how far AI will advance. Perhaps to the point where artificial AI does equal artificial consciousness.

I think the point about AI as it is currently understood and implemented, is that it isn't mysterious, it is just using logic circuits to implement a set of rules. Its basis is the same as an alarm clock, using hardware to implement a rule. There's no consciousness lurking in that alarm clock.

I think the point about AI as it is currently understood and implemented, is that it isn't mysterious, it is just using logic circuits to implement a set of rules. Its basis is the same as an alarm clock, using hardware to implement a rule. There's no consciousness lurking in that alarm clock.

We'll all have to remember this next time someone cheers for panpsychism.

 I just find it utterly remarkable how a simple word, in this case "wise" is misconstrued. No wonder we sometimes talk pass each other. It means: having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.
My comment was meant as sarcasm. You did notice the word "provisional I'm sure. His statement had a tone of it ain't never gonna happen.  But here's the rub. Nobody, Including Karmarling knows how far AI will advance. Perhaps to the point where artificial AI does equal artificial consciousness.

Invoking sarcasm now?  That's a new one.   Remarkable indeed.  My apologies.

A couple of follow up points. I think Bernardo was pointing out, as Typoz has above, that intelligence is not the same as consciousness. The argument he was making was that we don't even understand what consciousness is, let alone understand what gives rise to it. We do, however, understand how to emulate intelligence - at least some kinds of intelligence. There's the simple mechanistic example of the clock given by Typoz and also the complex algorithms and logic circuits involved in AI. 

This latter example mimics, and often exceeds, human intelligence when it involves calculations. But the process does not involve consciousness other than the consciousness of the human designers and programmers. The process is mere switch flipping which is all that is happening in logic circuits. This, in no way, equates to the human conscious experience which involves subjective appreciation. Calculation by flipping switches does not result in subjective experience. That is where the category error is made by those who assume that consciousness can be reduced to something else - either a mechanistic cause with neurones substituted for logic gates or the panpsychist assumptions described by Bernardo where they reduce consciousness itself to "pixels of experience".

A couple of follow up points. I think Bernardo was pointing out, as Typoz has above, that intelligence is not the same as consciousness. The argument he was making was that we don't even understand what consciousness is, let alone understand what gives rise to it. We do, however, understand how to emulate intelligence - at least some kinds of intelligence. There's the simple mechanistic example of the clock given by Typoz and also the complex algorithms and logic circuits involved in AI. 

This latter example mimics, and often exceeds, human intelligence when it involves calculations. But the process does not involve consciousness other than the consciousness of the human designers and programmers. The process is mere switch flipping which is all that is happening in logic circuits. This, in no way, equates to the human conscious experience which involves subjective appreciation. Calculation by flipping switches does not result in subjective experience. That is where the category error is made by those who assume that consciousness can be reduced to something else - either a mechanistic cause with neurones substituted for logic gates or the panpsychist assumptions described by Bernardo where they reduce consciousness itself to "pixels of experience".

Brain function appears to be more analog than digital so I agree, thinking about switch flipping is unlikely to get us very far.