feeling so chinese that when i talk about the chinese room thought experiment i just call it "the room"

@anemone what's your take on it? I very much agree with the traditional perspective, except that I think only humans can understand chinese because we have souls which is different from his milquetoast opinion that a sufficiently advanced computer could understand chinese.

@georgia@netzsphaere.xyz i dont think it actually addresses the question. the argument that the person running the algorithm or w/e doesn't understand is irrelevant since you could make the same argument that the individual cells making up the person dont understand chinese therefore the person doesn't understand chinese which is clearly a dumb position to take.

fwiw I currently lean on the side of consciousness not being something a computer can produce but i think computers can have souls since all things in the universe can have souls

@anemone pretty sure he addresses your point and says its the unique configuration of a brains parts that allows it to understand chinese. like how he says the room with pipes and hydraulics made in the configuration of a brain can understand chinese. (I havent read the paper in a while I may be missing something) I do disagree that computers can have souls, although they may be possessed by spirits I guess. inert matter doesnt gain a soul because it is treated with a special process, only God can ensoul a being.

@anemone @georgia The last time I read anything on this topic was "Kinds of Minds" by Daniel Dennett. Kind of interesting if you want ways to think about the spectrum of complexity and it may partially be a developmental thing.

I don't understand what you mean about all things having souls.

@georgia@netzsphaere.xyz there's no binary distinction between a living thing and inert matter

@anemone I mean there kinda is: is it a taxon of life? would say with the exception of prions and viruses its kinda black and white.

@RustyCrab@clubcyberia.co @georgia@netzsphaere.xyz you dont need to

@georgia@netzsphaere.xyz its not black and white if there's an exception now is there? viruses are evolved from bacteria

@anemone hmmm I guess youre right but still, whatever has a soul is alive. and souls can only be given by God.

@georgia@netzsphaere.xyz what is alive though?

@anemone something that has a soul and thus transmigrates, its karma leading it to rebirth after rebirth until by grace it is liberated and returns to God

@georgia@netzsphaere.xyz seems a bit circular. "only living things have a soul" "what is alive?" "a thing that has a soul"

@anemone its hard to explain. especially since in truth there is neither living nor inert. all is pure consciousness (the mind of God)

@anemone but in samkhya prakriti is inert and purusha is sentient, the field and the knower of the field. and you can't make prakriti into purusha and vise versa, they are eternal coevolutes.

iktf, when I go to little caesars i just call my order bread...

@georgia@netzsphaere.xyz how do you know one is one but not the other?

@anemone that is what vijnana is

@anemone @georgia
not just "life" (viroids and plasmids and obelisks and friends) but also "thing". lichen is alga (is cyanobacterium inside protist (is bacterium inside archaeon) and bacterium inside fungus (is bacterium inside archaeon). and i am composed of cells from union of father and mother, from mother directly, from father directly, from elder siblings, from quite possibly an engulfed twin, from aunt and uncle and grandparents and great aunts and whomever else, from assorted sexual partners, and from other random people have spent time around, all built from a mush of material and information passed back and forth between "different things" and evolving over time in diverging strains that work together or fight each other and packed with trillions of bacteria and protists and fungi viruses and friends and enemies and neighbours

@georgia@netzsphaere.xyz oh ok

@anemone sorry I should define terms, vijnana has a lot of definitions (being composed of vi which iirc can mean like a lot of something and jnana which means knowledge) but I prefer the definition that it is higher knowledge from realization (unlike scriptural knowledge) that the body and the Self (soul) are different. it is knowledge which discriminates prakriti from purusha, which removes the bonds of maya (illusion, ignorance, especially that of "I" [egoism] and "mine" [attachment to body, kin and possessions]).

@ageha @anemone dont you literally view all life as a mere algorithm including God

@georgia @anemone
"life" is tough to define, but suppose something like "subset of the universe which harnesses entropy gradients to propagate information packets", or something schrödinger-fuzzy like that is best can do. "god" is a bit easier, though still fuzzy, something like "thought-terminating cliche humans harness to hide their insecurities about the fundamental, or sometimes only personal, limits of description behind a veil of faux familiarity

@ageha @anemone just have to agree to disagree

@georgia @anemone @ageha a lot of the time I felt like whatever arbitrary magical soul like stuff people can come up with actually sounds like nothing compared to how absurdly complex and chaotic and sort of "alive" the "mere" material reality seems to be, which makes appear like the more deep metaphysical stuff people involve into their explanations, the more reductionist they are

@rustynail @anemone @ageha the amazement you have at the play of consciousness as expressed in materiality is nothing compared to the peace youll experience from atmavidya in one lifetime or other. until then enjoy neutron stars and such

@georgia @anemone @ageha but there is no knowledge of how consciousness is expressed in materiality. Also I wonder if there is really any reason for there to be a contradiction between any of those things

@rustynail @anemone @ageha >there is no knowledge
i recommend kashmir shaivism

@georgia @anemone @ageha a random article about it that I found actually opens with Einstein and Hawking quotes which I guess is kinda what I meant by "no contradiction", if you have a philosophy that is all encompassing by definition, whatever you discover you just say it was put there by God or whatever, so whatever you discover is not going to be against this philosophy, at least not in any way that matters

@georgia @anemone @ageha this is the most simple way to put it I guess, but also there could be actual parallels so one thing becomes a metaphor for another and so on