“To be happier, focus on what’s within your control” Massimo Pigliucci

“Sometimes it seems  so overwhelming that you cannot get your head or arms around the things. This article might help and worth reading. f. sheikh”

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

This is the Serenity Prayer, originally written by the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr around 1934, and commonly used by Alcoholics Anonymous and similar organisations. It is not just a key step toward recovery from addiction, it is a recipe for a happy life, meaning a life of serenity arrived at by consciously taking what life throws at us with equanimity.

The sentiment behind the prayer is very old, found in 8th-century Buddhist manuscripts, as well as in 11th-century Jewish philosophy. The oldest version I can think of, however, goes back to the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. Active in the 2nd century in Rome and then Nicopolis, in western Greece, Epictetus argued that:

We are responsible for some things, while there are others for which we cannot be held responsible. The former include our judgment, our impulse, our desire, aversion and our mental faculties in general; the latter include the body, material possessions, our reputation, status – in a word, anything not in our power to control. … [I]f you have the right idea about what really belongs to you and what does not, you will never be subject to force or hindrance, you will never blame or criticise anyone, and everything you do will be done willingly. You won’t have a single rival, no one to hurt you, because you will be proof against harm of any kind.

I call this Epictetus’ promise: if you truly understand the difference between what is and what is not under your control, and act accordingly, you will become psychologically invincible, impervious to the ups and downs of fortune.

Of course, this is far easier said than done. It requires a lot of mindful practice. But I can assure you from personal experience that it works. For instance, last year I was in Rome, working, as it happened, on a book on Stoicism. One late afternoon I headed to the subway stop near the Colosseum. As soon as I entered the crowded subway car, I felt an unusually strong resistance to moving forward. A young fellow right in front of me was blocking my way, and I couldn’t understand why. Then the realisation hit, a second too late. While my attention was focused on him, his confederate had slipped his hand in my left front pocket, seized my wallet, and was now stepping outside of the car, immediately followed by his accomplice. The doors closed, the train moved on, and I found myself with no cash, no driver’s licence, and a couple of credit cards to cancel and replace.

Full Article

posted by f.sheikh

HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

 

The light of the sun and moon cannot be outdistanced, yet mind reaches beyond them.

Galaxies are as infinite as grains of sand, yet mind spreads outside them.

(Myoan Eisai – A Japanese Zen Buddhist)

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Whereas human consciousness, intrinsically arising from human being’s naturally evolved brain is still a mystery; artificial intelligence, algorithmically developed and up loaded in a Silicon brain of a machine is a feat of human brain. Human being has for ages been following and is still following the way human consciousness directs, but the thinking machine is following in a way that mirrors billions of years of evolving brain and its consciousness. From ancient time to this day the phenomenon of human consciousness has intrigued many philosophers, mostly discussed for many centuries in subjective terms. But for Steven Arthur Pinker (born 1954) a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, linguist, and popular science author and a Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and computational theory of mind, “The brain, like it or not, is a machine. Scientists have come to the conclusion not because they are mechanistic killjoys, but because they have amassed evidence that every aspect of consciousness can be tied to the brain. . . Consciousness presents us with puzzle after puzzle. How can a neural event cause consciousness happen?” (Pinker in his work How the Mind Works p 132). Thus, the mystery of human consciousness, from the time of Cartesian cognition, “I think; therefore, I am,” became an open challenge for the neuroscientists. The idea of brain as a “thinking machine,” opened a window in human mind to create human brain’s digital double, capable of transmitting artificial intelligence. Toby Walsh in his book, Machines that Think remarks, “Not without irony, Stephen Hawking (1942-2018), [an English theoretical physicist, and cosmologist] welcomed a software update for his speech synthesizer with a warning that came in the electronic voice of that technology: ‘The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race’ (p. 8).”

Although the “cognitive revolution” has introduced pragmatic methods of studying thought and other inner experiences of our mind, neuroscience, even helped by modern technology, has not yet provided an easy way of finding an answer to the hard question of how does subjective experience of human consciousness arise from the objective activity of the human brain? How can our brain’s physical network of neurons, with all its chemical action, electromagnetic system, and interaction of billions of cells and circuits, create a mind that allows a unified awareness of our thinking, recognizing, remembering, feeling, predicting, cognizing, innumerable experiencing of our life and of the universe, repeating hundreds of millions of times in the neocortex, and finally, apparently giving birth to an instantly combined output of all inner experiences in the form of “consciousness?” While we haven’t been able to give a definitive or comprehensive delineation of human consciousness, a scientifically created and defined artificial intelligence is already around us—on screens, in our houses, and even in our pockets. One day it will be talking and walking with us as a family member.

We know that at the root of Artificial Intelligence’s technological appeal is the capability of the machine to be able to perform many tasks characteristic of human intelligence. According to Ray Kurzweil, a pioneering researcher in artificial intelligence, hybrids of biological and silicon-based intelligence will become possible and one day the contents of a human brain will be transferable into a metallic brain, as a CD-ROM uploads its software into a computer. Many thinkers, philosophers, and scientists have agreed that human consciousness is a unique human capability that arises when information is broadcast throughout the brain. But there is yet no central location in the brain identified as the seat of consciousness where—like a streaming data in the head— it can be mapped, copied and downloaded into a Silicon brain.

The pivotal question before us is still about the very nature of human consciousness: Is consciousness an input loaded into the brain through our sensory experiences, perception, memory, intelligence, and diverse media of subjectivity and objectivity that our cognitive process makes use? Or, is consciousness an extra entity that we humans have in addition to our abilities of perceiving, thinking, and feeling? Or, is it an intrinsic and inseparable part of a human being as a creature that can perceive, think, and feel? If it is an extra ingredient—as many of us think of our soul as an extra entity—then we are naturally inclined to ask, “Is it the distinctive telltale signature of a human being?” On the other hand, if we have evolved with it, then we want to know how and why only human consciousness has evolved? Further there is also an opinion that we all have three eyes—the third one inside the head, being the “pineal gland” in the human brain which has the structure of an eye. It has cells that act as light receptors, as the retina does. It has a structure comparable to the vitreous—a gel-like substance between the retina and lens of the eye similar to the shape of a lens. Scientists are researching to better understand the “pineal body”—considered in Eastern spiritualism and Western philosophy—as a possible seat of consciousness. Once scientists are able to develop an artificial pineal gland, the artificial intelligence then also be able to have an algorithmically working artificial consciousness.

  • HUMAN CONDITION AND INTELLIGENT MACHINES

 

Before we argue about the role of intelligent machines and their capability of consciousness that is the same or similar to that of humans, we need to understand more deeply about the nature of human consciousness. The Dictionary of Psychology of American Psychological Association tells, that the definition of consciousness is twofold:

The first describes consciousness as “the phenomena that humans report experiencing including mental contents that range from sensory to somatic perception to mental images, reportable ideas, inner speech, intentions to act, recalled memories, semantics, dreams, hallucinations, emotional feelings, ‘fringe’ feelings (e.g., a sense of knowledge), and aspects of cognitive and motor control.” The second part of the definition speaks of “any of various subjective states of awareness in which conscious contents can be reported—for example—altered states such as sleeping, as well as the global access function of consciousness, presenting an endless variety of the focal contents to executive control and decision making (1931).

History of man’s evolution reveals, that at a certain point of his evolution, when man transcended nature and ended his passive role of only a creature, he emancipated himself from the complete bindings of nature; first by an erect posture and second by the growth of his brain. The evolution of man may have taken billions of years; but what matters is that a patently new species to be identified as a human being arose transcending nature, recognizing life “aware of itself.” Self-awareness, reason and imagination, disrupted man’s harmony with nature that characterized his prehuman existence. Upon becoming aware of himself, the human being also realized the limitations of his existence, and his powerlessness at being a finite being. In his death he visualized his own end. But until today he is never free from this dichotomy of his existence. He cannot rid himself of his mind, even if he wants to; he cannot rid himself of his body as long as he is alive—rather his mind and body create in him a strong urge to be alive, and live an infinite life. He cannot go back to the prehuman state of his harmony with nature because he now views himself as a “special species.” He must proceed to develop his reason until he becomes the sovereign of his nature and a master of himself. But an awareness of his biological relation with the rest of animals poses a challenge to his conscious self. To assure himself that he is no more like an animal, he is tempted to demonstrate his merits as a special species through his unique physical advantage and exceptional intellectual eminence.

Human mind, an evolutionary product of his biological brain, is now changing the course of evolution by creating a digital double in his own image, equipped with artificial intelligence and emotions. Homo sapiens, from the time of their appearance on this planet, have used their neural mechanism in building tools which helped them to initiate a new form of evolution that brought about a social culture of sharing knowledge. As neurology gave birth to technology, the process of technology today has led us invariably to the creation of an amazing tool we call computer. The computer has enabled us to create an expansion of our knowledge base, permitting extensive multiple layers of links from one area of knowledge to another. Perceiving the distinctive appearance from other animals and the uniqueness of our intelligence, our power of communication, and our capability of acquiring and sharing knowledge on this planet, has given rise to a realization that humans are special creatures. But throughout our history of knowledge, scientists have mostly remained reticent to evaluate and prove with scientific reasoning our claim of being a special creature, fearing that they might not be supporting the religious doctrine of human exceptionalism of intelligent design. However, regardless of how humans got to be the way they are today, their intelligence with technology in their hands, has enabled them to overcome any biological hurdle to changing themselves in almost every aspect of their life. Hard scientific data is cumulated across vast spheres, ranging from ecology to epistemology, and cognitive psychology and consciousness, affirm that human beings are truly remarkable and are the only species we know that is achieving this. Today, by developing artificial intelligence, human beings are successfully changing the course of evolution by creating digital doubles in their own image. . . . to read full article please visit: https://independent.academia.edu/MirzaAshraf

Mirza I Ashraf – Academia.edu

independent.academia.edu

Mirza I Ashraf studies World Philosophies, Social Sciences, and International Relations.

Is unrestrained philosophical skepticism responsible for post-truth world? Do philosophers bear responsibility for this?

(Worth reading article about how blurring the lines between skepticism and falsehoods created the post-truth. Are philosophers responsible for this? f. sheikh)

Interview of Julian Baggani, Author of many books, by 3:AM Magazine

3:AM: A Short History of Truth, should help us endure the apparent crisis of truth. You write: ‘If there is a crisis of truth in the world today, the root of the problem is not the inadequacy of philosophical theories of truth.’ Yet, you suggest philosophers aren’t entirely blameless in that crisis, how so?

JB: To a certain extent all philosophers have been involved in a systematic questioning that undermines confidence and certainty. Philosophy as a whole unleashed skeptical forces which, outside of the tightly controlled environment of a rigorous philosophical debate, led a lot of people to throw their hands up in despair and think ‘what’s the point?’. A lot of the public perception of philosophy is that it leaves you with no answers, and more confused than you were at the beginning.

More specifically, there have been a number of philosophers – perhaps more in continental Europe than in Britain – who have reveled in the dismantling of truth. I think they did so with good ethical motives, and for good philosophical reasons. I can see the sense in what they were talking about; the idea that, as a matter of fact, truth is often claimed by elites in order to further certain agendas. They crowd-out alternative perspectives – particularly those of the powerless. But the undermining of truth contributed – in the weird, indirect way that philosophy contributes to the culture – to a rejection of the idea of truth as having any kind of proper meaning at all.

I think a lot of these people, Foucault for instance, would have been horrified that Trump has emerged as a person taking advantage of this skepticism. But that is what happened. It’s a wake-up call.

3:AM: The book is structured in terms of different brands of truth – encouraging a more nuanced understanding of truth. Are you combatting the misappropriation of those skeptical ideas?

JB: I thought the one thing that wouldn’t be useful in addressing the issue would be to give people sketches of the dominant competing theories of truth. I didn’t think that was where the problem was. By the time I’d finished the first draft I realized what I was really saying was: more than having the right theory, it’s important to have the right attitudes towards truth.

This is exactly what Bernard Williams said in his Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy (Princeton 2002). There are these virtues of truth, which he identified as sincerity and accuracy. Williams’ view was: if you begin with a sincere desire to arrive at the truth and you are as scrupulous as possible about trying to get your facts straight, then you have a basis for arriving at a more truthful conception of the world. I think that’s right – and I’d broaden it out a bit to include other virtues (e.g. skepticism, rather than cynicism).

Full Article

This Article May Save Sanity Of Many TFUSA Affiliates

Brief Thought by F. Sheikh on Article. Sometime in anger, frustration or irritation we may say or write things that we regret later on. It is especially true on social media and websites like Thinkers Forum USA (TFUSA) where we sometime write such a hurtful and insulting stuff that we will never find the courage to say to someone’ face. We do not know what effect it may have on targeted individual or individuals, but it surely has ill effect on writer’s mental and physical health because no mind at ease and peace can pour out insulting and hurtful thoughts. Massimo Pigliucci has written a great article on this subject and some worth heeding advice on how to avoid an anger talk trap, which in reality is a temporary insanity. Article is below.

People get angry for all sorts of reasons, from the trivial ones (someone cut me off on the highway) to the really serious ones (people keep dying in Syria and nobody is doing anything about it). But, mostly, anger arises for trivial reasons. That’s why the American Psychological Association has a section of its website devoted to anger management. Interestingly, it reads very much like one of the oldest treatises on the subject, On Anger, written by the Stoic philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca back in the first century CE.

Seneca thought that anger is a temporary madness, and that even when justified, we should never act on the basis of it because, though ‘other vices affect our judgment, anger affects our sanity: others come in mild attacks and grow unnoticed, but men’s minds plunge abruptly into anger. … Its intensity is in no way regulated by its origin: for it rises to the greatest heights from the most trivial beginnings.’
The perfect modern milieu for anger management is the internet. If you have a Twitter or Facebook account, or write, read or comment on a blog, you know what I mean. Heck, Twitter anger has been brought up to new heights (or lows, depending on your point of view) by the current president of the United States, Donald Trump.

I too write quite a bit on online forums. It’s part of my job as an educator, as well as, I think, my duty as a member of the human polis. The conversations I have with people from all over the world tend to be cordial and mutually instructive, but occasionally it gets nasty. A prominent author who recently disagreed with me on a technical matter quickly labelled me as belonging to a ‘department of bullshit’. Ouch! How is it possible not to get offended by this sort of thing, especially when it’s coming not from an anonymous troll, but from a famous guy with more than 200,000 followers? By implementing the advice of another Stoic philosopher, the second-century slave-turned-teacher Epictetus, who admonished his students in this way: ‘Remember that it is we who torment, we who make difficulties for ourselves – that is, our opinions do. What, for instance, does it mean to be insulted? Stand by a rock and insult it, and what have you accomplished? If someone responds to insult like a rock, what has the abuser gained with his invective?’

Indeed. Of course, to develop the attitude of a rock toward insults takes time and practice, but I’m getting better at it. So what did I do in response to the above-mentioned rant? I behaved like a rock. I simply ignored it, focusing my energy instead on answering genuine questions from others, doing my best to engage them in constructive conversations. As a result, said prominent author, I’m told, is livid with rage, while I retained my serenity.

Now, some people say that anger is the right response to certain circumstances, in reaction to injustice, for instance, and that – in moderation – it can be a motivating force for action. But Seneca would respond that to talk of moderate anger is to talk of flying pigs: there simply isn’t such a thing in the Universe. As for motivation, the Stoic take is that we are moved to action by positive emotions, such as a sense of indignation at having witnessed an injustice, or a desire to make the world a better place for everyone. Anger just isn’t necessary, and in fact it usually gets in the way.

The philosopher Martha Nussbaum gave a famous modern example of this in her Aeon essay on Nelson Mandela. As she tells the story, when Mandela was sent to prison – for 27 years – by the Apartheid government of South Africa, he was very, very angry. And for good reasons: not only was a grave injustice being perpetrated against him personally, but against his people more generally. Yet, at some point Mandela realised that nurturing his anger, and insisting in thinking of his political opponents as sub-human monsters, would lead nowhere. He needed to overcome that destructive emotion, to reach out to the other side, to build trust, if not friendship. He befriended his own guard, and eventually his gamble paid off: he was able to oversee one of those peaceful transitions to a better society that are unfortunately very rare in history.

Read Full Article

 posted by f.sheikh