The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[LarryS]

A quick scan of the 'invisible dragon' thread will demonstrate that what is real is only what we can supply evidence for. 'Evidence' does not include an individual's subjective testimony, but only measurable quantitative facts such mass, temperature, frequency, spin, charge, etc.
There is absolutely no evidence for consciousness, zero, zilch, nada.
We can look into a brain and we do not find subjective experience, nor is there any process or thing in the brain that predicts consciousness.
The above statements are one way of wording the 'hard problem of consciousness'. It's not 'hard' because it's difficult, it's hard because there no way to explain consciousness from physical matter - not even in principle.
Perhaps in the future we will discover some currently unknown property/force in nature that will explain consciousness.
Perhaps it will be 'bio-materialism' - where biology creates a new state of matter. Perhaps it will be Integrated Information Theory.
Or maybe we will just toss in the towel and call consciousness an illusion.

 

[Dave241]

There is absolutely no evidence for consciousness, zero, zilch, nada.

Other then 7 billion conscious humans?

We can look into a brain and we do not find subjective experience, nor is there any process or thing in the brain that predicts consciousness.
The above statements are one way of wording the 'hard problem of consciousness'. It's not 'hard' because it's difficult, it's hard because there no way to explain consciousness from physical matter - not even in principle.

Simply stating this doesn't make it so. You are essentially saying that AI is physically impossible, as it it would violate some law of physics if we were to build one. And that is one helluva claim to make.

Are you able to support it?

Perhaps in the future we will discover some currently unknown property/force in nature that will explain consciousness.

That contradicts your previous claim that it's impossible, even in principal. Now you agree that given enough advancement, oh wait yeah it might be possible.

Also, why does it have to be an unknown force in nature? What if it's a known force, such as the EM force that we all know about? I'm pretty sure most every AI scientist in the world will disagree with you about either it being "impossible even in principal", or that it would require some unknown force of nature to allow it. I think they all believe that the EM force is enough to do it.

Perhaps it will be 'bio-materialism' - where biology creates a new state of matter.

Biology creating a new state of matter? Like, some organism will evolve an LHC inside it's belly? What are you talking about here?

Perhaps it will be Integrated Information Theory.

.....which would mean that in principal, it IS possible to create AI. That contradicts your previous statement that it's impossible, even in principal. It also contradicts your claim that we need a new force of nature.

Or maybe we will just toss in the towel and call consciousness an illusion.

Don't hold your breath on that.

 

[RedStapler]

Skeptics? Now you're bring the Ancient Greeks into it!

I have no idea, what this is supposed to mean.

But I guess you are admitting defeat by now, since all you have left is cheap gotchas and incoherent answers. What kind of Philosophy do you guys call that?

 

[RedStapler]

There is absolutely no evidence for consciousness, zero, zilch, nada.
We can look into a brain and we do not find subjective experience,

This is ridiculous.

Scientists are shocked! They looked into a washing machine and did not find any washing. Do the laws of physics have to be re-evaluated? More news at 10.

 

[shuttlt]

Simply stating this doesn't make it so. You are essentially saying that AI is physically impossible, as it it would violate some law of physics if we were to build one. And that is one helluva claim to make.

Is AI about trying to create artificial consciousness? That sounds a little Frankenstein-esque. It wouldn't be required to pass the Turing test or do any of the other things that come to mind that artificial intelligence seems to have been applied to.

When I did the introductory undergrad course in AI 25 years ago they talked about the hard problem of consciousness. They seemed to have solved it by becoming behaviourists and ignoring it.

 

[LarryS]

Other then 7 billion conscious humans?



Simply stating this doesn't make it so. You are essentially saying that AI is physically impossible, as it it would violate some law of physics if we were to build one. And that is one helluva claim to make.

Are you able to support it?



That contradicts your previous claim that it's impossible, even in principal. Now you agree that given enough advancement, oh wait yeah it might be possible.

Also, why does it have to be an unknown force in nature? What if it's a known force, such as the EM force that we all know about? I'm pretty sure most every AI scientist in the world will disagree with you about either it being "impossible even in principal", or that it would require some unknown force of nature to allow it. I think they all believe that the EM force is enough to do it.



Biology creating a new state of matter? Like, some organism will evolve an LHC inside it's belly? What are you talking about here?



.....which would mean that in principal, it IS possible to create AI. That contradicts your previous statement that it's impossible, even in principal. It also contradicts your claim that we need a new force of nature.



Don't hold your breath on that.

When I claim there is no evidence for consciousness - this is from the perspective of materialism/physicalism which only admits evidence that is quantitative and measureable.

When I mention 'bio-materialism' or some unknown property/force in nature - this is holding out hope that physicalism/materialism can still explain consciousness.

Re modern neurological research - most labs are proceeding uder the assumption that the brain is sufficient to explain consciousness - - but there is no existing theory or even a hunch how it could happen.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote.

 

[shuttlt]

Really though? So to be a neuron feels like being a person standing in a field raising a flag?

This reminds me of year 1 AI. Half my friends turned into committed behaviourists.

 

[shuttlt]

When I claim there is no evidence for consciousness - this is from the perspective of materialism/physicalism which only admits evidence that is quantitative and measureable.

Unless you define consciousness in terms of externally observable behaviour. It's not what I mean by consciousness, but I've seen it done.

 

[xjx388]

When I claim there is no evidence for consciousness - this is from the perspective of materialism/physicalism which only admits evidence that is quantitative and measureable.

When I mention 'bio-materialism' or some unknown property/force in nature - this is holding out hope that physicalism/materialism can still explain consciousness.

Re modern neurological research - most labs are proceeding uder the assumption that the brain is sufficient to explain consciousness - - but there is no existing theory or even a hunch how it could happen.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote.

Consciousness is your subjective experience of processing all the data that’s coming in from your senses. That data creates perceptions which trigger thoughts, emotions, etc. This happens to you, it happens to me -it happens to every human alive to a greater or lesser degree. Even people who lose both sight and hearing.

Your brain stores information and makes connections between that information. This interconnected network of information is your memory. Your brain uses these memories to process new experiences. Taste a new food and the first thing you are thinking about is what other foods it’s similar to or what the individual flavors are and whether or not you like it.

How do I know this? Because like I said: it happens to me and by observing others, I can infer that it happens to them in similar ways. Much like their heart, liver and every other organ function similarly to mine.

The only “hard problem of consciousness” is that we don’t know how it all actually works just yet. But to say we have no theories or hunches is to ignore all the progress made in the field. To say there’s something more than the physical is to make an unwarranted leap.

 

[David Mo]

What you're doing here is trying to use a No True Scotsman defence; you want me to define your terms so that you can try and insinuate something into a gap in them. I'm not playing, because I'm not the one defending a claim here. You've used a definition of 'science' yourself to make the claim that there are other ways of investigating reality; use that one. If I disagree with it, then that's an argument against your claim. And stop trying to ask me to make a claim; you've made one, so either justify it or be considered to have no justification.

Dave

What I've done is follow the normal rules of any civilized debate.
Someone's using the X word.
I don't see what their use of the X is and I ask, "What do you mean, X?"
In any civilized debate my opponent would say, "I mean this and this."
This is what happens in any civilized debate. Not here.

I haven't given any definition of "science". If the civilized debate continues, I can try. But I am not advocating the theory that only science can explain facts, which is the starting point of our not-so-civilized debate.

 

[David Mo]

Well, the "problem of good" does not exist. You are asking for a scientifically strict definition of something that does not exist.

What does not exist is the scientific solution to the problem of moral good. The problem of the moral good is how to find a moral principle that allows the agreement of the greatest possible number of people. If you think it is not a problem or you have found the solution it would be good to say so here.

 

[David Mo]

I’ll have to save Joe’s definition of philosophy....

I often point out that “good” and “evil” are just human value judgements on human activities... They are culturally conditioned.
The Aztec no doubt felt that ripping the hearts out of sacrificial victims was a “good” activity, but I’d imagine the victims had another judgement on the process....

The problem with the relativist is that he stops being a relativist when someone steals his wallet. So he asks for justice to act.

 

[David Mo]

Skeptics? Now you're bring the Ancient Greeks into it!

I see you're having fun too.

 

[David Mo]

Unless you define consciousness in terms of externally observable behaviour. It's not what I mean by consciousness, but I've seen it done.

For your information: the attempt of pure behaviorism to ignore consciousness has failed in psychology. Today there are virtually no skinnerian behaviorists except among some philosophers. If you abhor philosophy, it would be good for you to take this into account.

The reason is that there is no way of knowing from external evidence whether you are afraid or pretending to be. Or if you are focused on peeling an orange or become aware that you are looking at an orange. These are different things and the current psychology realized that it could not treat people without taking it into account. The division between conscious and unconscious is no longer limited to psychoanalysis.

Naturally, that makes B.F. Skinner's claim to turn psychology into a factual science like physics or chemistry a dead end. Psychology is not a natural science, but it also knows some things about the human mind through specific tests, for example. And using concepts of things not directly observable like anxiety, emotional intelligence, consciousness and so on.

 

[David Mo]

Ah yes, the only definition of consciousness more or less is: the subject is aware when he is aware of his position in relation to the objects he knows. It's not "scientific," but it works.

 

[David Mo]

'Evidence' does not include an individual's subjective testimony, but only measurable quantitative facts such mass, temperature, frequency, spin, charge, etc.

That's true of the physical sciences. It's not good enough to know if Caesar passed the Rubicon. Or if the patient is faking anxiety symptoms.

 

[Robin]

"OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT! EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY! YOU'RE USING PHILOSOPHY! ARE YOU SAYING SOCRATES AND HUMES WERE STUPID!? SCREECH SCREECH SCREECH."

If philosophy triggers you so much why don't you just steer of it?

 

[RedStapler]

What does not exist is the scientific solution to the problem of moral good. The problem of the moral good is how to find a moral principle that allows the agreement of the greatest possible number of people. If you think it is not a problem or you have found the solution it would be good to say so here.

Ah, repeating the claim, I see. There is no such problem, repeating the claim that it does changes nothing.

 

[David Mo]

Ah, repeating the claim, I see. There is no such problem, repeating the claim that it does changes nothing.

You may find this video useful: : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfh8wHVKouk

You're welcome.

 

[RedStapler]

You may find this video useful: : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfh8wHVKouk

You're welcome.

Did not click on it, but I suppose you posting a YT-video means "I concede my point". Good for you.