• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

AkuManiMani said:
I'm not so much as searching for a way to make conscious exclusive to biology as pointing out that, to our knowledge, it only occurs in a very specific biophysical context.
Click to expand...

Which might have something to do with the fact that the only things we know with sufficient complexity to rival things we know are conscious happen to be biological.
 
Belz... said:
AkuManiMani said:
I'm having a hard time fathoming how some of you can write of your own experience as "superfluous" and "assertions" when thats the very subject of this discussion.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between science and introspection. You shouldn't trust your intuitions.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from; science is empirical. One can intuit a very nice theory but at the end of the day it has to stand up to empirical evidence.

In regards to consciousness, tho, the subject in question is the very foundation of all empirical observation: one's own perceptions. Its vital to study the conscious brain from the "outside" but, in order to full understand it, one must study their own consciousness from the "inside". In the study of consciousness, science is literally staring itself in the eye.


Belz... said:
AkuManiMani said:
The capacity to experience some as some subjective quality is what it means to be conscious and is the fundamental basis of empiricism. Without conscious experience there would be no science.
Click to expand...

Really ? So a non-conscious computer is incapable of doing science ?
Click to expand...

Computers are useful tools of science but, on their own, they cannot do science. Conscious scientists are required to design an utilize them for the purpose of science.
 
Belz... said:
That is an odd definition of "physical", since everything is physical, including functions.
Click to expand...

Heres an example of what I mean:

Whether I convey this message to you via an electronic device [like this computer] or via a vacuum tube system as a written message, the function is still the same. The difference between the two methods is physical, not functional.
 
!!!!

Okay, that's it. Nobody knows what a zombie actually is! Unlike vampires, werewolves, ghosts, and other things that go bump in the night, however, they were real. Zombies existed in a specific social, cultural, and religious context. As the story ran, they were created as a part of vodun spiritual practices when a corpse was raised from death to serve the interests of a controlling bocor, or sorcerer. A zombie resembled the person as he or she appeared during life, but his/her free will had been taken away through the power of sorcery/witchcraft. A zombie was understood to be a "spiritual sacrifice", somewhat analogous to the European idea of a person whose soul had been sacrificed to the Devil.

Now, if we're looking at this phenomenon from the viewpoint of what actually happened, zombies have been seriously studied by only two researchers that I know of (Zora Neale Hurston in 1938, and Wade Davis, whose 1988 book, Passage of Darkness, is the only one that should really be paid attention to.) Their combined information seems to lead to the tentative conclusion that the zombie is created by the interaction of specific psychoactive drugs and

the individual's expectation of what the drug will do to him or her; setting is the environment--both physical and, in this case, social--in which the drug is taken. Thus the poison in the powder, which is a psycho-active drug (one whose effect is related to specific personal psychological factors), will have different effects depending on who one is, what one's socialization and expectations are. In the case of Haitian members of the Bizango sect, they have been socialized to recognize the possibility and process of zombification and are psychologically attuned to the appropriate effects of the drug." (p. 181.)
Click to expand...

In other words, zombies do (or did) not exist in a vacuum, and neither are/were they exactly passively "created". The process was a cultural, social, and religious transaction between human beings. It existed in a context, and so does consciousness itself.

It just seems that these discussions become so unmoored from anything based in reality that the most obvious questions are sometimes overlooked.
 
Belz... said:
AkuManiMani said:
I'm not so much as searching for a way to make conscious exclusive to biology as pointing out that, to our knowledge, it only occurs in a very specific biophysical context.
Click to expand...

Which might have something to do with the fact that the only things we know with sufficient complexity to rival things we know are conscious happen to be biological.
Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to agree that proposition if it weren't for the fact that I'm referring to the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness in the very same system.
 
Maia said:
!!!!

Okay, that's it. Nobody knows what a zombie actually is! Unlike vampires, werewolves, ghosts, and other things that go bump in the night, however, they were real. Zombies existed in a specific social, cultural, and religious context. As the story ran, they were created as a part of vodun spiritual practices when a corpse was raised from death to serve the interests of a controlling bocor, or sorcerer. A zombie resembled the person as he or she appeared during life, but his/her free will had been taken away through the power of sorcery/witchcraft. A zombie was understood to be a "spiritual sacrifice", somewhat analogous to the European idea of a person whose soul had been sacrificed to the Devil.

Now, if we're looking at this phenomenon from the viewpoint of what actually happened, zombies have been seriously studied by only two researchers that I know of (Zora Neale Hurston in 1938, and Wade Davis, whose 1988 book, Passage of Darkness, is the only one that should really be paid attention to.) Their combined information seems to lead to the tentative conclusion that the zombie is created by the interaction of specific psychoactive drugs and



In other words, zombies do (or did) not exist in a vacuum, and neither are/were they exactly passively "created". The process was a cultural, social, and religious transaction between human beings. It existed in a context, and so does consciousness itself.

It just seems that these discussions become so unmoored from anything based in reality that the most obvious questions are sometimes overlooked.
Click to expand...

I did a report just last semester on Haitian zombies. I basically presented it as a how-to recipe to make your own.

Was pretty fun... >_>
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
The materials that the box is made out of, or the architecture of the box, or the particular classes of computation that the box is performing?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

In this case its the material composition. All living cells compute, but it takes a specific kind of cell to produce conscious computation.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I'm not following you. I thought the probes each have the inputs for one instruction in the algorithm, then execute that one instruction. How can there be any consciousness in one instruction execution?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Because it isn't just "one instruction execution."

It is only "one instruction execution" on the probe. All the rest of the algorithm takes place in Run2.

You are looking at this scenario as if the inputs to each probe come from nowhere, or randomness, or whatever.

I am looking at this scenario as Run2, which is paused at a certain instruction, and then simply resumed for a single instruction on a probe, and then terminated.

Here is the sequence of physical events:

<some instructions executed during Run2>
<state saved>
<state loaded on probe>
<probe executes an instruction>

The fact that there are multiple probes, and that each of the sequences has a different number of instructions executed during Run2, is irrelevant -- each sequence has literally nothing to do with the others, besides being an instance of the same algorithm. But they are not all the same instance, each probe represents a different instance.
 
Third Eye Open said:
Could an ape past the Turing test? Humans are adapted through millions of years of evolution to be VERY good at telling what is human and what is not.

Just because I can tell that something is not a human consciousness does not mean it is not conscious at all.
Click to expand...

Don't even bother -- when you point out to westprog that his/her position implies that animals are not conscious, nor mentally handicapped humans, nor young children, he/she will just change the subject.
 
Belz... said:
Actually, by definition, there IS no difference between a p-zombie and a not p-zombie.

And you're asserting that I'd know, but not explaining why.
Click to expand...

Well having read the p-zombie defintion on wiki (philosophical zombieWP) the original p-zombie does not have internal behaviors comparable to a human. They do not 'feel' being poked by the stick, yet they sense it and say 'ouch'. A fallacy of construction for sure.
 
westprog said:
Is this some group etiquette thing I'm not aware of? No gentleman would ever parse another gentleman's sentences?

I'm not making personal attacks, I'm pointing out the clear fact that just as the argument moves towards denying the existence of self, the affirmation of self gets all the stronger.
Click to expand...

Only if you are playing gotcha, you did not respond to most of what i said and di not even consider that the self is multifacted in usage terms. If one states that tehs elf is simply the body and its attendant processes then the common self is that body and the processes therein. My belief is (as stated multiple times) is that consciousness is a rubric for seperate events. the body is the only self taht i believe in, what part of consciousness is not justa temporary state of being?

Philosophers always avoid that, if you have a stroke you can loose your ability to process and make new memories or even to recal memories. So are you still conscious ? Is there a continuity of consciousness? Are you the same person you were yesterday? Or is it an illsuion of memory that leads to the eprsistence of self as a belief?

But of course it appears you are just here to play gotcha, which is too bad. If you answered the questions i posed I would feel that you weren't such a p-rudejerk. But ridicule is more your apparent style.

So are neurological zombies conscious and what is the difference between a quale and perception?

Funny, you did not answer those questions.
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
I am looking at this scenario as Run2, which is paused at a certain instruction, and then simply resumed for a single instruction on a probe, and then terminated.

Here is the sequence of physical events:

<some instructions executed during Run2>
<state saved>
<state loaded on probe>
<probe executes an instruction>

The fact that there are multiple probes, and that each of the sequences has a different number of instructions executed during Run2, is irrelevant -- each sequence has literally nothing to do with the others, besides being an instance of the same algorithm. But they are not all the same instance, each probe represents a different instance.
Click to expand...
But each probe only executes one instruction, right? How can that possibly produce consciousness within individual probes? If we claim that it does, then we are claiming that:
Code: 
     ADD   X, Y, Z
or even
Code: 
     BZ    X, label
produces consciousness for appropriate values of X and Y. That seems unlikely.

~~ Paul
 
Frank Newgent said:
Only if behaviorism is true.

Problem is conceivable zombies violate their own definitions :D
Click to expand...

Well Frank Newgent, I don't believe that behaviorsim has been demonstrated to be false. Which is different than saying it is true. It is just a form of categorization and in terms of psychology it did produce the one effective therapy of cognitive behavioral therapyWP, whatever the flavor. Unlike the phisophicaly based freudian and Jungain analysis.

And of course the defintion of p-zombie is aproblem. It was generated by a p-zombie, although I prefer the m-zombie. It looks as though it has a mind but doesn't. :D
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
But each probe only executes one instruction, right? How can that possibly produce consciousness within individual probes? If we claim that it does, then we are claiming that:
Code: 
     ADD   X, Y, Z
or even
Code: 
     BZ    X, label
produces consciousness for appropriate values of X and Y. That seems unlikely.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I don't know why you are limiting your focus to the instruction run on a probe.

That isn't how things work -- the probe didn't magically appear, and the state wasn't magically loaded onto it, and the instruction wasn't magically programmed. All of these physical things have a physical history. A physical sequence of events can be followed, back to the beginning of time, that defines each moment.

And if you were to follow the physical sequence of events for a probe -- everything that led up to it's current physical state that influenced it's current physical state -- you would never ever encounter another probe. All you would encounter was Run2 and the intermediate saving and loading of states from Run2. It looks like this:

(beginning of time) --> (some stuff) --> (someone programs Run2) --> (Run2 takes place, up to instruction X) --> (someone saves the state of Run2, at X) --> (someone loads the state onto the probe, and programs the probe) --> (probe travels through space until time t has elapsed) --> (probe executes instruction X) --> (probe sits there doing nothing)
 
Last edited:
I know it's p-zombies, and then we also have m-zombies, which in turn are different from post, pre- and wii- zombies. (This is why friends don't let friends take Lortabs and post.) The main problem is that I don't think that anyone who originally came up with the term knew what an actual zombie was. What do you want to bet that Thomas Nagel, Robert Kirk, and David Chalmers all got the idea from George Romero?

AkuManiMani, did you ever make any zombies? :)

CBT was originally designed for depression by Dr. Aaron Beck and has been empirically shown to be effective across a wide range of pathologies (anxiety, panic attacks, substance abuse, anger management, etc.,) although it's important to note that the therapeutic method really has strayed from its behaviorist roots by now. We talk about the theory in terms of changing core, intermediate, and overt beliefs and self-talk rather than primarily changing behavior. That being said, behaviorist techniques absolutely do have their place and they can be very important as part of a treatment plan.

Ack. What am I doing up?? I'm sick and I need to lie down! That's why I didn't go out to the Corner Pub with friends in the first place! Ahem. Clearly, we don't always do what we know we should because of competing interests. ;)
 
Maia said:
AkuManiMani, did you ever make any zombies? :)
Click to expand...

LOL! Nah.

Even if I were that evil, I don't have the expertise or access to the substances that are supposedly used to make someone a zombie [actually, from what I read the initial poisoning was suppose to make someone the opposite of a p-zombie; they'd be conscious but, to all external appearances, they'd be dead]. I mostly just listed the steps that a bokor would take to make a zombie slave. I don't remember off the top of my head, but it was a pretty tedious process to prepare the "zombie powder" with one of the active ingredients allegedly being puffer fish toxin. If I remember correctly, the process was more likely to kill a person than to actually zombify them *_*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom