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

[westprog]

Maybe you could ask it?

The electron might note this and then theorize something attempting to isolate its properties.

What theoretical structure the electron might achieve concerning this remains unknown

The real mystery is why someone decides to call himself Cyborg and obsess about electrons. I've answered the damn electron question a number of times but he seems to think it's a killer response to something or other.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, not only does that statement fail to answer my question, it flatly contradicts itself. If a camera transmits/records the data it reads then its doing something with it.

You're just buying time, now. Yes I erred and yes it "does" something with it but it doesn't compute anything from the data.

Because you stated that...

"If you're a computer doing science you don't really care about the reported experience, so long as you can observe the results."

So again I ask you: How does an unconscious computer care about or observe anything?

I don't know that it can or would. Again, why is it relevant ? I specifically said it doesn't.

You need to be conscious.

No, you need to be aware.

You saw computer outputs and reached conclusions based upon those outputs. An unconscious computer is no more capable of reaching a conclusion than an abacus.

Again, a funny statement considering the evidence. Please explain why you think so. "Because it's obvious" doesn't count.

Gee, I dunno. I'll have to get back to you on that one...

That's not an answer.

 

[cyborg]

I've answered the damn electron question a number of times but he seems to think it's a killer response to something or other.

You've answered it unsatisfactorly a number of times. You simply assert that it's not in the class of objects you're willing to consider conscious. The only objects you're willing to consider conscious are those that say they're conscious and you believe are telling the truth.

 

[Frank Newgent]

The only objects you're willing to consider conscious are those that say they're conscious and you believe are telling the truth.

Not sure that objects which lied could be considered unconscious.

 

[westprog]

Yes, yes, the consistency is the only thing that separates fiction from reality, but that's not the question: how do you know you experience anything at all ? Could the experience itself be an illusion ? Or is it somehow immune from your doubt ?

If it is an illusion, it's a real illusion. An illusion is an experience. In essence, we can be sure that we are either experiencing some form of reality, or some kind of illusion. Indeed, it's certainly an illusion to some extent.

 

[westprog]

You've answered it unsatisfactorly a number of times. You simply assert that it's not in the class of objects you're willing to consider conscious. The only objects you're willing to consider conscious are those that say they're conscious and you believe are telling the truth.

I've said repeatedly that the reason I don't consider electrons to be conscious is that there is no evidence that they are conscious. The reason I don't consider computers or algorithms as conscious is that there is no evidence that they are conscious.

The reason that I consider myself is conscious is that I know myself to be conscious. If I am not conscious, then the term has no meaning. I consider other people conscious because they seem to be quite like me. However, I cannot be absolutely certain of this.

The only way to avoid this line of reasoning is to redefine consciousness in order to make it more tractable.

 

[cyborg]

I've said repeatedly that the reason I don't consider electrons to be conscious is that there is no evidence that they are conscious. The reason I don't consider computers or algorithms as conscious is that there is no evidence that they are conscious.

And the reason I don't consider you conscious is that your standard as to what is evidence requires that I don't.

The only way to avoid this line of reasoning is to redefine consciousness in order to make it more tractable.

Which you have continually resisted every step of the way.

 

[westprog]

You're just buying time, now. Yes I erred and yes it "does" something with it but it doesn't compute anything from the data.

You are again equating "compute" with "doing science", or "experiencing", or "being aware". In the sense in which a computer computes, it's not doing science, it isn't having experiences, and it isn't aware. Or if it is, it's keeping it to itself.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You're just buying time, now.

Buying time for what?

Yes I erred and yes it "does" something with it but it doesn't compute anything from the data.

Even if a camera does compute, that still doesn't mean its conscious, or even physically capable of it.

I don't know that it can or would. Again, why is it relevant ? I specifically said it doesn't.

If a computer is unconscious it cannot care, have intentions, or observe; ergo, it cannot conduct science.

You need to be conscious.

No, you need to be aware.

Are you using some special sense of the term "aware" that is not synonymous with being conscious?

You saw computer outputs and reached conclusions based upon those outputs. An unconscious computer is no more capable of reaching a conclusion than an abacus.

Again, a funny statement considering the evidence. Please explain why you think so. "Because it's obvious" doesn't count.

Which part? The portion where I state that you form conclusions about computer outputs, or my statement that an unconscious computer cannot reach conclusions?

The first statement is a manifest fact; people [I assume you're a person] form conclusions about computer outputs. The seconds statement is true by definition; reaching a conclusion is a conscious faculty; if the system in question lacks consciousness it cannot reach conclusions.

Are you sure you're experiencing anything ?

Gee, I dunno. I'll have to get back to you on that one...

That's not an answer.

Of course it isn't an asnwer. To be quite frank, I found the question to be too stupid to warrant anything more than sarcasm. Since you insist:

Yes. OF COURSE I'm sure I experience things. How could you seriously ask such a fool question???

 

[westprog]

And the reason I don't consider you conscious is that your standard as to what is evidence requires that I don't.

I think you are confusing evidence and proof. Of course there is evidence that I am conscious. The evidence is that I say that I am.

Which you have continually resisted every step of the way.

Of course I have! One way to make sure that the problem will not be solved is to discard the question and replace it with something easier. Then just give some circular definition and forget about it.

 

[cyborg]

I think you are confusing evidence and proof. Of course there is evidence that I am conscious. The evidence is that I say that I am.

And because we all acknowledge that a chat bot posting such a message to the forum would not constitute evidence that the chat bot is conscious I have to reject your claim to consciousness on that ground.

 

[rocketdodger]

And because we all acknowledge that a chat bot posting such a message to the forum would not constitute evidence that the chat bot is conscious I have to reject your claim to consciousness on that ground.

Life isn't so bad as a zombie, though.

 

[rocketdodger]

Maybe you could ask it?

The electron might note this and then theorize something attempting to isolate its properties.

What theoretical structure the electron might achieve concerning this remains unknown

Ah, so you assert that humans are the only conscious creatures?

Interesting...

 

[Belz...]

If it is an illusion, it's a real illusion. An illusion is an experience. In essence, we can be sure that we are either experiencing some form of reality, or some kind of illusion. Indeed, it's certainly an illusion to some extent.

If it's an illusion, the illusion is caused by something. All we can be sure of, really, is that something exists. But you, or I, aren't part of that certainty.

Now, back to reality, and away from dread solipsism...

 

[Belz...]

You are again equating "compute" with "doing science", or "experiencing", or "being aware".

No I'm not, no I'm not, and no I'm not. Those are different terms, though "experiencing" and "being aware" are pretty much synonymous. Where the hell did you get the idea that I was equating them ?

In the sense in which a computer computes, it's not doing science, it isn't having experiences, and it isn't aware. Or if it is, it's keeping it to itself.

Sure. Who cares ? I'm simply arguing that a computer CAN do science even if it's not self-aware. Perhaps you should read the whole discussion between Aku and me before butting in.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Ah, so you assert that humans are the only conscious creatures?

Interesting...

I did?

 

[Belz...]

Buying time for what?

You tell me. For some reason you didn't adress my point, however wrong you think it is, and instead said something silly.

Even if a camera does compute, that still doesn't mean its conscious, or even physically capable of it.

I think you're losing track of the discussion. I never said it did or was.

If a computer is unconscious it cannot care, have intentions, or observe; ergo, it cannot conduct science.

I don't see how any of that follows.

Are you using some special sense of the term "aware" that is not synonymous with being conscious?

No. Conscious = SELF-aware. Otherwise thermostats would be conscious.

The seconds statement is true by definition; reaching a conclusion is a conscious faculty; if the system in question lacks consciousness it cannot reach conclusions.

Calculators reach "conclusions" and yet they're quite unconscious. They simply give the correct answer. Anything else is just a matter of degree.

To be quite frank, I found the question to be too stupid to warrant anything more than sarcasm.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Well, I think the same thing when someone tries to sell me the idea that, somehow, we're only ever sure that we experience something. Not only does it provide no answer and is of no use, and ignores a vast amount of data that clearly shows that the universe we perceive exists in some way, but it takes the experiencing itself for granted. "Experiencing", that is, as defined as anything else than computation.

It's the same reason why people can't fathom computers being conscious. They simply can't imagine that their own experiences could be something so simple as Pixy or Dodger claim. Quite simply, they are basing their judgment that other humans are conscious based on similitude of behaviour, but somehow deny the same conclusion for machines that exhibit said behaviour. It's almost as if they are operating from a pre-conceived conclusion.

So I ask again: are you absolutely sure that you experience, the way you think you do ?

 

[Frank Newgent]

If it's an illusion, the illusion is caused by something. All we can be sure of, really, is that something exists. But you, or I, aren't part of that certainty.

Now, back to reality, and away from dread solipsism...

I can think of something else that might be interpreted as tilting at solipsism, ie without external reference:

Self-referential information processing.

 

[rocketdodger]

I did?

Yeah, you did.

You suggested that we should ask an electron about it's qualia, and that when asked, it might theorize.

Since humans are the only known animals capable of such behavior, your suggestion is tantamount to a suggestion that humans are the only animals that experience qualia. This is in turn tantamount to a suggestion that humans are the only animals that are conscious.

Get it?

Sometimes wise-guy responses don't entail what you think they entail. In fact, after looking over your post history, one might conclude this is a big problem for you.

EDIT: Oh, well look at your avatar ...

 

[Frank Newgent]

Yeah, you did.

You suggested that we should ask an electron about it's qualia, and that when asked, it might theorize.

Since humans are the only known animals capable of such behavior, your suggestion is tantamount to a suggestion that humans are the only animals that experience qualia. This is in turn tantamount to a suggestion that humans are the only animals that are conscious.

Get it?

Sometimes wise-guy responses don't entail what you think they entail. In fact, after looking over your post history, one might conclude this is a big problem for you.

EDIT: Oh, well look at your avatar ...

Your mind-reading is so bad the Amazing Kreskin would vomit.