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

[westprog]

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.

And yet you know that I'm not a chat bot, as you know that nobody posting to this thread is a chat bot. (With one possible exception, and that only some of the time). You can recognise consciousness when you see it. That's an interesting thing in itself.

When you find a chat bot that can converse on any forum on any subject without being instantly obvious, let us know.

 

[westprog]

a vast amount of data

Oh, that VAOD again. How can I withstand the VAOD?

 

[cyborg]

You can recognise consciousness when you see it. That's an interesting thing in itself.

And clearly this has bugger all to do with what your sensation of red is.

When you find a chat bot that can converse on any forum on any subject without being instantly obvious, let us know.

Sure, after I stop finding people who fail the Turing test.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

I've been keeping tabs on this discussion just fine:

[1] You stated that cameras observe without being conscious.

[2] I then asked how a camera could observe if its not conscious.

[3] You responded that a camera is not self-aware, or even aware, because it "doesn't do anything" with it's data, it just records/transmits it.

[4] I replied that this response failed to answer my question. I also pointed out that by recording/transmitting data a camera is "doing something" with it.

[5] You replied back that you misspoke when you said said cameras don't do anything with the data; what you meant to say is that they do not compute it.

[6] I then said that even if they did compute the data it did not mean that they were conscious

Which brings me back to my original question: How can cameras be said to observe if they are not conscious?

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.

I'll try to explain by way of example.

Over the course of eons, a river cuts a deep canyon revealing geological strata which holds natural records of earth's history. Via natural processes, with no conscious intelligence involved, the raw data of earth history is made more readily available. Until a conscious entity comes along with the intention and cognitive ability to perceive, understand, and interpret that data as having scientific implications, no science is conducted.

That same would be true if the data were mined by an automated system instead of being uncovered by natural processes. Data doesn't become knowledge, scientific or otherwise, until a conscious subject becomes cognizant of it.

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.

How is a thermostat anymore aware than a comatose human? After all, the coma victim's mammalian body regulates it's temperature just like a thermostat.

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.

The difference between computing an output and formulating a conclusion is one of kind rather than 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.

I'm just a bit frustrated and disappointed at the level of reasoning that produced the question. The fact that you can't seem to see whats wrong with the question just bothers me even more.

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,

I've yet to see anyone here arguing that the universe we perceive doesn't exist. The point is that our perception of the universe is the foundation of all knowledge. Even if everything we perceive is in some way an illusion (and I'm NOT arguing that it is) the perception of the illusion is unequivocally real.

but it takes the experiencing itself for granted. "Experiencing", that is, as defined as anything else than computation.

Is every phenomenon a computation?

It's the same reason why people can't fathom computers being conscious.

I can easily fathom conscious computers. After all I am one. The thing is, I realize that I compute regardless of whether or not I'm conscious, so I find the "consciousness is computation" argument dubious at best.

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.

I believe its perfectly plausible that non-human entities, with very un-human like behaviors, can be conscious. The central criteria for consciousness is the active capacity for subjective experience. However, as I've already pointed out, we currently have no means of definitively establishing this capacity in any entities other than ourselves, what it is about our physiology that generates this capacity, or the knowledge of how to synthetically reproduce it.

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

Belz, its one thing to ask me an asinine question. Its quite another to ask it again when you know I've already answered it repeatedly. Quit trolling.

 

[blobru]

Whoa, by a field goal. They were up by nearly two touchdowns at half-time weren't they?

I know. Gottagit me a new team; at this rate I'll be dead of heart failure before the play-offs even start.

We still have two undefeateds, though; and the Titans won, though that matters exactly zero in the grand scheme of things.

And Mark Ingram won the Heisman all but assuring the Longhorns of the national championship.

All's right with the world.

Your interest in things non-saint (or -penguin [hockey] or -uruguay [soccer], to round out my irrational attachments) baffles and confuses me. Truly the mind of a sports fan is beyond the reach of even the most cutting-edge cross-disciplinary cognitive research.

I like his approach too. I'm still mulling some of the implications.

Another day, another quixotic whack at a definition. Here's one only a phenomenologist's mother could love: Awareness is the relation of the subject to the objects of experience for purposes of description (focussed awareness -- intentionality), framing description (contextual awareness -- the gestalt background), reaction (peripheral awareness -- of the 'shape' of one's environment), and monitoring (latent awareness -- alert to 'significant' change).

As to the Dalmation example, one of the issues we have not yet but will at some point have to discuss is foreground-background distinctions and gestalt. Perception is almost as murky as awareness.

It's hard to pin down a subjective process, alright. But don't despair: things aren't as bad as the Titans' start to the season. My sense is perceptions are just processes, stable processes, sometimes discrete, sometimes overlapping, within the process of awareness. When we freeze cognitive processes to talk about them as separate objects, we sometimes forget they're originally embedded processes, I think, muddying up the water a bit.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's not scientific in the same sense that we could both observe the same mushroom and independently conclude that it is Amanita muscaria. This would be an observation of a component part of my consciousness and a component part of your consciousness which, when doing science, we can also think of as being a real external object "out there" in noumenal reality. We can both handle the same mushroom and verify what it is by refering to a botanical textbook. We cannot do this with consciousness. You've got yours, I've got mine, but it's not any sort of object we can measure or classify. Instead, it really refers to the entirety of my conscious experiences instead of a component part, and can't be placed anywhere at all in the external noumenal reality. Therefore we are talking about something which is not like an object which can be observed by science or even thought to exist in the "real" universe.

To which the only rational response is "so?" That is not how science works in all its myriad forms.

What science we have of psychology depends critically on self-reports. The same is true of the ways in which we study consciousness. In that situation we try to limit all the confounding experimental conditions so that we are left with hopefully only one or two variables uncontrolled (psychology experiments rarely provide complete control over all possible variables). We then repeat the experiments in different conditions.

That it all depends on self-reporting simply means that the self reports involve an audience of one (a single observer); so to overcome biases we provide as many controls as possible.

Joe's conscious experiences.

Which is observable by a single observer -- namely Joe. Joe's consciousness is not unobservable. That no one else can observe simply means that we must be more creative in our experimentation to avoid bias and misinterpretation. It does not mean that we cannot study consciousness scientifically.

 

[AkuManiMani]

And yet you know that I'm not a chat bot, as you know that nobody posting to this thread is a chat bot. (With one possible exception, and that only some of the time).

The sad part is that if we took a poll asking who that individual is, the vote would be nearly unanimous

 

[AkuManiMani]

Which is observable by a single observer -- namely Joe. Joe's consciousness is not unobservable. That no one else can observe simply means that we must be more creative in our experimentation to avoid bias and misinterpretation. It does not mean that we cannot study consciousness scientifically.

I agree. At the same time I also understand UE's position as well. In the hard sciences empirical observation is based upon publicly observable phenomena. Its just so happens that conscious experience is an inherently private phenomenon.

With that said, I don't think that consciousness is outside of the purview of science. I believe that [in principle, anyway] consciousness can still be studied scientifically and that reliable scientific theories can still be formulated regarding it. After all, despite the subjective nature of consciousness, it still has objective reality and therefore, objective knowledge can be gained about it. Its just going to require a different epistemic approach and possibly a very different metaphysical outlook. The end result will still be science, but not of the variety UE is familiar with

 

[Dancing David]

And yet you know that I'm not a chat bot, as you know that nobody posting to this thread is a chat bot. (With one possible exception, and that only some of the time). You can recognise consciousness when you see it. That's an interesting thing in itself.

When you find a chat bot that can converse on any forum on any subject without being instantly obvious, let us know.

I disagree, I do not know that you are conscious, I can assume that you show a range of responses that suggest you might not be a chat bot. But that is what the Turing test is about, I can only define behaviors i associate with consciousness, you very well may be a chat bot.

Granted a very sophisticated one.

 

[Dancing David]

The sad part is that if we took a poll asking who that individual is, the vote would be nearly unanimous

Not really. It might be me.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's not scientific in the same sense that we could both observe the same mushroom and independently conclude that it is Amanita muscaria. This would be an observation of a component part of my consciousness and a component part of your consciousness which, when doing science, we can also think of as being a real external object "out there" in noumenal reality. We can both handle the same mushroom and verify what it is by refering to a botanical textbook. We cannot do this with consciousness.

Sure we can.

You've got yours, I've got mine, but it's not any sort of object we can measure or classify.

It's not an object of any sort. Lots of things we measure and classify aren't objects. We can still measure and classify them, and we can do so with consciousness.

Running is not an object. Nuclear fusion is not an object. Immune response is not an object. Life is not an object.

Instead, it really refers to the entirety of my conscious experiences instead of a component part, and can't be placed anywhere at all in the external noumenal reality.

Baloney.

Your consciousness is a process taking place inside your head.

Therefore we are talking about something which is not like an object which can be observed by science or even thought to exist in the "real" universe.

Triple baloney.

It's not an object, sure. We all know that, so why do you keep bringing it up?

It can be, and is, observed by science, so complete failure there.

It exists perfectly well in the real Universe, inside your real head. Not as an object, but as a process.

Joe's conscious experiences.

We can ask Joe.

There are heaps of things we can't study directly but that we study all the same. And asking Joe is a perfectly valid scientific approach.

We can also shove him in an FMRI and run a series of stimulus-response tests on him to wring out the data at a lower level... And then map that to what he told us before. All sorts of stuff.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

No.

 

[PixyMisa]

The sad part is that if we took a poll asking who that individual is, the vote would be nearly unanimous

As always, if you don't like being told you're wrong, try not being wrong.

It's not up to me to make your posts make sense. If - which is to say, when - you make the same fundamental error for the eleventeenth time, a simple No or Wrong or Epic fail is a more than adequate response.

 

[AkuManiMani]

The sad part is that if we took a poll asking who that individual is, the vote would be nearly unanimous

As always, if you don't like being told you're wrong, try not being wrong.

ROFL!!!

I take it back. It would be completely unanimous

 

[AkuManiMani]

The sad part is that if we took a poll asking who that individual is, the vote would be nearly unanimous

Not really. It might be me.

I never named anyone

 

[Frank Newgent]

Not really. It might be me.

h*Ap^Py>8irthD@y D@v/d

 

[Third Eye Open]

You can recognise HUMAN consciousness when you see it.

FTFY

This is getting really old.

The fact that I can tell a computer from a human HAS NO BEARING ON THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE COMPUTER IS CONSCIOUS. It's getting very boring to hear this over and over and over and over. Please use a new tactic.

 

[Frank Newgent]

This is in turn tantamount to a suggestion that humans are the only animals that are conscious.

It's a fuzzy line alright.

Great octopus videos here and here

Looks like somewhat intelligent behavior.

My wife and I took up scuba diving a few years ago and octopods may be our favorites.

Though one time on a night dive in the Lembeh Strats in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, we were treated to the hilarious sight of various crabs carrying sea anemones on their heads. My very imaginitive wife later suggested they were prowling about to the tune of the Bee Gees' Staying Alive

Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk,
I'm a woman's man, no time to talk...
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha,
Stayin' alive.
Stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha,
Stayin' alive.

 

[westprog]

FTFY

This is getting really old.

The fact that I can tell a computer from a human HAS NO BEARING ON THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE COMPUTER IS CONSCIOUS. It's getting very boring to hear this over and over and over and over. Please use a new tactic.

Oh, right. The only method we have to determine whether something is conscious HAS NO BEARING on whether or not it's conscious. Because we have wishful thinking!

 

[cyborg]

Oh, right. The only method we have to determine whether something is conscious HAS NO BEARING on whether or not it's conscious. Because we have wishful thinking!

Your method to determine whether or not something is conscious is wishful thinking.

Some of us want to move beyond the stone age and don't have any particular anthropic bias holding us back.