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

[westprog]

I hope thats not what he meant. If our experience of the world is accurate then, by definition, its not an illusion.

I think that the idea is that the data is accurate, but the experience is an illusion. It doesn't make much sense to me either.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'm not sure how much of my other responses you've been following but, I've explicitly stated that I considered lucid dreaming as being a state of consciousness.

Well... ok. But then you're still computing at that point, aren't you ? So far I see no reason to exclude mere computation as the "source" of consciousness.

Computation is required for all of our biological functions -- every living cell in our body computes. The point is that computation itself is not consciousness.

That the consistence of observation is good enough to reach conclusions about how the perceived reality operates.

I'm still not seeing how you can argue that our perceptions are evidence of reality, but then question the reality of our perception.

Keep in mind that when I say "consciousness" I'm referring to lucid and semi-lucid states of mind, which includes waking and lucid dreaming states. In a coma or deep sleep there is no subjective component.

What do you mean by "subjective component", then ? The impression of self is still there.

When we're unconscious our knowledge and memories are still there, but there is no subjective experience of our sensory input or mental content.

I really don't care if some people don't want the answer. I do.

Careful, now. Answers have already been proposed and so far you've rejected them. What makes you think you'd accept any further proposition ?

I told you the conditions I'd require to accept such a proposition. So far, none of them have been met.

 

[Malerin]

Get out of here, troll.

Unfortunately, it's a consequence of the belief thermostats are conscious. We tend to confer certain rights on complex conscious things. An ant isn't very complex, nor does anyone think its consciousness is terribly sophisticated (if it has any at all), so we might feel vaguely uncomfortable watching a kid burn ants with a maginifying glass. Maybe we even feel a little pity.

A complex conscious thing, like a dog, OTOH, has quite a few negative rights. Wouldn't you agree? You can't dump it in the desert when you're tired of it, can't torture it or stomp on its head if you've had a bad day. So then, a Cray XT5 is an extremely complex thing, right? If it is also conscious...

Do you see where this is going and why it's a concern for the thermostats-are-conscious crowd?

 

[Third Eye Open]

All inanimate objects react to their surroundings. They can't not react to their surroundings. Indeed, if an object were found that didn't react to its environment, then I'd tend to assume that it was at least intelligent, and possibly an angel.

If you re read the sentence you quoted very carefully, you may notice that I said 'act as if they are aware of' their surroundings, not simply 'react to'. Of course, you know there is a large difference, but you couldn't make your silly point over and over if you acknowledged it.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Unfortunately, it's a consequence of the belief thermostats are conscious. We tend to confer certain rights on complex conscious things. An ant isn't very complex, nor does anyone think its consciousness is terribly sophisticated (if it has any at all), so we might feel vaguely uncomfortable watching a kid burn ants with a maginifying glass. Maybe we even feel a little pity.

A complex conscious thing, like a dog, OTOH, has quite a few negative rights. Wouldn't you agree? You can't dump it in the desert when you're tired of it, can't torture it or stomp on its head if you've had a bad day. So then, a Cray XT5 is an extremely complex thing, right? If it is also conscious...

Do you see where this is going and why it's a concern for the thermostats-are-conscious crowd?

You are trolling and you know it. Just to be clear, what you said was:

If thermostats are conscious, should they be given moral rights? If a brand of thermostat is about to be destroyed entirely, should we make efforts to prevent its extinction like with The Endangered Species Act?

First off, consciousness does not equal 'rights' by any means. Do we give rights to ants or rats or badgers? If a thermostat can be said to be conscious, it is less conscious than all of these. And before you bring up animal rights, these only apply to things with nervous systems that can feel pain.

Secondly, we preserve endangered species because once they are gone, they are gone forever, and some people find it important to keep all the animals we can around for enjoyment and/or study. If someone is really interested in a model of thermostat that is no longer in production, they can just make one.

But you know all of the above. You made the comment solely to get a reaction out of the crowd by purposely misunderstanding their position. That is the definition of trolling.

So yes, get out troll.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Unfortunately, it's a consequence of the belief thermostats are conscious. We tend to confer certain rights on complex conscious things. An ant isn't very complex, nor does anyone think its consciousness is terribly sophisticated (if it has any at all), so we might feel vaguely uncomfortable watching a kid burn ants with a maginifying glass. Maybe we even feel a little pity.

A complex conscious thing, like a dog, OTOH, has quite a few negative rights. Wouldn't you agree? You can't dump it in the desert when you're tired of it, can't torture it or stomp on its head if you've had a bad day. So then, a Cray XT5 is an extremely complex thing, right? If it is also conscious...

Do you see where this is going and why it's a concern for the thermostats-are-conscious crowd?

Didn't stop my new car alarm from being considered for the Supreme Court.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4872308#post4872308

 

[Malerin]

You are trolling and you know it. Just to be clear, what you said was:


First off, consciousness does not equal 'rights' by any means. Do we give rights to ants or rats or badgers?

Yes. http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/html/cruelty_law_al-mt.html#California

My neighbor has a protected tree growing in his yard that he has to get permission from the city to prune, but that's Los Angeles County for ya.

In Britain, there's a species of ant on the endangered species list.

If a thermostat can be said to be conscious, it is less conscious than all of these.

Really? How do you apply this consciousness test?
Is it really less conscious than a mouse? How do we test? Is a Cray more conscious than a mouse?

And before you bring up animal rights, these only apply to things with nervous systems that can feel pain.

Ah, so a bunch of transistors can be conscious, but you need a nervous system to feel pain?
And I like how the subjective experience of pain managed to find its way back in, free from any "information processing" garbage.

If a thermostat is conscious, then whose to say it doesn't feel pain? Perhaps when the temperature goes above its preset limit for too long the thermostat feels something analagous to pain? Remember, it was not me that opened the door to all this. I don't believe in conscious thermostats. But if you do, then it's a short hop from conscious thermostats to suffering thermostats.

Secondly, we preserve endangered species because once they are gone, they are gone forever, and some people find it important to keep all the animals we can around for enjoyment and/or study. If someone is really interested in a model of thermostat that is no longer in production, they can just make one.

That would apply to endangered species laws. Animal cruelty laws, OTOH, are in place because we don't like it when conscious things suffer.

But you know all of the above. You made the comment solely to get a reaction out of the crowd by purposely misunderstanding their position. That is the definition of trolling.

I made the comment because it is a consequence of the absurd belief that thermostats are conscious. If they are, then presumably supercomputers are even "more conscious" (they are certainly more complex). If we care about the welfare of complex conscious things (and we do), then we should care about the welfare of a supercomputer.

So yes, get out troll.

Unfortunately, I don't think Pixy is going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Yes. http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/html/cruelty_law_al-mt.html#California

My neighbor has a protected tree growing in his yard that he has to get permission from the city to prune, but that's Los Angeles County for ya.

In Britain, there's a species of ant on the endangered species list.

Yes, they are added to that list for OUR benefit, not theirs. Ants and trees have no rights.

Really? How do you apply this consciousness test?
Is it really less conscious than a mouse? How do we test? Is a Cray more conscious than a mouse?

A thermostat is aware of one thing: the temperature. A mouse is aware of many many many more things in much more detail. It is pretty obvious. So obvious, in fact, that it leads me to believe that you are trolling when you ask such a question.

Ah, so a bunch of transistors can be conscious, but you need a nervous system to feel pain?
And I like how the subjective experience of pain managed to find its way back in, free from any "information processing" garbage.

What, exactly does pain have to do with consciousness? A 'bunch of transistors' rolleyes: more trolling language) can be aware of many things, pain not being one of them. Pain is a specific sensation brought to our awareness though our nervous system.

If a thermostat is conscious, then whose to say it doesn't feel pain? Perhaps when the temperature goes above its preset limit for too long the thermostat feels something analagous to pain? Remember, it was not me that opened the door to all this. I don't believe in conscious thermostats. But if you do, then it's a short hop from conscious thermostats to suffering thermostats.

I say it does not feel pain, because it has no mechanism through which to 'feel' anything other than temperature. It is aware of the temperature, and reacts to it. That is all.

That would apply to endangered species laws. Animal cruelty laws, OTOH, are in place because we don't like it when conscious things suffer.

No, things with nervous systems suffer physical pain. It has, for example, been argued that fish do not feel pain.

 

[Dancing David]

I would not say consciousness is an illusion but a mistaken impression of separate events, that appear to be one thing when really they are not. I can be wrong.

Like Pointillism^WP.

 

[Malerin]

Yes, they are added to that list for OUR benefit, not theirs. Ants and trees have no rights.

They have negative rights. Interefering with certain ants and trees can cost you a lot of money. But in the case of Cruelty to Animal laws, those are passed for the benefit of the animals.

A thermostat is aware of one thing: the temperature. A mouse is aware of many many many more things in much more detail. It is pretty obvious. So obvious, in fact, that it leads me to believe that you are trolling when you ask such a question.

And you and I are aware of many more things and in much more detail than Hellen Keller ever could be. Does that mean she was "less conscious"?
How many things is a supecomputer aware of when computing a weather forecast (if we're assuming computers are aware at all)? Trillions of pieces of data? Does that make the computer "more conscious"?

What, exactly does pain have to do with consciousness?

You tell me, it was your point. I simply claimed that we care about and confer certain rights to complex conscious things. This is undeniably true. You brought in the whole pain argument.

A 'bunch of transistors' rolleyes: more trolling language) can be aware of many things, pain not being one of them.

Trolling language? Have you been following the thread at all?

Pain is a specific sensation brought to our awareness though our nervous system.

And consciousness arises from neurons, so you want to abandon all this talk of conscious thermostats, right?

I say it does not feel pain, because it has no mechanism through which to 'feel' anything other than temperature.

And what do we call it when we feel something with a very high temperature, say a hot stove?

It is aware of the temperature, and reacts to it. That is all.

Think about how it reacts. If the temperature rises above its preset limits, it attempts to lower the temperature, correct? In other words, it tries to avoid extremes of temperature. Where else do we see this avoidance behavior?

No, things with nervous systems suffer physical pain.

And things with neurons are conscious. Oh wait. Digital watches and smoke detectors are conscious. Once you go down the rabbit hole of conscious toasters and watches, you can't start harping on the uniqueness of nervous systems. You realize that, right?

It has, for example, been argued that fish do not feel pain.

There are people who do not feel pain also... is it OK to punch them?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Okay, then what role do you think consciousness play in all of this?

The pieces share information with each other, producing consciousness.

Does our subjective experience play some causal role in how we interract with the world, or do you suspect that consciousness is an irrelevant epiphenomenon with no functional value IAOI?

You mean, for example, can our subjective experience perchance cause you to ask questions about subjective experiences? Apparently so!

 

[PixyMisa]

And you and I are aware of many more things and in much more detail than Hellen Keller ever could be. Does that mean she was "less conscious"?

Awareness is not consciousness.

How many things is a supecomputer aware of when computing a weather forecast (if we're assuming computers are aware at all)? Trillions of pieces of data? Does that make the computer "more conscious"?

Awareness is not consciousness.

And consciousness arises from neurons, so you want to abandon all this talk of conscious thermostats, right?

Thermostats are not conscious. They are aware, but awareness is not consciousness.

 

[Jeff Corey]

In my world useful generally means that there is a pragmatic consequence -- in this case that we may cut through the verbiage and equivocation over definitions to move the discussion forward instead of the merry-go-round on which it currently sits.

OK, conscious experience is a private event. I have it. It seems you guys have it. Or your p zombies do.
What it is for me is talking to myself. picturing things like some thing I want to draw, all behavior,planning, talking, seeing. But not directly observable to anyone else. That's what makes it spooky and gets the dualists into the act. There is no fraking thing that is mental. There are only physical things. What is going on in my brain is a physical process.
So the only way we can study this is by studying behavior.

 

[Malerin]

Thermostats are not conscious. They are aware, but awareness is not consciousness.

Oh, I agree and I'm glad to hear you say this. I was under the impression you thought things like washing machines and microwave ovens are conscious because you've specifically said washing machines and microwave ovens are conscious.

Most computers these days are conscious. And I'm not talking big, complex computers like mobile phones and video games, I'm talking things like microwave ovens and washing machines and car engines.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158352&page=82

If you of all people can drop the idiotic notion that car engines are conscious, there's hope for us all!


You have changed your mind, right? It's more than just catching you in a blatant contradiction, I hope.

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, I agree and I'm glad to hear you say this. I was under the impression you thought things like washing machines and microwave ovens are conscious because you've specifically said washing machines and microwave ovens are conscious.

That's because they are. Well, it depends on how the microcontrollers are programmed, but it's perfectly possible, and true in at least some cases.

Washing machines and microwave ovens are more complex than thermostats, Malerin.

Thermostats are aware, but they are not conscious. That's the point that Dennett was making when he used them as an example, a point that seems to have been quite wasted on you.

If you of all people can drop the idiotic notion that car engines are conscious, there's hope for us all!

Now that's a different matter. The majority of car engines manufactured in the last decade are conscious. Cars taken as a whole, even more so.

You have changed your mind, right?

No, sorry, it's just you failing to understand anything again.

It's more than just catching you in a blatant contradiction, I hope.

No, it's less. Much less.

 

[Third Eye Open]

And you and I are aware of many more things and in much more detail than Hellen Keller ever could be. Does that mean she was "less conscious"?

If you define consciousness as being aware of ones self, then yes, she was less aware of herself than I am. If you define conscious as simply being aware that you exist, then no.

How many things is a supecomputer aware of when computing a weather forecast (if we're assuming computers are aware at all)? Trillions of pieces of data? Does that make the computer "more conscious"?

It would be much more aware of many more things than I, yes. If it is aware of its self, then it is aware of its self.

You tell me, it was your point. I simply claimed that we care about and confer certain rights to complex conscious things. This is undeniably true. You brought in the whole pain argument.

I brought up pain because it was the only example of a right we give to non humans, the right to not suffer.

And consciousness arises from neurons, so you want to abandon all this talk of conscious thermostats, right?

Well, thats fun. Consciousness arises from neurons. Neurons specifically? What is it exactly about neurons that makes them so special?

And what do we call it when we feel something with a very high temperature, say a hot stove? Think about how it reacts. If the temperature rises above its preset limits, it attempts to lower the temperature, correct? In other words, it tries to avoid extremes of temperature. Where else do we see this avoidance behavior?

From what I understand, a thermostat has two states, on and off. No room there for a 'move away from the heat' instruction that could be defined as a pain of some sort.

And things with neurons are conscious. Oh wait. Digital watches and smoke detectors are conscious. Once you go down the rabbit hole of conscious toasters and watches, you can't start harping on the uniqueness of nervous systems. You realize that, right?

There are people who do not feel pain also... is it OK to punch them?

What we describe as pain only applies to nervous systems. Something without a nervous system could experience a 'you are being damaged' message, but it would not 'feel' like we feel pain. We can't know what it would 'feel' like.

You are trying to project the version of consciousness that you know onto other things, because it is the only one you know. Things that are not human, are not conscious like humans. Because of this, you may choose not to think of them as conscious at all. That is fine. But when objects or creatures behave as if they are aware of their surroundings and themselves, I will consider them to be aware of themselves and their surroundings. I will not, however, conclude that because they are aware that they must be aware in the same exact way that I am and experience things in the same way that I do.

 

[PixyMisa]

From what I understand, a thermostat has two states, on and off. No room there for a 'move away from the heat' instruction that could be defined as a pain of some sort.

I'll have to disagree with you there slightly. A thermostat has two output states, but it also has an internal representation of an external condition. That's why it's aware. It has no internal representation of itself, though - that's why it's not conscious.

 

[tsig]

Dipping my head in here again.

Isn't what some people here are doing just Loki's Wager? It seems like people want to attempt to make consciousness deliberately impossible to define in order to keep it "ok" to hold wacky beliefs?

It seems to me like the entire HPC is just a big Loki's Wager?

Yes

 

[tsig]

We may think that our conscious minds are directing events, but for all we know consciousness is a passive passenger, unable to do anything but monitor a deterministic process.

Then you have to post here as a passive passenger?

 

[westprog]

If you re read the sentence you quoted very carefully, you may notice that I said 'act as if they are aware of' their surroundings, not simply 'react to'. Of course, you know there is a large difference, but you couldn't make your silly point over and over if you acknowledged it.

If there were a large difference, I'd expect it to be precisely explained, instead of simply alluded to as something we should just know.

This failure to be precise and systematic is something that's consistent across the board. "You should know what I mean" "Of course it's different", and so on.

If there's a difference between "reacting to surrounding" and "acting as if they were aware of the surroundings" you need to show exactly what the difference is, because when you pick away at it, you start to see that there is no difference. A physical object interacts with its surroundings, and exchanges information with its surroundings, and changes its state as a result of those exchanges. Any physical object.

I've noticed this pattern over and over again. An inability to define what is meant, followed by annoyance that it's not just obvious.