Are You Conscious?

[PixyMisa]

Oh, btw... I"m reading Steven Rose's latest book right now. He couldn't disagree more with Dennett about a lot of things, but he doesn't like the concept of qualia either.

Well, he can't be all bad then.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You can simulate all of these, and you can simulate consciousness in precisely the same way. Of course, we cannot generally map physical properties between the simulations and the world containing the simulation. We can however transfer information between the two. Thus we can simulate a conscious entity and communicate with it.

Which is a moot point if the capacity for subjective experience is a physical property.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Pixy, what's the difference between a simulated X and a real X? Any idea?

One is make-believe and the other is what Pixy does for a living?

 

[PixyMisa]

Physical composition, genius.

So, substrate. Which is provably irrelevant to the result.

Which is a moot point if the capacity for subjective experience is a physical property.

What do you think that is supposed to mean?

Subjective experiences are informational. And even if they weren't, it wouldn't matter. A simulated consciousness would still behave exactly like a real one, communicate with us exactly like a real one, in fact, be a real one.

You can't warm yourself with a simulated fire. You can, however, play games on a simulated computer.

If some specific physical mechanism is necessary for consciousness - and you have provided no evidence that this is the case or even that it is possible - that doesn't matter; we can simulate the mechanism and thus produce a simulated consciousness, which is to say, a real consciousness.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You can't warm yourself with a simulated fire.

Epic fail.....

(slinks off again....)

 

[Belz...]

I think most scientists would state this simply as "pain elicits behavior (x, y, z..)"

The pain is a form of qualia and how we react to it externally (public behavior, e.g., scream or reflexively move) may and/or may not be consciously sensed internally as other forms of awareness qualia at all.

See, this is exactly what I'm arguing against.

Pain is a behaviour of part of your body and you respond to it by another set of behaviours. There is no reason whatsoever to describe pain as anything else, except some philosophical need for those experiences to be "special".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

See, this is exactly what I'm arguing against.

Pain is a behaviour of part of your body and you respond to it by another set of behaviours.

Pain is not a behaviour at all.

There is no reason whatsoever to describe pain as anything else, except some philosophical need for those experiences to be "special"

On the contrary, there are very food reasons for distinguishing the experience of pain from a behaviour, and the only reason people like you seek to deny this OBVIOUS FACT is that you have a psychological fear of the implications of this fact. It is not the case that the people who claim qualia exist "want to feel special". It is the case that denialists like you are terrified of the consequences of admitting the truth.

It's YOU who is scared of reality, not us. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are re-arranging the evidence in order to suit your desired conclusion, and then hypocritically accusing others of doing what YOU are doing. You don't really believe the experience of pain is a behaviour. You just need to say that it is, because otherwise your belief system will implode.

ETA: Before you post a knee-jerk response to this, ask yourself the following question, and answer it HONESTLY: "Do I actually believe that there is no difference between subjective experiences and behaviour, or am I just saying whatever I have to say in order to not have to admit I have lost the argument?"

Lying to yourself does not lead you towards the truth.

 

[westprog]

Do you honestly mean to argue that the chemical properties of the biological substrate have no bearing at all on the sensations that are produced, or whether or not they can be produced at all? Are you really that dense?

Until Pixy realises that he is arguing that consciousness is entirely computational using the fact that consciousness is entirely computational as his main evidence, he'll continue to provide circular self-referential arguments.

Do a syntactic analysis of his arguments, and they reduce to X => X.

 

[westprog]

Which is a moot point if the capacity for subjective experience is a physical property.

The possibility of which cannot be allowed. Having physical causes for physical effects is the slippery slope to mysticism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

See, this is exactly what I'm arguing against.

Pain is a behaviour of part of your body and you respond to it by another set of behaviours. There is no reason whatsoever to describe pain as anything else, except some philosophical need for those experiences to be "special".

I perhaps ought to explain my previous outburst...

For 25 years, between when I was about 8 and when I was 33, if somebody had asked me what consciousness or subjective experience was (including felt pain) then I would have answered "it is information processing in the brain." But regardless of the fact that I gave that answer with some degree of confidence, I was never really 100% happy with it. The reason I gave it at all was simple: I couldn't think of any other answer that I would be willing to accept, and the reason for that was in no small part my loathing of religion, paranormalism and anything that wasn't based on science. I gave that answer because I felt there was no other viable option.

This all eventually came to a head 8 years ago, after I had explained to a friend of mine that I had reached a conclusion that the whole of reality was mathematical and "came from nothing" in the same way that 1 and -1 come from zero. He replied that I was talking about Yin and Yang. I had not intended to be talking about Yin and Yang, but had little choice but to admit there was an important resemblance. We then got onto the subject of consciousness. He insisted that "consciousness is everywhere". I adamantly defended the claim that it was "information processing in the brain" and we ended up having a serious bust-up about it. Then I went away and thought about it some more and I eventually found the courage to admit that, actually, what I was saying didn't make any sense. I never came fully around to his position either - I am not a panpsychist and I do not believe "consciousness is everywhere". But it was at that point that I finally stopped trying to deny the bald fact that consciousness IS NOT "information processing" and started searching for some other answer which actually made sense.

The reason I get annoyed with the materialists here is that I see them living in the same state of denial that I was in for 25 years. The ONLY people who adamantly insist that consciousness is information processing or behaviour are those who are actually trying to fit consciousness into a scientistic materialist worldview where it simply does not fit. The fact that right now you can't think of any better explanations does not mean that your current beliefs are correct and certainly does not justify you accusing other people, who are simply stating the obvious, of being psychologically scared of agreeing with your own inadequate explanations. The truth, which is all too easy to admit now, is that it was ME who had been scared of admitting the truth about consciousness, and that in turn was due to childhood experiences that turned me off anything connected with religion and caused me to try to find scientific explanations for things which have no scientific explanation.

There are all sorts of things which people believe because they "want to feel special". They include "Jesus is looking after me", "I create my own reality" and all manner of other nonsense, but they do NOT include "conscious experiences are not the same thing as information processing or behaviour". You must start with the FACTS and leave the psychoanalysis until after you've accepted those FACTS for what they are, instead of starting with "people who believe in religion and paranormal stuff are psychologically weak and want to feel special" and then ending up talking abject nonsense about what consciousness "is".

THE FACTS: "behaviour" and "information processing" are physical activities which we associated with all sorts of things which we do NOT consider to be conscious*, and it logically follows that consciousness is neither information processing nor behaviour.

*At least, we don't consider them to be conscious unless we have put the cart before the horse and ended up believing total **** like "car engines are conscious". If you have a belief system which leads you to believe that car engines or calculators are conscious, or that there isn't any difference between behaviour and consciousness then it is time to start thinking about how you got yourself into such a ludicrous mess, not time to start accusing people who disagree with you of being pyschologically weak. I did not reject the stupidity of mainstream religion in order to end up believing something equally stupid in the name of science, and neither should you.

 

[westprog]

Which is great, because that isn't what Aku is talking about.

Aku is talking about that special kind of event that only appears determined, because it has the same outcome every time, but just *might* be different if the spirit in question decides differently, although the spirit never would decide differently because it doesn't want to.

So when Aku says "physics" he really means "spirit"? Thanks for telling me, I had that all wrong. Sorry Aku!

 

[Limbo]

Is the human desire for an afterlife really the main reason for religion? The answer might seem to be an obvious yes, but on reflection, I'm not so sure.

Good for you. The main primordial reason for religion is awe inspired by profound experiences of wonder, IMO. Not cavemen sitting around a fire and thinking how nice it would be to have an afterlife, so let's invent religion.

When times are tough for me it's not the desire for an afterlife that keeps me going. It's remembering the awe and wonder of profound experiences which I can't forget even if I wanted to.

 

[Belz...]

Pain is not a behaviour at all.

How is it NOT a behaviour ? Your nerves react to a stimuli by sending a signal to your brain. How is that NOT a behaviour ???

On the contrary, there are very food reasons for distinguishing the experience of pain from a behaviour

What are those ?

and the only reason people like you seek to deny this OBVIOUS FACT is that you have a psychological fear of the implications of this fact.

Huh ? What fear ? What implications ? What in the blue hell are you talking about ?

It is not the case that the people who claim qualia exist "want to feel special". It is the case that denialists like you are terrified of the consequences of admitting the truth.

What consequences ? And if you're talking about the "soul", then I have to ask, again, what possible BAD thing can there be about having an immortal soul ?

It's YOU who is scared of reality, not us. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are re-arranging the evidence in order to suit your desired conclusion, and then hypocritically accusing others of doing what YOU are doing.

I think you have me confused with somebody else.

You don't really believe the experience of pain is a behaviour.

Really ? That's funny. So now YOU know more than I what I believe ? That's laughable, UE, but if you want to play this game I might as well say that you don't really believe the nonsense you keep saying.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How is it NOT a behaviour ?

Think about it.

Your nerves react to a stimuli by sending a signal to your brain. How is that NOT a behaviour ???

THAT is a behaviour. What it is NOT is consciousness. THINK.

What are those ?

Nerve impulses, Belz. They are just signals travelling around a physical substrate. This happens all the time in all sorts of entities which you do not believe are conscious. So WHY do you believe that, in this, case it "is" consciousness? Answer: because you are conscious, and you can't think of anything else to say which won't involve you having to change your belief system in fundamental ways.

Huh ? What fear ? What implications ? What in the blue hell are you talking about ?

You know perfectly well what I am talking about. The moment you admit the TRUTH, which is that consciousness is NOT behaviour and NOT mere information processing, then you'll have to have a major rethink about lots of other things. You aren't willing to do this, so, just like a ****** creationist, you prefer to talk nonsense instead. It's no good being on the side of rationalism if, when it comes to the crunch about your own belief system, you allow yourself to believe things which are silly. Believing that consciousness "is behaviour" is silly. Believing it "is information processing" is equally silly. It might make sense to a person that is trying to fit consciousness into a scientistic materialistic belief system where it does not belong, but the actual claim itself is completely absurd, and leads to even more absurd beliefs like those held by Pixymisa i.e. "anaesthetized patients are unconsciously conscious". How can an intelligent person say such things and not realise they are stupid? For the answer, go to a creationist board. Many people will say anything, regardless of how stupid it is, if it serves to plug a dangerous hole in their belief system which they can't plug by saying something less stupid. And yes of course they will try to make out that they don't think there's anything dangerous about the hole. If they admitted that, then they might just have to think a bit harder about whether the stupid claim really does plug the hole.

What consequences ? And if you're talking about the "soul", then I have to ask, again, what possible BAD thing can there be about having an immortal soul ?

Irrelevant side-track.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Belz,

Pain is a behaviour of part of your body and you respond to it by another set of behaviours. There is no reason whatsoever to describe pain as anything else, except some philosophical need for those experiences to be "special".

If it really was the case that there is no reason whatsoever to describe pain as something more than behaviour, then there would not be hundreds of threads about consciousness on this board. Do you really believe that all those people who have spent all this time making detailed, clinical arguments about this - people who, on the whole, aren't especially religious or woo-woo (FUWF for example) - are simply motivated by "a need to feel special"?

Do we really have to have another thread where I post quotes from Dawkins about how scientifically inexplicable consciousness is?

You aren't merely claiming, like Dawkins, that it's a big problem for science. Oh no, you are trying to claim that you have no idea what all the fuss is about.

Or perhaps Dawkins is also being motivated by a need to feel there is something special about consciousness?

Please don't take this personally, Belz. I really do sympathise with the process by which you ended up believing the sorts of things you believe about consciousness. It's just frustrating for me that so many people are still stuck arguing about something that really should have been resolved long ago when there's so many more interesting topics that are raised if and when we finally get past it. This is just one piece in a much bigger, and far more interesting puzzle.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You can't warm yourself with a simulated fire.

And you cant make a simulated mind feel warmth.

 

[rocketdodger]

Physical composition, genius.

What if the simulation is already taking place on a computer? Then the composition is the same. Hadn't you thought of that problem?

The big issue that your view entirely fails to address is what happens when you have a simulated consciousness receive input from a real entity and direct output to a real entity?

In other words, what if we built a little box that simulated all the neural activity in your brain, took out your brain, put in the little box, and hooked up all the incoming and outgoing neurons where the brainstem meets the spinal cord?

Assuming we got the engineering correct, and assuming that externally you behaved exactly the same, what are you then? Are you conscious, or not conscious because your consciousness takes place in a simulation from our frame of reference despite the fact that the rest of you is real?

 

[rocketdodger]

And you cant make a simulated mind feel warmth.

Ah -- yeah, you obviously hadn't thought of it.

Well, think of it now, and let us know how to fix this issue with your viewpoint.

 

[Belz...]

Think about it.

THAT is a behaviour. What it is NOT is consciousness. THINK.

You're not answering me. You're simply asking me to think like you do. Explain how pain is NOT a behaviour and now nerve impulses are not, collectively, consciousness.

So WHY do you believe that, in this, case it "is" consciousness? Answer: because you are conscious, and you can't think of anything else to say which won't involve you having to change your belief system in fundamental ways.

Please stop trying to read my mind as you have already shown yourself to be horrible at it.

You know perfectly well what I am talking about.

Why would I ask you to explain yourself if I already know what you mean ?

The moment you admit the TRUTH

Your opinion is not automatically true just because you can't conceive it any other way.

which is that consciousness is NOT behaviour and NOT mere information processing, then you'll have to have a major rethink about lots of other things.

That doesn't answer my question.

Believing that consciousness "is behaviour" is silly. Believing it "is information processing" is equally silly.

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile you aren't saying anything useful. You're basically repeating that I'm wrong without qualifying that answer.

and leads to even more absurd beliefs like those held by Pixymisa i.e. "anaesthetized patients are unconsciously conscious". How can an intelligent person say such things and not realise they are stupid?

So you have no self-awareness when you're asleep ?

Irrelevant side-track.

If you can't or won't tell me what you mean then I'm going to have to assume.

 

[Belz...]

If it really was the case that there is no reason whatsoever to describe pain as something more than behaviour, then there would not be hundreds of threads about consciousness on this board.

Argument from popularity.

Do you really believe that all those people who have spent all this time making detailed, clinical arguments about this - people who, on the whole, aren't especially religious or woo-woo (FUWF for example) - are simply motivated by "a need to feel special"?

In certain instances, yes. It's hard to see past your impressions of your own consciousness.

Do we really have to have another thread where I post quotes from Dawkins about how scientifically inexplicable consciousness is?

I don't care about Dawkins' opinions. And neither should you.

You aren't merely claiming, like Dawkins, that it's a big problem for science. Oh no, you are trying to claim that you have no idea what all the fuss is about.

You have me confused with someone else, then.

Please don't take this personally, Belz. I really do sympathise with the process by which you ended up believing the sorts of things you believe about consciousness.

And by this you mean that you sympathise with your own strawman.