Explain consciousness to the layman.

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
That's some "special" special pleading.


You might want to look up what an algorithm is.
Click to expand...

Yes I know what an algorithm is. If you run an algorithm of human consciousness in a computer you might get something that behaves like a human, mimics human consciousness. But would it be conscious?

Its certainly not "alive", can it be conscious if its not alive?

My point is consciousness (as known to humanity) is a product of life. To replicate it you would need to build a living computing machine.
 
punshhh said:
My point is consciousness (as known to humanity) is a product of life. To replicate it you would need to build a living computing machine.
Click to expand...
And I do believe that Belz...'s point is that running is also a product of life, yet no one would say that you would need to build a living running machine. Simply because it only occurs in living things does not mean it cannot occur in non-living things. The fact that you presume this in the case of consciousness is special pleading.
 
Belz... said:
That's my point, Punshhh, and congratulations for missing it entirely.
Click to expand...
Forgive me, you word your points briefly and I fail to interpret correctly on occasion.

Is the robot conscious of running?

You see my point is that if the robot is not alive, it is not conscious. It may have some computation going on relating to running, but its only inanimate cogs and switches. There's no one home.
 
H'ethetheth said:
And I do believe that Belz...'s point is that running is also a product of life, yet no one would say that you would need to build a living running machine. Simply because it only occurs in living things does not mean it cannot occur in non-living things. The fact that you presume this in the case of consciousness is special pleading.
Click to expand...


Yes I realise this (although there is no presumption here), but we have no example of non living consciousness. I don't doubt that it can occur in non living things in some form, but would it be anything like what a human experiences as being alive?

Rather like questions about what alien life might look like in other galaxies, we can only speculate within our own intellectual limitations.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Forgive me, you word your points briefly and I fail to interpret correctly on occasion.

Is the robot conscious of running?

You see my point is that if the robot is not alive, it is not conscious. It may have some computation going on relating to running, but its only inanimate cogs and switches. There's no one home.
Click to expand...


a·live (-lv)
adj.
1. Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.
2. In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.
3. Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.
4. Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.

 
tsig said:
a·live (-lv)
adj.
1. Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.
2. In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.
3. Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.
4. Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.
Click to expand...

Without prejudicing the argument, the two highlighted definitions are clearly metaphorical. A car park could be alive with sunshine in that sense. The question is whether something can be conscious without being alive in sense (1).
 
punshhh said:
Forgive me, you word your points briefly and I fail to interpret correctly on occasion.

Is the robot conscious of running?

You see my point is that if the robot is not alive, it is not conscious. It may have some computation going on relating to running, but its only inanimate cogs and switches. There's no one home.
Click to expand...


That's really nothing but a circular argument by way of definition. If you define a robot is "not alive" and then define conciousness (in part) as "something that living things do" then a robot cannot be concious but only because you have defined it that way.

However in the real world what you are doing is merely asserting your conclusion.
 
punshhh said:
Forgive me, you word your points briefly and I fail to interpret correctly on occasion.

Is the robot conscious of running?

You see my point is that if the robot is not alive, it is not conscious. It may have some computation going on relating to running, but its only inanimate cogs and switches. There's no one home.
Click to expand...

No, I don't see your point and you still don't understand mine.

You say consciousness requires biological life because... well because that the type of consciousness we know already.

But before we built machines which could have locomotion, only biological life could have locomotion, so your logic is flawed.
 
westprog said:
Without prejudicing the argument, the two highlighted definitions are clearly metaphorical. A car park could be alive with sunshine in that sense. The question is whether something can be conscious without being alive in sense (1).
Click to expand...

Which is nothing but argument by definition. Outside of the dictionaries we do not have a single definition of "alive" so the question is meaningless until you start with the definition of "life" you are using.

So from what you have said: The question is whether something can be conscious without being alive in sense (1)

You need to provide the definitions for "conscious" and "alive in sense (1)" before the question can even be asked.
 
Darat said:
Which is nothing but argument by definition. Outside of the dictionaries we do not have a single definition of "alive" so the question is meaningless until you start with the definition of "life" you are using.
Click to expand...

Arguing about whether something is metaphorically alive seems a particularly pointless exercise. If Tsig and Punssh want to pursue that then they are welcome.


So from what you have said: The question is whether something can be conscious without being alive in sense (1)

You need to provide the definitions for "conscious" and "alive in sense (1)" before the question can even be asked.
Click to expand...
 
Beelzebuddy said:
There's a very good argument to be made that it's an essential feature of thought.
Click to expand...

That works. I think.

I agree with the people saying we've defined our way out of statements such as "robots can be conscious." Because our definition of robot pretty much excludes consciousness. It's even tricky to define "life."

Funny, though, the emerging of consciousness in a robot is pretty deeply embedded in our imaginations, judging from sci-fi stories.

It's possible we can never know for sure whether an entity outside of our selves is conscious. Think of the (fairly common, I believe) experience of kids wondering if only they are conscious and everyone else is a machine. Such solipsism is judged immature and possibly dangerous, but would it matter if The Sentient One were courteous to other machines and didn't wantonly destroy them?

I watched "Moneyball" last night and it kind of reminded me of this thread. The historic output of undervalued players was known and as long as that output - such as on-base percentage - remained consistent it didn't really matter if they were a "complete package" - you needed the team to be the sum of its parts across a statistically meaningful sample, not more than the sum of its parts. I liked that it largely stayed away from inspirational themes. There was a binary quality to Billy Beane, he didn't seem to dwell on intangibles. But who was correct, Beane or the baseball establishment? Do intangibles matter or are they an artifact of the way we construct narratives? Are they only intangibles because our metrics are imperfect?

Ah, this is why they play the games ...
 
westprog said:
Arguing about whether something is metaphorically alive seems a particularly pointless exercise. If Tsig and Punssh want to pursue that then they are welcome.
Click to expand...

Arguing about something that is not defined would seem to me to be even more pointless.
 
Minoosh said:
That works. I think.

I agree with the people saying we've defined our way out of statements such as "robots can be conscious." Because our definition of robot pretty much excludes consciousness. It's even tricky to define "life."

Funny, though, the emerging of consciousness in a robot is pretty deeply embedded in our imaginations, judging from sci-fi stories.

It's possible we can never know for sure whether an entity outside of our selves is conscious. Think of the (fairly common, I believe) experience of kids wondering if only they are conscious and everyone else is a machine. Such solipsism is judged immature and possibly dangerous, but would it matter if The Sentient One were courteous to other machines and didn't wantonly destroy them?

...snip...
Click to expand...

Look at this news report that I posted above: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16811042 , looks like we will soon be able to read minds, which would mean no longer is my internal behaviour private, now it is just one more behaviour that can be observed by others. It's behaviour all the way down now!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom