Explain consciousness to the layman.

[westprog]

Well, we don't have a metric per se. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things.*

Besides testimony from internal subjective experience, I'm not aware of any criteria.

If I asked a p-zombie if it were conscious, it'd say it was, and how would I be sure it was lying? Dennett asserts that a p-zombie that behaved exactly if it were conscious would have to be conscious.

Which is not a standard which we would consider sound in any scientific area. Would we accept that we could identify zinc if it seemed like zinc to an objective observer - or would we have a list of objective properties which could be tested? No subjective test can possibly be considered in any way reliable.

 

[westprog]

It has to appear in a physics text book to be physical ?

No, but if a theory couldn't appear in a physics text book, then it probably isn't physical. If it doesn't refer to physical quantities, then it probably isn't physical. If it deals with things that are unquantifiable or weakly defined, then it probably isn't physical.

A physical theory, in the sense in which I'm using it, does not mean a theory that happens to exist in the physical world. That applies to most theories.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No, but if a theory couldn't appear in a physics text book, then it probably isn't physics. If it doesn't refer to physics quantities, then it probably isn't physics. If it deals with things that are unquantifiable or weakly defined, then it probably isn't physics.

A physics theory, in the sense in which I'm using it, does not mean a theory that happens to exist in the physical world. That applies to most theories.

Phisced that phor you. Please don't equivocate.

 

[westprog]

Phisced that phor you. Please don't equivocate.

I prefer to use adjectives as adjectives, rather than nouns as adjectives. If that's "equivocation" then so be it. I don't see how I could be any bleedin' clearer about what I mean.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I don't see how I could be any bleedin' clearer about what I mean.

You could use language that doesn't seem like it's intentionally meant to confuse, maybe. "Physics" is an adjective, it means "of or relating to physics" and, this is important, it means nothing else.

 

[westprog]

You could use language that doesn't seem like it's intentionally meant to confuse, maybe. "Physics" is an adjective, it means "of or relating to physics."

Yes, and "physical" is an adjective meaning "pertaining to the physical sciences, especially physics". I suppose there might be some ambiguity if I hadn't kept explaining in detail exactly what I meant. Doesn't the fact that I've been referring directly to physics textbooks Give Some Kind Of Bloody Clue As To Context?

This is the kind of constant derail that just serves to drag things out pointlessly. Pretending that there's ambiguity where there is none, just to muddy the waters.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yes, and "physical" is an adjective meaning "pertaining to the physical sciences, especially physics". I suppose there might be some ambiguity if I hadn't kept explaining in detail exactly what I meant. Doesn't the fact that I've been referring directly to physics textbooks Give Some Kind Of Bloody Clue As To Context?

This is the kind of constant derail that just serves to drag things out pointlessly. Pretending that there's ambiguity where there is none, just to muddy the waters.

That's what's usually listed as definition #5, yes. #2 is "of or pertaining to that which is material." Moreover "nonphysical," a term you use a great deal, applies to the inverse of #2 but not #5.

You've been trying to equivocate. Grow a pair and own up to it.

 

[westprog]

"nonphysical," a term you use a great deal,

One of the many wonderful features on JREF is the search function. It's actually possible to search by user Westprog, and the word "nonphysical". So the above statement is subject to a simple check. Anyone can verify the claim in a few seconds.

You've been trying to equivocate. Grow a pair and own up to it.

Ha.

 

[westprog]

You've been trying to equivocate.

Equivocate, intransitive verb: To use a word in a way applicable to its dictionary definition, in a context which makes its use unambiguous.

 

[Donn]

Equivocate, intransitive verb: To use a word in a way applicable to its dictionary definition, in a context which makes its use unambiguous.

No.

ETA: I sense possible irony/humour fail on my part... It's been a long, hot day.

 

[dlorde]

You are throwing the entity out with the bath water.

The entity is the the sum of the chemistry of the organism and its organisation.

I am considering that the entity is more than the sum of its chemical reactions.

In what way?

Are you saying that if one assembles the appropriate chemicals in the correct configuration, it would naturally rise up and walk?

Yes, as I have already described; so far it's only been done with bacterial cells - of course, they don't literally get up and walk, but the assembled ones do everything the natural version does.

Presumably you knowwhat the spark of life is? of course there is no spark we are all automatons.

All the evidence is that the 'spark of life' is entirely metaphorical. Venter's team did no more than insert their assembled genome into an empty bacterial cell capsule, and off it went - no sparks required. Sorry to disappoint your mystical/romantic hopes.

The precise relation and emergence of consciousness in an animal is not known, correct me if I'm wrong. I am not attempting to explain it. I am simply making an observation of the conscious entities which we have to observe.

All the evidence we have points to it being a function solely of brain activity, not an emergent property of the organism as a whole - except in the sense that the brain needs a body for support and I/O.

I regard such a life form to have an embryonic self awareness, entirely unconscious.

Self-awareness is normally considered a feature of only the highest level consciousness, and associated with sophisticated socialization by people who study such things, which puts you in direct opposition to the people best informed on the subject.

I am considering aspects of a living entity which are in a sense virtual rather like the way our ego is virtual.

That wasn't the question. Do you think Synthia is an automaton or not? This goes to the heart of your position - is that why you're reluctant to answer?

I see this as a science of the future and is not something I have given much thought.

So you'll only accept an unspecified demonstration as evidence of consciousness in non-biological entities. Yet you'll accept consciousness in non-human creatures without such a demonstration. How do you know they are conscious - what criteria do you apply?

Again if the synthetic entity is alive, I have no doubt it could be conscious.

OK, so as you say you will only accept biological cellular live as capable of life, you presumably don't believe a non-biological entity can be conscious.

Have we any idea at all how to construct a different life form or conceive of it?

There are plenty of ideas and conceptions out there. Look for 'xenobiology'.

I meant a robot could hoodwink me into thinking its conscious.

Interesting choice of words - hoodwinking is generally taken to be a knowing deception; knowing deception is generally taken to be a behaviour of conscious entities...

So you said you would need an unspecified demonstration to accept non-biological consciousness; but now it appears that even if you did accept it (presumably via the unspecified demonstration), you would reverse your acceptance once you knew it was non-biological? I think we'd be entitled to call that illogical, or at least, unreasonable bias.

I see no problem other than translation into another ontology.

Well you claim to understand the ontology you're using, and you're here on a forum where the lingua franca is that of science, so the burden of translation lies with you. If you understand it well enough, you should be able to translate it.

 

[Donn]

One of the many wonderful features on JREF is the search function. It's actually possible to search by user Westprog, and the word "nonphysical". So the above statement is subject to a simple check. Anyone can verify the claim in a few seconds.

I tried. It's tricky because of the potential space/hyphen between non and physical, however I did not find an abundance of posts as described.

 

[Complexity]

I tried. It's tricky because of the potential space/hyphen between non and physical, however I did not find an abundance of posts as described.

And yet he appears to be a dualist...

Wish he'd discuss whether he thinks that there are things that aren't physical and give us some examples if he thinks that there are.

 

[dlorde]

Can you conceive of an ontology of atman?

Certainly - I browsed through some Buddhist descriptions and, where it was accepted as a valid concept, they appeared to treat it as the concept of self to which one shouldn't be attached and from which one should attempt detachment. If this is what you mean when you use it, it is metaphysical and of no relevance to this discussion.

Given the atman ontology it is real and is that part of each of us which knows/experiences, and everything in existence including matter is a construct embodying a manifestation of some aspect of atman.

When you say 'real', do you mean physical? a metaphysical concept can be a 'real' concept, but that doesn't make it physical. If you believe it is physical, describe its physical nature and the evidence for it.

That part of us which knows/experiences is the normally functioning brain. What does a rock know or experience? If you're using 'knowledge' and 'experience' in an unconventional way you need to clarify your meaning.

My definitions were inadequate

I'm afraid they still are.

 

[dlorde]

I'd propose that if a machine in question, which understood the capabilities of computers, spontaneously surmised that it's internal subjective experience had a dualistic quality that seemed incomputable, then it would most certainly be conscious. If it asserted, like Dennett, that there didn't seem to be anything special about it that was incomputable, then** it was not conscious

Seriously? (I know there's a smiley, but...).

Is Dennet conscious?

 

[Belz...]

No, but if a theory couldn't appear in a physics text book, then it probably isn't physical.

This comes right back to me asking you for a DEFINITION of "physical" and "physical theory". Can you be bothered to answer that ?

 

[westprog]

No.

ETA: I sense possible irony/humour fail on my part... It's been a long, hot day.

Yes, I own up - that was not a correct definition.

 

[westprog]

This comes right back to me asking you for a DEFINITION of "physical" and "physical theory". Can you be bothered to answer that ?

• "Physical theory" - a theory in the science of physics
• "Physical" - relating to the science of physics
• "Physics" - the science that studies the laws of nature

The rule of thumb that I would use to determine whether a theory qualifies as a physical theory is if I could imagine it having a chapter in a physics textbook. I would rather not wrangle about irrelevant details of precise meaning which aren't relevant here. We aren't discussing esoteric definitions of what is and isn't science. At least I'm not.

A definition of computation that might appear in a computer textbook is not sufficient to deal with biological behaviour. A definition of consciousness that would be suitable for a biology textbook wouldn't be suitable to analyse computers. If a definition is to be broad enough to encompass multiple disciplines, then it has to get to the basic level of science, which is physics.

 

[punshhh]

Certainly - I browsed through some Buddhist descriptions and, where it was accepted as a valid concept, they appeared to treat it as the concept of self to which one shouldn't be attached and from which one should attempt detachment. If this is what you mean when you use it, it is metaphysical and of no relevance to this discussion.

Have a look at Hindu atman, Buddhism is not concerned which such an ontology.

 

[rocketdodger]

• "Physical theory" - a theory in the science of physics
• "Physical" - relating to the science of physics
• "Physics" - the science that studies the laws of nature

The rule of thumb that I would use to determine whether a theory qualifies as a physical theory is if I could imagine it having a chapter in a physics textbook. I would rather not wrangle about irrelevant details of precise meaning which aren't relevant here. We aren't discussing esoteric definitions of what is and isn't science. At least I'm not.

A definition of computation that might appear in a computer textbook is not sufficient to deal with biological behaviour. A definition of consciousness that would be suitable for a biology textbook wouldn't be suitable to analyse computers. If a definition is to be broad enough to encompass multiple disciplines, then it has to get to the basic level of science, which is physics.

Can anyone help me understand this post ?

If one accepts that everything in the known universe is made of particles, then by induction every aspect of human knowledge can be reduced to a complex description of series of particle behaviors. Meaning, if the physics textbook was big ( and dull ) enough, you *could* find any aspect of human knowledge described therein -- biology and computer science included.

The only alternative is to not accept that everything in the known universe is particles.

Or am I missing something ?