Explain consciousness to the layman.

[AlBell]

Where did you get that 100% sure from? Are you projecting a religious mindset?

No, that's what an atheist mindset better be. Otherwise the purported atheist is really an illogical dualist.

Emergent property has evidence.

Only in the sense "Look! There it is. See?"; Both for Life, and later Consciousness.

 

[AlBell]

You can't have a hallucination without being conscious of it.

Fact not yet in evidence (the conscious part).

There may be nothing but hallucinations, some apparently shared, and called 'objective'.

 

[yy2bggggs]

No, that's what an atheist mindset better be. Otherwise the purported atheist is really an illogical dualist.

I think this is a false dichotomy. What is your specific argument that if someone is not 100% sure that materialism is the true ontology, then said atheist is an illogical dualist?

Only in the sense "Look! There it is. See?"; Both for Life, and later Consciousness.

No, in the sense that we have specific, concrete observational evidence that suggests that consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brain.

 

[westprog]

I think this is a false dichotomy. What is your specific argument that if someone is not 100% sure that materialism is the true ontology, then said atheist is an illogical dualist?

No, in the sense that we have specific, concrete observational evidence that suggests that consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brain.

We have evidence that it's a property. Describing it as an emergent property makes assumptions, if the word "emergent" is meaningful.

 

[yy2bggggs]

We have evidence that it's a property. Describing it as an emergent property makes assumptions, if the word "emergent" is meaningful.

We have evidence that pieces of the brain are responsible for pieces of pieces of consciousness experience. That's pretty much descriptive of "emergent" in itself.

 

[AlBell]

I think this is a false dichotomy. What is your specific argument that if someone is not 100% sure that materialism is the true ontology, then said atheist is an illogical dualist?

If the materialist is 99.999% certain of the correctness of his choice of ontology, what does the reamining .001% represent if not something that implies dualism?

No, in the sense that we have specific, concrete observational evidence that suggests that consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brain.

That is objective behavior, which may or may not represent consciousness = unobservable personal behavior(s).

I continue to agree Emergent sounds more scientific than goddidit.

 

[yy2bggggs]

If the materialist is 99.999% certain of the correctness of his choice of ontology, what does the reamining .001% represent if not something that implies dualism?

Well materialism is not the same thing as monism first off. So if you want a monist point of view, there are plenty to choose from. Then again, monism and dualism aren't the only players in town either. You could have a view of pluralism if that's your thing. Neither are you forced to hold a particular ontological view; you can have the view that ontology is impossible, or irrelevant. All of those views, or lack there of, are consistent with atheism.

The percent certainty in either case, however, is a non-sequitur.

That is objective behavior, which may or may not represent consciousness = unobservable personal behavior(s).

How do you know consciousness even exists if it's unobservable?

I continue to agree Emergent sounds more scientific than goddidit.

Lacking scientific evidence of a god, sure.

 

[AlBell]

Well materialism is not the same thing as monism first off. So if you want a monist point of view, there are plenty to choose from.

What other monist choices do you see available for a materialist? I see none.

Then again, monism and dualism aren't the only players in town either. You could have a view of pluralism if that's your thing.

Why would that not be some form of dualism?

Neither are you forced to hold a particular ontological view; you can have the view that ontology is impossible, or irrelevant. All of those views, or lack there of, are consistent with atheism.

Agreed on perhaps irrelevant. Impossible? I say 'must exist' although we'll likely never know one way or the other.

The percent certainty in either case, however, is a non-sequitur.

We disagree on that point, assuming a materialist would usually strive to arrive at a monism to absolutely avoid dualism.

How do you know consciousness even exists if it's unobservable?

I observe my own consciousness; you can observe yours but not observe (directly) mine. You can of course observe words on your screen (words you believe I type).

Lacking scientific evidence of a god, sure.

I agree that evidence is lacking.

 

[rocketdodger]

It might be a bit more complicated than just size and I/O. There might be particulars in how the neurons are wired to consider, and if the system can collectively sustain the necessary states for the necessary amount of time.

Yep.

But, in general, yeah: if not, why not?

The only answer I have seen -- including those from books and philosophy articles -- always reduces to "because the logical implications are absurd."

However I will throw my lot in with Spock :

"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Meaning, you can't prove something wrong by simply showing that it leads to absurdities -- you can only prove it leads to absurdities. If the truth leads to absurdities, then so be it.

 

[dlorde]

The hard question (sorry to repeat) is if we had a p-zombie who claimed to have full, internal, subjective, qualia-rich experiences, how could we tell it was lying?

Can something that isn't conscious lie (i.e. make a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive) ?

 

[Complexity]

However I will throw my lot in with Spock :

Sherlock Holmes.

 

[westprog]

Can something that isn't conscious lie (i.e. make a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive) ?

It's the work of about thirty seconds to write a program that claims to be conscious. It certainly seems that if something claims to be conscious, it can't be lying - if it's not conscious, then it can't lie by definition.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Can something that isn't conscious lie (i.e. make a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive) ?

I love that question! Better wording: Could an AI program, not programmed to lie, initiate a deliberate lie?

It would need, first, the ability to model the mindset of the entity it's lying to.

Machines can certainly be programmed to lie. Indeed, nature is riddled with liars, like harmless frogs colored to look like poisonous frogs, not to mention sphexish insects of all sorts that have no clue that they are liars. A cat arching its back and standing up its fur is attempting to deceive its opponent that, probably unconsciously, it is large than it really is.

There's a whole mathematical world of lying, including machine strategies, called game theory. Tit for Tat has some great history of competitions between machines that use deception as a strategy.

 

[yy2bggggs]

What other monist choices do you see available for a materialist? I see none.

Realism is compatible with methodological materialism for one; however, you misinterpreted my last reply as rolling with your materialist assertion. I was not. I was correcting your position.

Why would that not be some form of dualism?

I'm not sure in which sense you can call pluralism a form of dualism.

Agreed on perhaps irrelevant. Impossible? I say 'must exist' although we'll likely never know one way or the other.

"We'll likely never know" though suggests that there's a particular correct ontology; "ontology doesn't map to any conceptualizations" is another view.

We disagree on that point, assuming a materialist would usually strive to arrive at a monism to absolutely avoid dualism.

Whether or not a person is a materialist has nothing to do with whether that person is trying to, as you say, "absolutely avoid dualism". This is a false dichotomy. You're underestimating the possible range of the human condition. But I'm not even sure why you're doing it--what do you gain if all materialists are trying to "absolutely avoid dualism"?

I observe my own consciousness; you can observe yours but not observe (directly) mine.

So I can observe consciousness, and you can observe consciousness. Doesn't sound so unobservable to me.

Also, given I understand your use of the word "directly" here, then not only can I only observe my consciousness directly, but that is the only thing I can observe directly. But this doesn't stop me from making indirect observations (in this sense) about any other natural phenomenon. So why should I treat consciousness differently?

 

[annnnoid]

Also, given I understand your use of the word "directly" here, then not only can I only observe my consciousness directly, but that is the only thing I can observe directly. But this doesn't stop me from making indirect observations (in this sense) about any other natural phenomenon. So why should I treat consciousness differently?

….why should you treat consciousness differently? You answered your own question….’ Because it is the only thing I can observe directly.’

IOW…there is only one ‘true’…and that is ‘you’. What was that line…’ know thyself and know thy God’ (did, or do, you make you?...obviously and indisputably not!...we may not know what did, or does,...but we sure as hell know it wasn't, and isn't...you [or, to quote the esteemed David Fincher: " you're in charge, you're not in control...anyone who thinks they're in control is nuts "]). Do you suppose there’s some kind of connection between all these massive metaphors????? Nah…..couldn’t be. The only truth is science….but hang on, science doesn’t, and can’t, study anything directly. As you quite accurately pointed out…the ONLY thing directly accessible to our scrutiny is…us. Observe the process of observation (or consciousness or whatever part or whole or part of the whole of the part you want) accurately and what is the result?

When does intelligibility become intelligible (and how do you know that you know when it is?) ?

Is it an academic question? It hardly seems so when computationalism is such a controversial subject.

‘ Can a computer be conscious? ‘ A human being is the ONLY measure of consciousness that we know of. Why is it a different kind of ‘scientific’ question?....quite obviously because ‘consciousness’ is a function of the experience of so being. If there is one thing that is manifestly and monumentally obvious about consciousness it is that it encompasses a vast, unique, complex, and as of this date….utterly mysterious…ontology.

...but it's an emergent phenomenon...why, because we can say it is? That's like saying that math is an emergent phenomena of the universe. Self evident but explains nothing. A connection does not an answer make.

…spirituality anyone?

 

[yy2bggggs]

….why should you treat consciousness differently? You answered your own question….’ Because it is the only thing I can observe directly.’

You missed the point. I observe your consciousness indirectly; that's the same way I observe the rest of the world.

IOW…there is only one ‘true’…and that is ‘you’.

Please, use words for what they mean. Your little spiel is barely sensible for possibly no good reason.

...but it's an emergent phenomenon...why, because we can say it is?

No, because that what it appears to be when you stop pontificating and look at the thing. Just because some people use wishful thinking to arrive at their theory of mind doesn't mean everyone does it.

 

[punshhh]

I'm reading the Wiki article on consciousness and it's making me wonder if this thread was ever really necessary

Yes it is an excellent explanation, I just picked out one quote from the section under philosophy;

"Consciousness—The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of equating consciousness with self-consciousness—to be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it has evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it."

This thread is a discussion by a number of interested parties from their differing positions on the issue. If the layman were to bare them all in mind he/she would have a fairly good appreciation of the issue.

 

[punshhh]

….why should you treat consciousness differently? You answered your own question….’ Because it is the only thing I can observe directly.’

IOW…there is only one ‘true’…and that is ‘you’. What was that line…’ know thyself and know thy God’ (did, or do, you make you?...obviously and indisputably not!...we may not know what did, or does,...but we sure as hell know it wasn't, and isn't...you [or, to quote the esteemed David Fincher: " you're in charge, you're not in control...anyone who thinks they're in control is nuts "]). Do you suppose there’s some kind of connection between all these massive metaphors????? Nah…..couldn’t be. The only truth is science….but hang on, science doesn’t, and can’t, study anything directly. As you quite accurately pointed out…the ONLY thing directly accessible to our scrutiny is…us. Observe the process of observation (or consciousness or whatever part or whole or part of the whole of the part you want) accurately and what is the result?

When does intelligibility become intelligible (and how do you know that you know when it is?) ?

Is it an academic question? It hardly seems so when computationalism is such a controversial subject.

‘ Can a computer be conscious? ‘ A human being is the ONLY measure of consciousness that we know of. Why is it a different kind of ‘scientific’ question?....quite obviously because ‘consciousness’ is a function of the experience of so being. If there is one thing that is manifestly and monumentally obvious about consciousness it is that it encompasses a vast, unique, complex, and as of this date….utterly mysterious…ontology.

...but it's an emergent phenomenon...why, because we can say it is? That's like saying that math is an emergent phenomena of the universe. Self evident but explains nothing. A connection does not an answer make.

…spirituality anyone?

It would be nice to introduce a little spirituality into the mix at some point.

I suggested that the ability to know something is an important constituent of consciousness. I may have stab at broadening this area shortly.

 

[Belz...]

We don't know, as a matter of scientific fact, that consciousness exists in other people.

By that BS logic, there IS no scientific fact.

Then how can we conclude that anything is there at all?

That's my point, exactly. "An illusion must be perceived" is a bit of a silly thing to say when the argument is that the perception itself could be an illusion.

 

[dlorde]

I love that question! Better different wording: Could an AI program, not programmed to lie, initiate a deliberate lie?

Ftfy.

It would need, first, the ability to model the mindset of the entity it's lying to.

To have a reasonable chance of success, yes.

Machines can certainly be programmed to lie. Indeed, nature is riddled with liars, like harmless frogs colored to look like poisonous frogs, not to mention sphexish insects of all sorts that have no clue that they are liars. A cat arching its back and standing up its fur is attempting to deceive its opponent that, probably unconsciously, it is large than it really is.

That's why I defined my usage as 'a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive'. The anthropomorphic tendency to interpret evolutionary traits as 'purposeful' clouds the issue, and when you get to higher mammals (e.g. cats) that probably have a significant level of consciousness, the question of deliberate intent becomes complicated.