Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Leumas]

No audacity required. An opinion is merely an evaluation of some object or system beyond its immediately quantifiable physical properties. Computers do this all the time.

You are the ones with the magic bean claims, and this response of yours is more of the same.


Poppycock. Asserting that opinions are something exotic and rarified that cannot be held or expressed by machines is just another example of your magic beanism - and we already have quite enough examples, thanks.

Are you really that incapable of distinguishing reality from wishful thinking?

 

[punshhh]

Piggy hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about.

Piggy's question rings true to me, its a simple observation which is easy to understand and he has explained at length how the same question comes up however you look at the issue.

You have yet to explain the digitisation of the subjective and what it is that is sampling or aware of the subject of the subject.

This is true of computers to precisely the same extent that it is true of humans.

The computer is a zombie (unconscious), the humans are sentient beings, there is a difference.

Has it not occurred to you that it is not necessarily the computation in brains which generates the consciousness. Surely one could take a brain from a recently deceased human and with the right technology get it working and computing, where is the consciousness?

Yes

As he turns to his cleaning appliance and says did the earth move for you too dear?

Que, Joe's garage, "Sy borg"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MipCMcXnN6w

As explained ad nauseam, dualism can be phrased in only two ways: Either the statement is logically inconsistent - in which case we discard it - or it is a logically consistent statement regarding a logically inconsistent universe - in which case it is useless even if true.

Dualism is either wrong or useless, and can be safely ignored under all circumstances.

It should not be necessary to go around the mulberry bush again at this juncture. Suffice it to say from the humble perspective of humanity it cannot be determined what exists, or if it adheres to human logic. We may be deluded or incapable of comprehending or abstracting reality.

The assumption of material monism is perched on the plank of logic in a void. Surfing the eternal void beyond the event horizon of the formless.

Not at all. Material monism is the way the Universe appears to behave. Not an assumption but a working model.

Quite, a working model of the appearance of things.

 

[PixyMisa]

Piggy's question rings true to me, its a simple observation which is easy to understand and he has explained at length how the same question comes up however you look at the issue.

No.

You have yet to explain the digitisation of the subjective and what it is that is sampling or aware of the subject of the subject.

I don't have to explain questions that are totally incoherent.

The computer is a zombie (unconscious), the humans are sentient beings, there is a difference.

That's just you asserting your conclusion again. No evidence, no argument, no nothing.

Has it not occurred to you that it is not necessarily the computation in brains which generates the consciousness.

Since consciousness is computational, no.

Surely one could take a brain from a recently deceased human and with the right technology get it working and computing, where is the consciousness?

Right back where it was, clearly.

It should not be necessary to go around the mulberry bush again at this juncture. Suffice it to say from the humble perspective of humanity it cannot be determined what exists, or if it adheres to human logic. We may be deluded or incapable of comprehending or abstracting reality.

The point is, that's irrelevant. We can tell how things behave, and materialism is the accurate model.

The assumption of material monism is perched on the plank of logic in a void. Surfing the eternal void beyond the event horizon of the formless.

Self-parody? You can't possibly be serious.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you really that incapable of distinguishing between reality and speculative imagination?

No, I do that just fine, thanks for asking. Twice.

These are straightforward statements of fact. If you have a problem with them, that is your problem, not mine.

 

[Belz...]

You just ignored my explanation of why you can't put it into writing, and why that doesn't matter - indeed, is an essential element of language - and expressed that as "getting sidetracked".

YOU can't put it into writing. That's your problem, and if the problem doesn't matter, well that's all I need to know, then.

 

[Belz...]

Nope.

Science doesn't know, so we don't know. End of story.

But it's not the end of the story : you mentioned a possibility about brain waves, and have been explained why it wouldn't work. If "we don't know" is the end of it, why mention that possibility ? And why retreat to "we don't know" when told that we at least know that it's not a possibility ?

 

[Leumas]

No, I do that just fine, thanks for asking. Twice.

These are straightforward statements of fact. If you have a problem with them, that is your problem, not mine.

You have a very theistic definition of the word "fact"..... in many ways you actually remind me of William Craig.... he too is pompously elitist and quite sure his assertions and wishful thinking are "facts" all the while deludingly flattering himself that he is quite "scientific".

 

[Belz...]

Consciousness does not depend on any interaction with an outside environment. It is not a way of interacting with the environment.

Really ? How so ?

Every single instance of consciousness we know of includes such interactions. That seems to be very convincing when talking about the need for a brain. So why is it different, now ?

 

[punshhh]

I don't have to explain questions that are totally incoherent.

So we're steering clear of the subjective then. A good strategy I suppose, because I was about to ask you if a computer would be able to engage in a critical discussion of the archetypal, symbolic and subjective meaning of the myth of Narcissus in an ancient and modern zeitgeist and its use in the paranoid critical method of Dali in a modern surrealist paradigm.

That's just you asserting your conclusion again. No evidence, no argument, no nothing.

The conclusion that a lump of metal and silicon is unlikely to be conscious. Well I'm happy to reconsider if you explain how it can be.

Since consciousness is computational, no.

unfounded assertion

Right back where it was, clearly.

Oh so we can bring the dead back to life now, this cyborg is turning into a Frankenstein creation.

The point is, that's irrelevant. We can tell how things behave, and materialism is the accurate model.

An incomplete model.

Self-parody? You can't possibly be serious.

No, "the event horizon of the formless" has taken on a life of its own these days, it might even become part of the zeitgeist.

 

[punshhh]

You have a very theistic definition of the word "fact"..... in many ways you actually remind me of William Craig.... he too is pompously elitist and quite sure his assertions and wishful thinking are "facts" all the while deludingly flattering himself that he is quite "scientific".

Pssssst...

He's just said we can bring souls back from the dead.

 

[PixyMisa]

So we're steering clear of the subjective then.

Happy to address the subjective, if you have meaningful questions to ask.

A good strategy I suppose, because I was about to ask you if a computer would be able to engage in a critical discussion of the archetypal, symbolic and subjective meaning of the myth of Narcissus in an ancient and modern zeitgeist and its use in the paranoid critical method of Dali in a modern surrealist paradigm.

A computer could make just as much sense in such a discussion as a human.

1. Poststructural modernist theory and subcultural deconceptualism

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of dialectic art. The collapse of subcultural deconceptualism depicted in Gaiman’s Neverwhere is also evident in Sandman, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

In a sense, McElwaine[1] states that we have to choose between neocultural theory and Batailleist `powerful communication’. Lyotard uses the term ‘precultural discourse’ to denote a self-justifying whole.

It could be said that the primary theme of Humphrey’s[2] model of neocultural theory is the futility, and some would say the failure, of dialectic sexuality. The subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes reality as a paradox.

Of course, "just as much" here equates to "none at all", but that's not really a problem.

The conclusion that a lump of metal and silicone is unlikely to be conscious. Well I'm happy to reconsider if you explain how it can be.

That's not a conclusion, that's an assertion.

Also, "silicone"?

Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?

unfounded assertion

On the contrary, it is exceptionally well-founded. However, if you wish to dispute the point, go ahead: Name a behaviour we attribute to consciousness that is not computational in nature. (And that actually happens, please.)

Oh so we can bring the dead back to life now, this cyborg is turning into a Frankenstein creation.

What are you blithering about, punshhh? It was your hypothetical that the brain was made to function again via advanced technology.

Either the brain is functioning as before - which is the point of your hypothetical - in which case it is conscious just as it was before by definition. Or it isn't functioning as before, in which case, whatever.

An incomplete model.

Evidence?

No, "the event horizon of the formless" has taken on a life of its own these days, it might even become part of the zeitgeist.

The zeitgeist has enough problems to deal with, leave the poor thing alone!

 

[PixyMisa]

You have a very theistic definition of the word "fact"..... in many ways you actually remind me of William Craig.... he too is pompously elitist and quite sure his assertions and wishful thinking are "facts" all the while deludingly flattering himself that he is quite "scientific".

Do you wish to dispute some point I've made, or are you simply here to wave your hands about?

 

[PixyMisa]

Pssssst...

He's just said we can bring souls back from the dead.

Amazing. That sentence has probably the highest ratio of errors to word count of the entire thread.

 

[Leumas]

No, I do that just fine, thanks for asking. Twice.

These are straightforward statements of fact. If you have a problem with them, that is your problem, not mine.

You have a very theistic definition of the word "fact"..... in many ways you actually remind me of William Craig.... he too is pompously elitist and quite sure his assertions and wishful thinking are "facts" all the while deludingly flattering himself that he is quite "scientific".

Do you wish to dispute some point I've made, or are you simply here to wave your hands about?

Let me see if I can explain it to you in terms you might understand…..


Notice the yellow highlighted part of your original post...... my post was in disputation of your highlighted assertion.

I was reminding you that just asserting that your assertions are statements of facts does not make them so.

Much like William Craig does.....he thinks that his assertions that his wishful delusions are scientific facts makes them so and when other people point out to him the logical fallacy he is committing he arrogantly says..... "No".

 

[!Kaggen]

Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?

My new best Pixy Misa quote

 

[punshhh]

Happy to address the subjective, if you have meaningful questions to ask.


A computer could make just as much sense in such a discussion as a human.


Of course, "just as much" here equates to "none at all", but that's not really a problem.

I wonder what my tape measure would make of the subjective qualities of this image.

http://www.3d-dali.com/Tour/apotheosis.htm

 

[Belz...]

My new best Pixy Misa quote

Me too. It's such an a propos question. Why would it be less likely ?

 

[westprog]

Are you really that incapable of distinguishing between reality and speculative imagination?

It's true that the brain is capable of performing computations. That doesn't, of course, imply that the brain is a computer, or a digital computer, or a Turing machine. Human beings can identify coins but that doesn't make a person a slot machine.

 

[Belz...]

It's true that the brain is capable of performing computations. That doesn't, of course, imply that the brain is a computer [snip]

The fact that the brain computers doesn't imply it's a computer ?

 

[westprog]

YOU can't put it into writing. That's your problem, and if the problem doesn't matter, well that's all I need to know, then.

Do you accept the principle that of necessity there must be quantities which we use to define words which are not themselves defined in words? Or would you rather not think about that today?

You do know that those cute little pictures aren't actually arguments?