Are You Conscious?

[paximperium]

Ahhhh, the problem of conciousness. How do we solve this problem? Call it magic of course.

 

[paximperium]

It's interesting to consider whether the experience of other people is like mine, or is entirely qualitatively different.

Likely different since people's brain and senses are different.

However, even if the only instance of personal experience in the entire universe was mine, it would still require explaining.

Why?

 

[.13.]

I have no idea what you lot are talking about. What on Earth do you think the term "private behaviour" is supposed to mean? There's no such thing. All there is is behaviour.

It's a lame attempt at a parlour trick. All you are doing is attaching the word "behaviour" to the word "private" in an attempt to make it appear somehow that consciousness and subjectivity is just another form of the behaviour of material objects. You are trying to use nonsensical terminology to mask a genuine problem to which you have no solution but don't want to admit you have no solution.

This problem is not going away, is it? Week after week, year after year, one subject dominates this part of the forum. You'd think the materialists would eventually realise that the problem is not going to go away, but no...

Basically you're right in saying that 'all there is is behaviour' because the only difference between public and private behaviour is the number of observers. 'Private' can be observed by only one observer and 'public' by more than one.

I don't see the parlour trick at all. The words 'private' and 'behavior' are not attached together 'in an attempt to make it appear somehow that consciousness and subjectivity is just another form of the behaviour of material objects'. Because it can't be done. 'Consciousness' and 'subjectivity' are nouns, not actions.

Presumably you're talking about being conscious and not consciousness. Or perhaps both? But either way: In my opinion there is no specific behaviour of 'being conscious'. Is it possible to exhibit the behaviour of 'being consciouss' as your only behaviour (wether private or public) and not any others such as talking or thinking about being consciouss? I for one have never observed my consciousness or a specific behaviour of being conscious. I have learned from other people how to use the words 'being conscious' and 'consciousness' and then used them correctly to describe myself as conscious when applicable.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Ahhhh, the problem of conciousness. How do we solve this problem? Call it magic of course.

Just one of the many straw men erected by materialists in an attempt to avoid facing the problem. In actual fact it makes little difference what the critic of materialism is suggesting instead, because all the alternatives are interpreted by the materialists as "magic". In other words, just because there isn't room in your belief system for any alternative to the materialistic theories which don't work, it doesn't mean there actually aren't any, nor does it mean that every alternative is "magic".

You're thinking about it backwards. It is a case of "I can't bring myself to accept the possibility of any of the alternatives, therefore I will go on believing materialism, even though it doesn't actually make any sense" where it ought to be "materialism doesn't actually make any sense, therefore some other answer must be considered rather than just waving my hand and trying to dismiss all the alternatives as magic."

"Magic" is just a substitute term for "woo", which in turn just means "anything I don't like the look of."

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Basically you're right in saying that 'all there is is behaviour' because the only difference between public and private behaviour is the number of observers. 'Private' can be observed by only one observer and 'public' by more than one.

No, this is not quite true. It is not merely the number of observers that makes the difference, but the whole concept of "observation" that is being used. What you mean by "public observation" is what the word "observation" generally means. Attaching the word "private" to it would normally just mean exactly the same sort of observation but restricted to only one or a few individuals, like some holy relic that almost nobody is allowed to see. What you are actually calling "private observation" is not this at all. Your consciousness cannot be observed by anyone else in principle. It is logically-necessary that this is the case.

This may same like a nit-pick, but it's not. Your position depends on using one word "observe" to mean two critically different things. The difference between consciousness and physical things is the whole manner in which they can be said to be "observable" at all, not merely the number of observers.

Presumably you're talking about being conscious and not consciousness. Or perhaps both? But either way: In my opinion there is no specific behaviour of 'being conscious'. Is it possible to exhibit the behaviour of 'being consciouss' as your only behaviour (wether private or public) and not any others such as talking or thinking about being consciouss? I for one have never observed my consciousness or a specific behaviour of being conscious. I have learned from other people how to use the words 'being conscious' and 'consciousness' and then used them correctly to describe myself as conscious when applicable.

Fine. Sounds like you accept that we have no option but to define that word subjectively. No objective definition is possible.

 

[Dancing David]

I have no evidence chat bots, or toasters, or computers, have private behavior.

Really, you can see inside computers and know what they are doing?

Really, they have lots of private behavior. Unless you want to watch the architechture while it is working. (On a scanner of somesort.)

 

[AlBell]

My point is that since indeed a computer's internals can not only be observed, examined in detail and exact function determined, stopped and restarted with no loss of output, or copied exactly to another machine, that is not private behavior as the term applies to humans.

Nor do I see any possible private awareness of awareness in any non-biological system.

 

[Malerin]

It's a lame attempt at a parlour trick. All you are doing is attaching the word "behaviour" to the word "private" in an attempt to make it appear somehow that consciousness and subjectivity is just another form of the behaviour of material objects.

QFT.

 

[.13.]

No, this is not quite true. It is not merely the number of observers that makes the difference, but the whole concept of "observation" that is being used. What you mean by "public observation" is what the word "observation" generally means. Attaching the word "private" to it would normally just mean exactly the same sort of observation but restricted to only one or a few individuals, like some holy relic that almost nobody is allowed to see. What you are actually calling "private observation" is not this at all. Your consciousness cannot be observed by anyone else in principle. It is logically-necessary that this is the case.

The difference between our views is shown in your second sentence here. While you seem to say that there are other differences than the number of observers I'm saying that the number of observers is the difference between public and private behaviour. Then you almost hit the nail in the head when you say: "Attaching the word "private" to it would normally just mean exactly the same sort of observation but restricted to only one or a few individuals..." I say 'almost' because I'm using private behaviour the same way as behaviorists. Private is observed by one individual, not one or few individuals. In general I think you've interpreted my position pretty accurately.

Wether my consciousness can not be observed by others in principle or if the observations are limited by lack of technology does not matter. It only matters wether it can be currently observed by one or more individuals. If only one: it's private. If by more than one: it's public. I think we can agree on this.

But here's where I predict we will disagree:
The way I see it is that not even I can observe my own consciousness. Atleast I don't think I have done that yet. Ofcourse I have observed my own private behaviour and the world around me and then inferred that I'm conscious because I have learned from other people how to use that word. But I haven't observed anything that is just my consciousness, there has always been some other observations that has lead me to conclude that I'm conscious.

This may same like a nit-pick, but it's not. Your position depends on using one word "observe" to mean two critically different things. The difference between consciousness and physical things is the whole manner in which they can be said to be "observable" at all, not merely the number of observers.

I disagree. I'm using the word 'observe' to mean exactly one thing. Only difference being the number of observers. But just to be clear: I don't view consciousness as a thing, physical or non-physical. But if it does exist as a thing then my view is that the only difference between observing the consciousness and other things is the number of observers. I'm interested to hear what other differences you see, though.

Fine. Sounds like you accept that we have no option but to define that word subjectively. No objective definition is possible.

We have no option but to learn the word from other people from their public behaviour and they can only confirm our understanding through our own public behaviour. That creates some uncertainty and fuzzines.

The only way I can think of to define 'being conscious' objectively, is through public behaviour. But if I remember correctly what you've posted in other threads is that you disagree with that way of defining it. You are talking about the private side of things. Right?

 

[PixyMisa]

My point is that since indeed a computer's internals can not only be observed, examined in detail and exact function determined, stopped and restarted with no loss of output, or copied exactly to another machine, that is not private behavior as the term applies to humans.

No problem.

I'll just introduce some minor hardware problems and restrict your system access. Now it's just like a human, by your own definition.

Nor do I see any possible private awareness of awareness in any non-biological system.

Uh, dude, I have written programs that do this. Thousands of programmers have. It's a standard method for improving application availability.

 

[AlBell]

No problem.

I'll just introduce some minor hardware problems and restrict your system access. Now it's just like a human, by your own definition.

It's a machine. Someone else will be able to fix the problems and restore access.

Uh, dude, I have written programs that do this. Thousands of programmers have. It's a standard method for improving application availability.

Those programs do not have private behavior for the reasons I already mentioned.

 

[Robin]

I have no idea what you lot are talking about. What on Earth do you think the term "private behaviour" is supposed to mean? There's no such thing. All there is is behaviour.

It's a lame attempt at a parlour trick. All you are doing is attaching the word "behaviour" to the word "private" in an attempt to make it appear somehow that consciousness and subjectivity is just another form of the behaviour of material objects. You are trying to use nonsensical terminology to mask a genuine problem to which you have no solution but don't want to admit you have no solution.

This problem is not going away, is it? Week after week, year after year, one subject dominates this part of the forum. You'd think the materialists would eventually realise that the problem is not going to go away, but no...

And as I ask each time you make this claim - what precisely is the problem?

Again, I am not stating that there is no problem - I am again pointing out that you claim there is a problem without actually stating what the problem is.

You seem to be saying that consciousness is a dreadful problem for Materialism but we will just have to take your word for it.

 

[Robin]

No, this is not quite true. It is not merely the number of observers that makes the difference, but the whole concept of "observation" that is being used. What you mean by "public observation" is what the word "observation" generally means. Attaching the word "private" to it would normally just mean exactly the same sort of observation but restricted to only one or a few individuals, like some holy relic that almost nobody is allowed to see. What you are actually calling "private observation" is not this at all. Your consciousness cannot be observed by anyone else in principle. It is logically-necessary that this is the case.

Cannot be directly observed by anyone else. We cannot observe the conditions a few moments after the beginning of the Universe, we cannot observe the conditions in the middle of a star. Yet we still consider these things physical and we study them.

Why should the practical problems of observation pose a problem for Materialism?

This may same like a nit-pick, but it's not. Your position depends on using one word "observe" to mean two critically different things. The difference between consciousness and physical things is the whole manner in which they can be said to be "observable" at all, not merely the number of observers.

So your definition of "physical" is directly observable by more than one observer?

That seems to leave out just about everything.

Fine. Sounds like you accept that we have no option but to define that word subjectively. No objective definition is possible.

But again - so what?

 

[Robin]

You're thinking about it backwards. It is a case of "I can't bring myself to accept the possibility of any of the alternatives, therefore I will go on believing materialism, even though it doesn't actually make any sense" where it ought to be "materialism doesn't actually make any sense, therefore some other answer must be considered rather than just waving my hand and trying to dismiss all the alternatives as magic."

What are the alternatives? What questions do they answer? What problems do they solve?

Why precisely is consciousness a problem for Materialism?

"Magic" is just a substitute term for "woo", which in turn just means "anything I don't like the look of."

I will not know whether I like the look of them or not unless you are prepared to specify what these alternatives are and what problem they allegedly solve.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's a machine. Someone else will be able to fix the problems and restore access.

I'll epoxy it shut and forget the root password.

There, just like a human.

What you are saying is that the possibility that you may one day be scanned with an FMRI means that you don't have private behaviour now.

This does not, I submit, make a whole lot of sense.

Those programs do not have private behavior for the reasons I already mentioned.

You have not mentioned a single reason for believing that programs do not have private behaviour. You have simply insisted that this is true because there are surface differences between computers and humans, which, while true, does not address the issue in any way.

Again, we know without question that computers have private behaviour because we put it there.

 

[AlBell]

I'll epoxy it shut and forget the root password.

There, just like a human.

What you are saying is that the possibility that you may one day be scanned with an FMRI means that you don't have private behaviour now.

This does not, I submit, make a whole lot of sense.

Sure it does, since the fMRI scan does nothing but demonstrate meaningless, undecodable, indecipherable activity to any specific private behavior, and most specifically regarding awareness of awareness.

You have not mentioned a single reason for believing that programs do not have private behaviour. You have simply insisted that this is true because there are surface differences between computers and humans, which, while true, does not address the issue in any way.

Again, we know without question that computers have private behaviour because we put it there.

At the risk of repeating myself; "a computer's internals can not only be observed, examined in detail and exact function determined, stopped and restarted with no loss of output, or copied exactly to another machine, that is not private behavior as the term applies to humans."

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure it does, since the fMRI scan does nothing but demonstrate meaningless, undecodable, indecipherable activity to any specific private behavior, and most specifically regarding awareness of awareness.

Okay, so you're saying that private behaviour is private behaviour only so long as we don't understand it?

We've used an FMRI to read images straight out of the subject's visual cortex - as in, we could display on a computer screen an image of what the subject was looking at. That seems to demonstrate a hell of a lot more than "meaningless, undecodable, indecipherable activity".

At the risk of repeating myself; "a computer's internals can not only be observed, examined in detail and exact function determined, stopped and restarted with no loss of output, or copied exactly to another machine, that is not private behavior as the term applies to humans."

At a risk of repeating myself, I just introduced faulty hardware, epoxied the computer shut and forgot the root password. Now it is, by your definition, exactly like a human.

And yet again, we know for certain that computers have private behaviour because we put it there. We may have better tools with which to study this private behaviour than an FMRI gives us for humans, but is that really a point on which you want to hang your entire theory of mind?

 

[Dancing David]

My point is that since indeed a computer's internals can not only be observed, examined in detail and exact function determined, stopped and restarted with no loss of output, or copied exactly to another machine, that is not private behavior as the term applies to humans.

Nor do I see any possible private awareness of awareness in any non-biological system.

Excuse me, but what? "stopped and restarted with no loss of output", are you sure? I don't think that is what you meant to say.

Try crashing your machine after working on a project without saving. Temp files that are not IE cache files should be gone when you shut down, that is data loss as well.

Private behavior and private awareness are two sperate issues, you can deconstruct a human as easily as a computer.

 

[Dancing David]

Sure it does, since the fMRI scan does nothing but demonstrate meaningless, undecodable, indecipherable activity to any specific private behavior, and most specifically regarding awareness of awareness.


At the risk of repeating myself; "a computer's internals can not only be observed, examined in detail and exact function determined, stopped and restarted with no loss of output, or copied exactly to another machine, that is not private behavior as the term applies to humans."

Too bad, you are using a version of 'private behavior' that is your own idiom. My heart beating is a private behavior.

ETA: You are still wrong about computers as well.

 

[Dancing David]

It's a machine. Someone else will be able to fix the problems and restore access.

You don't work with computers do you?

Don't get the more recent Vundo/Virtumonde with the three .dll files of doom okay? You can't 'fix the problems' and you can't 'restore access'. You wish you could, sometimes a reinstall of the Windowd OS files won't do it and you HAVE to nuke it.

And then your magic 'output doesn't change' is so way wrong.

Those programs do not have private behavior for the reasons I already mentioned.

Only because you are using an idiomatic usage of private behaviors.