Are You Conscious?

[PixyMisa]

I'm beginning to think that Pixy is David Chalmers, who I had an eerily similar exchange with once.

Then you either haven't read anything I wrote, or haven't read anything David Chalmers wrote, or both.

 

[PixyMisa]

The ironic part is that Pixy often harps on about how ridiculous philosophers like Chalmers are yet he can't see that his own beliefs logically lead to the same absurdities.

Really? Nice assertion. But you get no points unless you show your work.

 

[PixyMisa]

Deja Vu...

Some of my favorite Pixy claims:

- Car engines, washing machines, and toasters are conscious

Not all of them, and not intrinsically, but yes.

- Anesthetized patients are unconsciously conscious

Setting aside your snide oxymoron, yes.

- Self-aware thermostats

I've corrected you on this more than once. No.

- Consciousness IS self referential something something. I kind of tune out at that point.

You seem to tune out the moment anyone disagrees with you. Makes discussions unproductive, to say the least.

Others can feel free to add more. It's all hilariously nonsensical, more so since Pixy actually believes this stuff.

As with AkuManiMani, you can find humour where you like, but you have to actually show that it's nonsensical.

You can start on that any time you like.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Are you talking about your magic fairy field theory of quantum consciousness? It was, and remains, complete nonsense on every level.

For someone who allegedly abhors magical concepts, you sure do like to invoke them

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Can someone let Pixy know I replied to the questions he asked me after he said he put me on ignore.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Others can feel free to add more. It's all hilariously nonsensical, more so since Pixy actually believes this stuff.

As with AkuManiMani, you can find humour where you like, but you have to actually show that it's nonsensical.

You can start on that any time you like.

If you're a thoroughly self-deluded fool how else would you know it but for the scoffing laughter of others?

But derision aside, you have been shown the logical flaws in your position in numerous ways by numerous individuals. You're just strongly invested in not accepting anything that challenges the foundations of your ideology.

 

[PixyMisa]

Thanks Aku.

I'm new here Aku so i don't know what you consider to be part of the strong AI cult. Who knows, we may butt heads too.

I do believe strong AI is possible and that mankind can create it.

Yes.

Furthermore, I believe we can do so on computers without creating a biological organism.

Now you have Westprog offside. He'll start complaining about virtual oranges in a moment.

We may have to supply an artificial (or human) society for it to interact with though to some degree.

Certainly. Some sort of world with which to interact, anyway.

I also believe, but this is where my degree of certainty goes down a little, that we can create strong AI on a universal Turing machine-type computers not too dissimilar from current computers.

And there goes Malerin.

However we may have to implement (or at least simulate) information processes biophysicly discovered from wetware connectionist systems first until we discover alternative or isomorphic computational methods.

Precisely the point I've been making. We don't need to know how the brain creates the mind, we just need to get the wiring right. An accurate simulation of the brain will produce a mind.

However, it could turn out that we do this in reverse analogous to how we discovered how to fly via the principle of constructing airplanes before constructing bird or insect-like flight.

Yes. It's worth pursuing both approaches.

I don't believe, unlike Penrose/Hammeroff, that the basis for conscious computation is a quantum computer of any sort.

And there goes AkuManiMani.

Not only is the evidence lacking but there is also physical theory that directly contradicts it.

Right. Tegmark has a thing or two to say on this question. (In brief, that Penrose and Hammeroff are out by at least ten orders of magnitude in the time domain.)

However, I'm not sure the brain doesn't utilize a form of hypercomputation beyond Turing, as per the paper I cited in an earlier post.

Yeah. I don't think much of that, because it relies on the assumptions that the Universe is meaningfully continuous (which seems to contradict QM), that this actually produces a more powerful computational engine (not so much an assumption as maths that needs to be rigorously checked; I'm not aware of anyone else in the field who takes this seriously, but I'm not up on all the literature by a long shot), and that this actually makes a difference in the real world.

I wouldn't bet on it because it's still rather fringe. I simply have to say I don't know and leave it at that.

Yeah; I find it extremely dubious for all the reasons I list above. However, what it does mean is that we can still model brains computationally, we just need a different type of computer.

So, in short, I see that you are all cozy with the people whose views are diametrically opposed to your own, and aggressive and dismissive - and largely non-responsive - to those who agree with you on all but one specific definition. It doesn't hurt to be civil to those with whom you disagree, but I fail to see what is gained by being systematically uncivil with your own side.

You may be well-informed in the field, but your communication skills are somewhat lacking. Try, for once, to understand what people are saying to you rather than constructing strawmen and attacking those. You'll get a lot further.

 

[PixyMisa]

Can someone let Pixy know I replied to the questions he asked me after he said he put me on ignore.

Taking a look now.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Can someone let Pixy know I replied to the questions he asked me after he said he put me on ignore.

He isn't really interested in your replies, which is why he put you on Ignore to begin with. Its clear that hes thoroughly invested in the idea that his tautology is valid and will willfully deny any fact, argument, or person contrary to his belief.

 

[PixyMisa]

If you're a thoroughly self-deluded fool how else would you know it but for the scoffing laughter of others?

You could actually point out my errors.

But derision aside, you have been shown the logical flaws in your position in numerous ways by numerous individuals.

Namely?

You're just strongly invested in not accepting anything that challenges the foundations of your ideology.

Yes, fine, ascribe whatever motives you wish. But could you actually point out where I am wrong?

I'll wait.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Really? Nice assertion. But you get no points unless you show your work.

Wrong

 

[PixyMisa]

For someone who allegedly abhors magical concepts, you sure do like to invoke them

Metaphor, AkuManiManu. Since I explained precisely what I meant by the metaphor, it should be obvious to anyone interested in an honest discussion.

If you're just interested in scoring points - or rather, imagining that you've scored points - then you needn't bother reading the explanation. Or anything else.

 

[PixyMisa]

Wrong

See previous point.

Seriously, were you referring above to to "consciousness as a field" theory, or to Penrose-style quantum consciousness (both of which are completely impossible), or something else?

 

[Maia]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
The folks who want an immaterial soul, or libertarian free will, or whatever, are never going to reach any sort of agreement with the folks who don't need those things.

UE:
Not quite. Those who need those things will never reach agreement with those who need them not to exist. Since there is no way of supporting the claim that they necessarily don't exist, I see no reason why conflict is inevitable. The materialists/determinists need to accept that they can't ever force the believers to abandon their belief. None of it makes any difference to science, which has no meaning for those terms anyway.

Um, well... neither one of those definitions is what I got out of Gould's book, which is where I got my NOMA. His concept of NOMA was very, very different, and I think that you really do have to read and digest the entire book to see this. Dawkins commented on the book in The God Delusion (where he noted, correctly I think, that SJG probably bent over backwards a little to play devil's advocate and to be nice about religion in the first part of the book), but I'm not at all sure that he actually read the entire thing. Y'all do realize that SJG was at least as much an atheist as Dawkins, Dennett, et al, right? Increasingly, I think he was actually even more so than they are when it came to his personal and private beliefs. So his concept of NOMA was very complex.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Second is the same test we always use to check if a system is conscious: Ask it. SHRDLU is not a particularly complex or sophisticated program by modern standards, but I would like you to explain to me exactly what behaviour it is that is definitional to consciousness that SHRDLU does not display.

Aku's post reminded me I never followed up on your SHRDLU challenge. So I went over to the website and asked SHRDLU if it was conscious. It answered "yes" and then offered me a number of very enticing sexual favors I could access by calling a 1-900 number.

So I was completely ready to concede defeat to you and then, for the hell of it I asked if it knew PixyMisa and it also said "yes". The website begin to act a little bizarre, the screen images inverted and did all sorts of crazy things. Then I asked it if you were conscious and it replied "No, and please don't ask me about him again!". I replied "why, is there a problem with PixyMisa?".

Then the website did really wacky stuff and went black.

I think SHRDLU committed suicide.

 

[PixyMisa]

He isn't really interested in your replies, which is why he put you on Ignore to begin with. Its clear that hes thoroughly invested in the idea that his tautology is valid and will willfully deny any fact, argument, or person contrary to his belief.

I am interested in responses to my posts.

When he stopped responding to my posts and started responding to what he imagined my posts to be, I lost interest. He says he's answered my questions, so I'm going to go take a look at that now.

Also, you really need to learn the difference between a tautology and a definition. And please feel free to show any actual reason why you think my definition is invalid - or even not useful.

 

[PixyMisa]

Aku's post reminded me I never followed up on your SHRDLU challenge. So I went over to the website and asked SHRDLU if it was conscious. It answered "yes" and then offered me a number of very enticing sexual favors I could access by calling a 1-900 number.

Troll-like typing detected.

So I was completely ready to concede defeat to you and then, for the hell of it I asked if it knew PixyMisa and it also said "yes". The website begin to act a little bizarre, the screen images inverted and did all sorts of crazy things. Then I asked it if you were conscious and it replied "No, and please don't ask me about him again!". I replied "why, is there a problem with PixyMisa?".

Then the website did really wacky stuff and went black.

I think SHRDLU committed suicide.

Yes, very droll. No, what's the opposite of droll? Fatuous. That's the one.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Metaphor, AkuManiManu. Since I explained precisely what I meant by the metaphor, it should be obvious to anyone interested in an honest discussion.

Okay, so which magical SRIP constitutes pain and how would I instanitate it on my desktop CPU?

I'll wait

If you're just interested in scoring points - or rather, imagining that you've scored points - then you needn't bother reading the explanation. Or anything else.

Its not a matter of scoring points. I just get a kick out of mocking you because I think you're willfully self-deceptive and I've no respect for such people.

 

[PixyMisa]

Okay, so which magical SRIP constitutes pain and how would I instanitate it on my desktop CPU?

Pain is a behavioural modification mechanism. Instantiate that as you wish. A neural network could be a good place to start, though there are certainly other techniques available.

Its not a matter of scoring points. I just get a kick out of mocking you because I think you're willfully self-deceptive and I've no respect for such people.

And as I have noted, you can ascribe motives as you see fit, but you need to actually show me where I am wrong. I'll wait. I've been waiting for some time.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Troll-like typing detected.


Yes, very droll. No, what's the opposite of droll? Fatuous. That's the one.

Hey, I like that. I wish I'd picked FatDrollTroll as my screenname.