• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Consciousness

Mike Helland said:
Fair enough.

1 : existing or situated within the limits or surface of something: such as
a(1) : situated near the inside of the body
(2) : situated on the side toward the median plane of the body
b : of, relating to, or occurring on the inside of an organized structure (such as a club, company, or state) internal affairs
2 : relating or belonging to or existing within the mind

I was thinking of the first definition.

The second refers explicitly to the mind, so there you go.

I think your statement "versus being of the hardware" rings the most for the me.

The hard problem of consciousness is where does the "being" come from.
My solution is that the world is fundamentally made of being.
Click to expand...
Nope it isn't - the HPC is defined to be a problem by definition by using folk language, in reality there is no such HPC.
 
p0lka said:
well, hopefully I have established that I'm not arguing for souls or magic woo stuff that is separate from the brain.
Click to expand...

*Sighs, rubs the bridge of my nose.*

Why are philosophy fanboys always so much more eager to talk about what they aren't talking about than what they are talking about.

You're not arguing for this, you're not arguing for that, you're certainly not arguing for this, Lord forbid anyone thinks you're arguing for that...

It seems like just a straight, simple, non-word salad, using already established words USING ALREADY ESTABLISHED DEFINITIONS sentence laying out what you are arguing for would move this argument forward.

But that won't happen because moving the argument forward isn't the goal.
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Sighs, rubs the bridge of my nose.*

Why are philosophy fanboys always so much more eager to talk about what they aren't talking about than what they are talking about.

You're not arguing for this, you're not arguing for that, you're certainly not arguing for this, Lord forbid anyone thinks you're arguing for that...

It seems like just a straight, simple, non-word salad, using already established words USING ALREADY ESTABLISHED DEFINITIONS sentence laying out what you are arguing for would move this argument forward.

But that won't happen because moving the argument forward isn't the goal.
Click to expand...
That's your reply to what I posted?

It's like a self defined word salad what means nothing,

what are you talking about?
 
p0lka said:
That's your reply to what I posted?

It's like a self defined word salad what means nothing,

what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

At this point I might as well be talking someone out proving immortality with Bayesian statistics. It's functionally turning into the same thing.
 
JoeMorgue said:
At this point I might as well be talking someone out proving immortality with Bayesian statistics. It's functionally turning into the same thing.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that I have established that I'm not arguing for souls or magic woo stuff that is separate from the brain?

Edit, you're getting this **** from youtube, stop it.

Lets do JoeMorgue without the hyperbole, see where that goes.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Certainly not the science.
Click to expand...
Do Neural networks have internal experience? will it be achieved over time?

Brains are interesting,
they have internal experience,
I don't think it's a concern of neural networks at the moment, but it's an interesting avenue to ponder,

our brains create our internal experience,

could you get that with a neural network?

If not, why not? If so, why so?
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
Would you agree that I have established that I'm not arguing for souls or magic woo stuff that is separate from the brain?
Click to expand...

What you're arguing for seems, from my perspective, to be functionally the same as a soul. So from that perspective, any denial is rather hollow. You've made it clear that consciousness is some "other" stuff. What other stuff is there, aside from crude matter, that isn't a soul?
 
p0lka said:
Would you agree that I have established that I'm not arguing for souls or magic woo stuff that is separate from the brain?
Click to expand...

"Would you agree..." Okay Jabba.

I still have no idea what you are saying, so stop asking me if I agree.

Speak non-gibberish and maybe I'll answer.
 
Belz... said:
What you're arguing for seems, from my perspective, to be functionally the same as a soul. So from that perspective, any denial is rather hollow. You've made it clear that consciousness is some "other" stuff. What other stuff is there, aside from crude matter, that isn't a soul?
Click to expand...

Again p0lka is by no means the first poster to pull the:

"Oh I'm totally not saying there is a soul."
*Wait for it.*
"Absolutely not, no soul looking for here."
*Wait for it.*
"The mind is a total biological process of the brain, I agree 100%"
*Wait for it.*
"...."
*Wait for it.*
"But....."
*There it is*

routine.
 
Belz... said:
What you're arguing for seems, from my perspective, to be functionally the same as a soul. So from that perspective, any denial is rather hollow. You've made it clear that consciousness is some "other" stuff. What other stuff is there, aside from crude matter, that isn't a soul?
Click to expand...
Where have I made that clear? Are you mixing me up with a different poster?

My position is that the internal experience comes from the hardware? edit: I thought I had made that clear, check my posts.

It's hardware all the way down so to speak, but there are many things to find out regarding that.

JoeMorgue seems to be on a script with their assumptions, I don't know what that's about.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
"Would you agree..." Okay Jabba.

I still have no idea what you are saying, so stop asking me if I agree.

Speak non-gibberish and maybe I'll answer.
Click to expand...
ok, I'll use less words.

'Do you think I'm arguing for souls or magic woo stuff that is separate from the brain?'
In spite of the posts I have typed that states the opposite?
 
p0lka said:
Do Neural networks have internal experience? will it be achieved over time?

Brains are interesting,
they have internal experience,
I don't think it's a concern of neural networks at the moment, but it's an interesting avenue to ponder,

our brains create our internal experience,

could you get that with a neural network?

If not, why not? If so, why so?
Click to expand...

No. I’ve already mentioned this above. At the moment the vast majority of work on “AI” is not to duplicate human consciousness, but to solve specific problems. Since (at the moment) that does not involve simulating the human brain I see no reason to think that any of these systems would be conscious. They simply don’t either have hardware or software simulations of the structures in our brains that give rise to consciousness.

There is research which is about learning how the brain works by simulating the brain structures whether in hardware or software. There is a lot of work on mathematically modelling “assemblies” - groups of neurons which we are pretty sure is how the brain is organised at a very low level in terms of for instance how memories are stored. Now this approach could create consciousness because it may have to simulate the brain to a degree that includes consciousness.
 
Maybe we only think we're conscious?

Sometimes I feel like all my decision making is just post-hoc justification for what I was going to do anyway. There's even some science to support this (In certain situations).
 
3point14 said:
Maybe we only think we're conscious?

Sometimes I feel like all my decision making is just post-hoc justification for what I was going to do anyway. There's even some science to support this (In certain situations).
Click to expand...

On a neurological level our "justification" or as Myriad puts it our narrative does indeed come after the decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom