Explain consciousness to the layman.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Seems to apply to you as well, since you said so !
Click to expand...

I'm not making a claim about anyone - I'm pointing out that while people often think their opponents are closed minded and unwilling to listen to arguments, they never think so about themselves. I suspect that most of the participants on this thread, whatever their views, consider that they are entirely willing to be convinced by compelling evidence, and find it frustrating that their opponents aren't. That's just human nature.
 
Belz... said:
Right. It's so fortunate that you admit it about yourself.
Click to expand...

Of course I don't admit it. Nor do you, or Tsig, or Leumas, or Piggy, or anybody else on this thread. Some of those people might be incredibly open-minded, and some not, but everybody's open-minded in his own head. There's very little point in proclaiming it, and opportunities for demonstrating it are limited.
 
westprog said:
I'm not making a claim about anyone - I'm pointing out that while people often think their opponents are closed minded and unwilling to listen to arguments, they never think so about themselves. I suspect that most of the participants on this thread, whatever their views, consider that they are entirely willing to be convinced by compelling evidence, and find it frustrating that their opponents aren't. That's just human nature.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to be persuaded that a machine can never be made conscious, but I havent seen a good argument for that yet.

All I've seen is assertions that a simulation is imaginary and that life is special.
 
Brainache said:
I'm willing to be persuaded
Click to expand...

Sure aren't we all?

that a machine can never be made conscious, but I havent seen a good argument for that yet.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is making that argument.

All I've seen is assertions that a simulation is imaginary and that life is special.
Click to expand...

You probably should refer to the scorecard to see who's claiming that life is special and who isn't right at the moment.
 
westprog said:
You probably should refer to the scorecard to see who's claiming that life is special and who isn't right at the moment.
Click to expand...

I am not sure the scorecard is an accurate reflection of the true positions held, though.

It has been the motive of a few people from day 1 to systematically deny any scientific argument for the uniqueness of life precisely because that leaves only supernatural arguments for the uniqueness of life.

Case in point, you have by far been the biggest opponent on this thread ( and others ) regarding scientific arguments about why life does this, or that, or how life is different, or special, or unique. And, your refusal to correct our assumptions about possible religious motivation behind your arguments leaves only the conclusion that you do, in fact, have religious motivation behind your arguments.
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Sorry my bad, it was keyfeatures that said "natural," and I was responding to westprog's response to his post.

So no moving goalposts...
Click to expand...


Ok... so no moving goal posts.... it is just that you do not know what you have posted and what you said in them.... and then you have the temerity of laughing and shaking your head at people who respond to the actual words you posted instead of the ones you THINK you posted.


What logical fallacy is that? I guess you might have invented a new logical fallacy all by yourself…. Might we call it DODGERISM?


rocketdodger said:
... and to be honest, are you really going to argue against life being thermodynamically unique by referring to a device made by life? You realize that by logical extension, air conditioners are a result of life, don't you?
Click to expand...


I guess you missed these two posts then


mijopaalmc said:
Cyclonic tropospheric systems (i.e., low pressure weather systems) are non-human-created heat engines, and, as such are local decreases in local entropy that result in larger increases in global entropy.
Click to expand...

Leumas said:
Well….then cyclones must be living…. according to the “operational definition”
rocketdodger said:
...life is unique because it consistently reacts to increases in entropy with decreases in local entropy.
Click to expand...

It is all a matter of what “operational definition” you utilize and you can make anything be anything…never mind those pesky realities of logic and science.
Click to expand...




rocketdodger said:
*shakes head*
Click to expand...

There you go again.... you better reconsider .... all that rattling of your head might not be good for you.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
I guess you missed these two posts then
Click to expand...

The difference between the self-sustaining weather system and the self-sustaining living creature is not obvious. It certainly doesn't seem to be a thermodynamic difference.

It's extremely common for systems to settle into thermodynamic stability of some kind. The way that life does it is extremely similar to the way other systems do it.
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Did you actually read the presentations from either of these conferences?

Did you confirm that everyone in attendance was actually a researcher?

I did read the presentations of one conference, and I did confirm that no, they aren't all researchers. As I said, in particular, at least one of the presentations was specifically aimed at arguing against the notion of machine consciousness, and it was given by a philosophy professor.

Your argument is basically tantamount to saying that because a bunch of clowns with ulterior motives can attend a conference on global warming and assert the non-existence of the problem, it somehow skews the "consensus" opinion of the scientists actually researching the issue.

That is all I am asking -- if you want to argue from authority, at least use the right authority, and that would be the scientists doing the research, not the philosophy professors that get paid to talk.
Click to expand...


The poll questions were given to a handpicked group of AI researchers who attended the AI@50 conference (Dartmouth 2006). Don’t know if any of them were ‘clowns with ulterior motives’. I guess that question ( ' are you a clown with ulterior motives ') wasn’t on the survey.
 
annnnoid said:
The poll questions were given to a handpicked group of AI researchers who attended the AI@50 conference (Dartmouth 2006). Don’t know if any of them were ‘clowns with ulterior motives’. I guess that question ( ' are you a clown with ulterior motives ') wasn’t on the survey.
Click to expand...



Another question they missed is "Do you have FAITH in the Pinocchio GOSPEL (=good news)?"
 
westprog said:
The difference between the self-sustaining weather system and the self-sustaining living creature is not obvious. It certainly doesn't seem to be a thermodynamic difference.

It's extremely common for systems to settle into thermodynamic stability of some kind. The way that life does it is extremely similar to the way other systems do it.
Click to expand...

Systems we usually define as "living", however, seem to have ways of replicating those self-sustaining systemic conditions.
 
rocketdodger said:
Err, it might have been highly speculative 200 years ago. It hasn't been since we learned to build submarines that can stay submerged for months on end. It hasn't been since we learned to build space stations that can keep us alive in orbit for over a year at a time. It hasn't been since we actually traveled to the Moon and stayed there for a couple of days.

Lets be clear about this -- the only reason we don't currently have settlements on the Moon, Mars, and other places incredibly hostile to "life" is simply a matter of priorities. Our species would rather put resources into fighting each other and/or developing more advanced smartphones.

If there is any "speculation" about life's ability to spread across the entire universe, it is really speculation about the ability of the intelligent species to decide that such an undertaking is important. That is "part" of the evolution of life, I admit, but it is different than a question of whether such an undertaking is "possible" to begin with.

It isn't hard for a rational person to imagine the survival capabilities of a species that can develop something like the latest iPhone. I don't think it is very "speculative" to say that life can be expected to outlast everything, including the stars and planets.
Click to expand...

Quite, life is such a resourceful phenomena it is not wild speculation to realize that it may outlast our solar system, our universe, or indeed manipulate or originate the formation of universes to suit its intention.

Indeed given enough time, it would take on the mantle of God (infinities held at arms length).
 
westprog said:
I don't think it's that unique. A lot of systems regulate their temperature by various physical reactions. The difference is that life is apparently purposeful, that's all - unlike, say, the weather. How you can quantify the purposeful nature of life is another matter.
Click to expand...

Purposeful and programed.
 
dlorde said:
We don't know why the universe started out the way it did, but given that it did, we know the why of the arrow of time and we know why a glass jar will never re-assemble itself if broken.
Click to expand...

The arrow of time and the glass jar are relative phenomena in the system of this universe. Unfortunately we know little beyond it and the way it appears to operate.

Or the existence of life in it, or if for life to exist in it something else is required.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom