Has consciousness been fully explained?

[westprog]

Where have I said conscious robots are impossible?

Oh, it doesn't matter what you say. Never has. Don't be fooled into thinking that there's a discussion going on.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I was getting at something rather more particular. Specifically, understanding perception is not the same as understanding consciousness.

That is actually a very interesting issue for which we do not have a proper answer. One of the things that Crick and Koch were working on was the idea that there is not one "consciousness" but that consciousness might be an action inherent to each sensory system, so there might be visual consciousness, etc. They chose their particular sensory system with which to work -- vision -- and made some progress, but there is much work to be done.

 

[westprog]

That's not how I've been reading these threads.

I haven't seen that Westprog or cornsail have denied that conscious machines are possible.

If I'm wrong, I reckon they can correct me.

But do keep in mind, saying that conscious machines are possible is not the same thing as saying that conscious programs are possible.

Exactly so. It's the kind of thing we've come to expect - deliberate misrepresentation to make the opposing viewpoint seem a bit less obvious. I can't remember anyone saying "conscious robots are not possible", or the equivalent. Indeed, a number of people who disagree with the computationalist viewpoint have said the exact opposite.

The annoying thing is that RD knows this, but has chosen to say something different.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Exactly so. It's the kind of thing we've come to expect - deliberate misrepresentation to make the opposing viewpoint seem a bit less obvious. I can't remember anyone saying "conscious robots are not possible", or the equivalent. Indeed, a number of people who disagree with the computationalist viewpoint have said the exact opposite.

The annoying thing is that RD knows this, but has chosen to say something different.

If you ask me, that level of dishonesty should disqualify someone from serious discussion, regardless of their intelligence or credentials. If he'll lie about whats said in the actual conversation in an attempt to shore-up his position hes not liable to concede on any critical point, no matter how cogent it is. When you're having a debate with people lacking in intellectual integrity you end up with the quagmire that these consciousness discussions typically turn into.

 

[westprog]

If you ask me, that level of dishonesty should disqualify someone from serious discussion, regardless of their intelligence or credentials. If he'll lie about whats said in the actual conversation in an attempt to shore-up his position hes not liable to concede on any critical point, no matter how cogent it is. When you're having a debate with people lacking in intellectual integrity you end up with the quagmire that these consciousness discussions typically turn into.

It's a particularly obvious example of the "who cares, we're right" style of arguing. Anything goes. (Though I note that the Wasp hasn't felt the need to indulge in that kind of deliberate distortion).

You're quite right. When one third of the posts are conscious misrepresentations of the opposing position, and another third are paranoid speculations about the sinister motivations of his opponents, it's hardly worth engaging with the remaining mish-mash of non-sequiturs and ill-comprehended bits of half-remembered reading.

 

[rocketdodger]

Still theorizing without supplying evidence?
Oh well why stop now, you thrive on it and it would be wrong of me to stop your spiritual growth

P.S. Look up geistig

All you have to do is directly state that you are neither spiritual nor religious.

And by "spiritual" I don't mean someone that is in touch with human emotion, I mean someone that genuinely thinks certain aspects of the human experience will always be outside the realm of what we can understand using science and mathematics.

Are you, or are you not, spiritual and/or religious?

 

[rocketdodger]

Exactly so. It's the kind of thing we've come to expect - deliberate misrepresentation to make the opposing viewpoint seem a bit less obvious. I can't remember anyone saying "conscious robots are not possible", or the equivalent. Indeed, a number of people who disagree with the computationalist viewpoint have said the exact opposite.

The annoying thing is that RD knows this, but has chosen to say something different.

Do you or do you not believe humans "might" have a supernatural soul, westprog? Do you or do you not believe in some kind of a God?

If I am such a "misrepresenter" then you can call me out right here, right now.

 

[rocketdodger]

If you ask me, that level of dishonesty should disqualify someone from serious discussion, regardless of their intelligence or credentials. If he'll lie about whats said in the actual conversation in an attempt to shore-up his position hes not liable to concede on any critical point, no matter how cogent it is. When you're having a debate with people lacking in intellectual integrity you end up with the quagmire that these consciousness discussions typically turn into.

What have I lied about ?

I don't lie, bro.

All four of those individuals are obviously spiritual and/or religious. If not, they can defend themselves. But I have said it before, and they don't. They respond with some cryptic post about me being wrong and how it shouldn't matter anyway -- why not respond with a simple "no, I am not spiritual or religious?"

I think you know the answer.

Furthermore, I know for a fact that neither westprog, !Kaggen, or Frank have stated that robot consciousness is possible. That is the physicalist -- indeed, the monist -- position. If human consciousness is possible, then robot consciousness is possible. There is no doubt. None. The most you will get out of westprog is that it "may" be possible -- huh, why cling to the "may?" -- and !Kaggen and Frank refuse to state even that much.

Malerin, to his credit, I think does agree that robot consciousness is possible. But Malerin is certainly spiritual since he believes in intelligent design.

So really -- what have I lied about?

 

[rocketdodger]

Where have I said conscious robots are impossible?

Have you said conscious robots are possible?

 

[rocketdodger]

That's not how I've been reading these threads.

I haven't seen that Westprog or cornsail have denied that conscious machines are possible.

If I'm wrong, I reckon they can correct me.

But do keep in mind, saying that conscious machines are possible is not the same thing as saying that conscious programs are possible.

Have they agreed that conscious machines are possible?

I honestly can't remember such a statement coming from either of them.

I remember statements like "conscious machines may be possible."

 

[AkuManiMani]

If you ask me, that level of dishonesty should disqualify someone from serious discussion, regardless of their intelligence or credentials. If he'll lie about whats said in the actual conversation in an attempt to shore-up his position hes not liable to concede on any critical point, no matter how cogent it is. When you're having a debate with people lacking in intellectual integrity you end up with the quagmire that these consciousness discussions typically turn into.

What have I lied about ?

I don't lie, bro.

You claimed certain individuals stated that "conscious robots are impossible". In all the years I've participated in these discussions never have I seen any of the individuals you listed make that argument. In fact I've often seen them saying just the opposite, and saying it often enough for one to assume that you're being less than honest in your portrayal of their positions.

All four of those individuals are obviously spiritual and/or religious. If not, they can defend themselves. But I have said it before, and they don't. They respond with some cryptic post about me being wrong and how it shouldn't matter anyway -- why not respond with a simple "no, I am not spiritual or religious?"

I think you know the answer.

Spiritual/Religious by what standard? I recall having a very similar dicussion with you a while back concerning your own beliefs. While I thought you had some very cool and interesting ideas I had a real problem with your hypocrisy.

Furthermore, I know for a fact that neither westprog, !Kaggen, or Frank have stated that robot consciousness is possible. That is the physicalist -- indeed, the monist -- position. If human consciousness is possible, then robot consciousness is possible. There is no doubt. None. The most you will get out of westprog is that it "may" be possible -- huh, why cling to the "may?" -- and !Kaggen and Frank refuse to state even that much.

Probably because they reconize that they don't know enough to say either way.

Malerin, to his credit, I think does agree that robot consciousness is possible. But Malerin is certainly spiritual since he believes in intelligent design.

How would that be any weirder than some of your own metaphysical views, RD? As a matter of fact I can see some compatability between his beliefs and some of the ideas you've expressed in the past.

So really -- what have I lied about?

In this case, about what certain individuals actually said. In general you tend to dodge, tap dance, and obfuscate like theres no tomorrow whenever you get called out on certain points -- kinda like you're doing now :-x

 

[rocketdodger]

You claimed certain individuals stated that "conscious robots are impossible"

Lol, no I didn't.

You are quoting someone else, who had misquoted me. Try to keep things straight, eh?

If you actually read my original post, I said "who are the people that don't think a robot could be conscious?"

Saying "conscious robots are impossible" is a much stronger position than they are willing to take. But it is clearly obvious to anyone that has been paying attention to this discussion over the last 4 years that these people "don't think a robot could be conscious."

And I will say it again -- those 4 people are free to just state "actually, I do think a robot could be conscious."

Why don't they do so?

Why?

 

[Piggy]

Perception is not separate from consciousness. One may not be entirely a part of the other but there's definite overlap. The areas of the brain that process sensory information don't just relay the action potentials, there is processing at those levels based on feedback from "higher order" brain functions as well as "lower order" brain functions.

On the contrary, perception may be entirely separate from consciousness.

And I, for one, have been in conscious states which were entirely separate from perception.

 

[Piggy]

That is actually a very interesting issue for which we do not have a proper answer. One of the things that Crick and Koch were working on was the idea that there is not one "consciousness" but that consciousness might be an action inherent to each sensory system, so there might be visual consciousness, etc. They chose their particular sensory system with which to work -- vision -- and made some progress, but there is much work to be done.

True. And cases of emotional blindness and blindsight demonstrate that conscious awareness is every bit as compartmentalized as everything else in our minds.

 

[Piggy]

Have they agreed that conscious machines are possible?

I honestly can't remember such a statement coming from either of them.

I remember statements like "conscious machines may be possible."

My understanding, from westprog and cornsail at least, is that their opinion is that conscious machines are indeed possible in theory, but that we can't be certain that they are possible in practice, because that depends on our ability to actually construct such machines in real time with our limited abilities and the materials at hand, and that nitty-gritty process may be limited by as yet unforeseen factors.

But I have never seen them deny, as Al Bell does, that conscious machines cannot be.

 

[rocketdodger]

My understanding, from westprog and cornsail at least, is that their opinion is that conscious machines are indeed possible in theory, but that we can't be certain that they are possible in practice, because that depends on our ability to actually construct such machines in real time with our limited abilities and the materials at hand, and that nitty-gritty process may be limited by as yet unforeseen factors.

But I have never seen them deny, as Al Bell does, that conscious machines cannot be.

What kind of "yet unforeseen factors?"

Like the existence of a soul, maybe?

*rolls eyes*

 

[Frank Newgent]

Assigning a higher value to a statement which has been verified because it's been verified (as corresponding with reality) would be a normative choice... ie that it ought to be true.

There is nothing that ought to be true (or false) about liking the poblano peppers stuffed with goat cheese, bacon, wild rice, fresh basil, and garlic cloves that I made my wife and I for dinner a little while ago. That is a personal preference.

I stress the normative aspect as descriptive forms of theorizing depend on making normative choices; for example finding value in what is capable of being verified (or falsified) by observation/experiment (definition of empirical) is an act expressive of belief in a norm.

I hope that makes sense.

It doesn't really make sense -- can you just give me an example?

The establishment of a goal of to develop, for example, a simple method of chatting with artificial intelligence.

Establishing such a goal would be a normative act expressive of the belief that human intelligence can be so precisely described that it can be simulated by a machine.

Do you agree that it ought to be true this can be done?

Deciding that it's worthwhile to try to figure out how to build a conscious robot is making the (normative) choice that... it's worthwhile. As opposed to a waste of time.

I don't think it's a waste of time myself. I'm glad you're trying.

What I don't understand is how one goes about formalizing the act of making such a choice.

 

[AkuManiMani]

What kind of "yet unforeseen factors?"

Like the existence of a soul, maybe?

*rolls eyes*

Whats a soul?

 

[!Kaggen]

All you have to do is directly state that you are neither spiritual nor religious.

And by "spiritual" I don't mean someone that is in touch with human emotion, I mean someone that genuinely thinks certain aspects of the human experience will always be outside the realm of what we can understand using science and mathematics.

Are you, or are you not, spiritual and/or religious?

"There is nothing outside of nature" Goethe

 

[!Kaggen]

Whats a soul?

What you got if you enjoy fried chicken, corn and the blues