• 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.

Has consciousness been fully explained?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not suggesting theoretical problems, I'm suggesting that theoretically there might be problems, but that there probably won't be. Carbon isn't magical, it just has certain properties. We can't really say for sure non-carbon based consciousness is possible without knowing how consciousness works, but it seems likely.
 
cornsail said:
I'm not suggesting theoretical problems, I'm suggesting that theoretically there might be problems, but that there probably won't be. Carbon isn't magical, it just has certain properties. We can't really say for sure non-carbon based consciousness is possible
Click to expand...
Yeah, we can.
 
cornsail said:
I'm not suggesting theoretical problems, I'm suggesting that theoretically there might be problems, but that there probably won't be. Carbon isn't magical, it just has certain properties. We can't really say for sure non-carbon based consciousness is possible without knowing how consciousness works, but it seems likely.
Click to expand...

PixyMisa said:
Yeah, we can.
Click to expand...

PixyMisa said:
So, Beth, your turn. Is carbon magical? If not, on what, exactly, do you base your objection?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think carbon is magical. I'm agreeing with what cornsail said and share his objections to your claim of certainty regarding the answer to a question when humans do not currently have the ability to verify that answer. I think you are probably correct, but that is as far as I feel the current evidence reasonably supports. You seem to have a religious-like faith in your understanding of reality and the extrapolation of that understanding beyond the boundaries of our current knowledge. I do not share your certainty regarding things beyond our ken.
 
Wow, I haven't noticed that this thread has become so huge...by far the biggest thread I have ever started. Now I am going to start catching up (about 40 pages behind lol)
 
Beth said:
What does your certainty regarding such a conclusion say about your religious/spiritual worldview?
Click to expand...

That I am atheist, and I have confidence that the world I observe is the world I observe.

I have established, in my mind and with as much certainty as a human is capable of, that a huge number such as 29058205826802986023980496803 can be reached by simply adding 1 to a sum over and over. There is nothing magical about the gap.

Likewise, I have established -- with the same certainty -- that the behavior of a huge collection of particles is simply the net result of the combined behavior of the particles that make up the collection. There is nothing magical about the gap.

It seems to me like you "agnostics" are worried you might be missing something in that gap. What could it be? If you aren't missing something with a single particle, or a few particles, what could suddenly appear in the mix when you add more and more particles? I don't get it.
 
Beth said:
No, I don't think carbon is magical. I'm agreeing with what cornsail said and share his objections to your claim of certainty regarding the answer to a question when humans do not currently have the ability to verify that answer. I think you are probably correct, but that is as far as I feel the current evidence reasonably supports. You seem to have a religious-like faith in your understanding of reality and the extrapolation of that understanding beyond the boundaries of our current knowledge.
Click to expand...
All you are doing is dodging the question.

Again, I ask you, how could it be possible for non-carbon-based consciousness to be impossible? You claim that you don't think carbon is magical, but your position implies exactly that.
 
PixyMisa said:
All you are doing is dodging the question.

Again, I ask you, how could it be possible for non-carbon-based consciousness to be impossible? You claim that you don't think carbon is magical, but your position implies exactly that.
Click to expand...

No, my position implies I don't have sufficient knowledge to answer your question. That is not the same as thinking that carbon is magical. You claims to the contrary about are not convincing - at least not to me.
 
rocketdodger said:
Have you said conscious robots are possible?
Click to expand...

Possibly, but you're the one asserting I made some sort of claim about the impossibility of conscious machines. I've never made such a claim.

For the record, I believe a machine could theoretically be conscious.
 
rocketdodger said:
That I am atheist, and I have confidence that the world I observe is the world I observe.

I have established, in my mind and with as much certainty as a human is capable of, that a huge number such as 29058205826802986023980496803 can be reached by simply adding 1 to a sum over and over. There is nothing magical about the gap.
Click to expand...
True.
Likewise, I have established -- with the same certainty -- that the behavior of a huge collection of particles is simply the net result of the combined behavior of the particles that make up the collection. There is nothing magical about the gap.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced of this. The behavior of a huge collection of particles is NOT simply the net result of the combined behavior of the individual particles. The pattern of relationships of each particle to each other particle makes a huge difference. A human being does not behave as inanimate layers of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, would. Thus, this analogy fails as it does not take into consideration the particular pattern of the particles.
It seems to me like you "agnostics" are worried you might be missing something in that gap. What could it be? If you aren't missing something with a single particle, or a few particles, what could suddenly appear in the mix when you add more and more particles? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

See above. As you add more and more particles, the number of possible relationships between them increases exponentially and the ability to predict the expected behavior of those particles decreases. Given that fact, I don't get how you can be so certain of your conclusion. I'm certainly not. :p
 
KingofMadCows said:
Do you? There are phenomenons like excitation transfer and change/inattentional blindness in which there's an interaction between perception and consciousness. Not to mention the fact that the developmental process of the brain requires sensory input or all the neurons and synapses will get pruned.
Click to expand...

Do I what? I can't match that question up syntactically with my post to which you responded.

Anyway, I'm not saying that an isolated brain can develop normally in perceptual isolation.

What I'm saying is that perception (as well as response, memory, and even learning) happens independent of consciousness quite regularly. If it didn't, we'd be in quite a pickle.

I'm not saying that the two are always divorced. That would be daft.
 
rocketdodger said:
What kind of "yet unforeseen factors?"

Like the existence of a soul, maybe?

*rolls eyes*
Click to expand...

No, I have not heard them mention that.

But since we don't yet know how to build or even design conscious machines, we can't yet say what it would take to actually construct them.

Btw, why do you always refer to "conscious robots"? A conscious machine need not be a robot.
 
westprog said:
I think there are three positions in the group opposed to computationalism. There are those who say that since the brain is a physical object it must be possible to duplicate it. There are those who think that it will never be possible to create a conscious robot. My view is that to insist that something must be possible is to place philosophy ahead of experience, which is always dangerous. I think it is probably possible to create a conscious device, but I can't say for absolutely certain.

However, I think it's improbable that a conscious computer program could be created.
Click to expand...

I have to repeat rocketdodger's question here.

Where does the uncertainty come in?

Do you doubt that inorganic conscious machines are possible in theory, or in practice, and why?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Perhaps we are using perception in different ways? People with blindsight can change their behavior/answer questions above the level of chance on the basis of visual information. They are not conscious of any of this visual information, but I'm at a loss what to call the fact that they clearly receive some visual information at a subconscious level unless we use the word 'perception'.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is clearly an example of visual perception absent conscious experience of the perception.

If it is not, then we're going to have to coin an entirely new word to mean what "perception" is normally understood to mean, and that is tiresome.

But we don't even have to look for exotic examples.

Flinching is an example of perception and response without conscious perception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom