Has consciousness been fully explained?

[westprog]

Well thank you for finally admitting the circularity of this argument.

So, westprog, do you think a computer could ever be conscious?

If not, why not?

Oh, you want to know what I think? What my best guess is? My belief system? What does that tell us?

Whether or not I think that a computer can be conscious - whatever that precisely means - doesn't really matter at all. I try to avoid thinking that things are true, or believing stuff in this kind of discussion, as much as I can avoid it.

 

[Philosaur]

Oh, you want to know what I think? What my best guess is? My belief system? What does that tell us?

Um...it would tell us where you stand with regard to the question. I'm not understanding your sudden reticence to participate, considering how voluble you've been up until now.

Whether or not I think that a computer can be conscious - whatever that precisely means - doesn't really matter at all. I try to avoid thinking that things are true, or believing stuff in this kind of discussion, as much as I can avoid it.

Suddenly you're Switzerland? Ok, suit yourself.

 

[westprog]

Um...it would tell us where you stand with regard to the question. I'm not understanding your sudden reticence to participate, considering how voluble you've been up until now.



Suddenly you're Switzerland? Ok, suit yourself.

I've been saying where I stand on the question. I've been confining myself to what I think is well established, and based on substance. I don't think I can reasonably be portrayed at refusing to commit myself where I think commitment is warranted.

What I "believe" is of no consequence, outside of the reasons I have for believing it.

 

[Belz...]

Calling something science when it's pure guesswork doesn't actually make it science.

Wait, what ? You think that assuming that since everything we know is a physical entity testable by science, consciousness must also be such an entity, is guesswork ?

Right. And since we have direct access to his subjective experience... oh, wait, we have to go from our direct experience of the keyboard to an indirect experience of the keyboard. Does that count as "proof"?

Again you are creating a special "subjective experience" category where none is needed. A computer can make such an observation, and then we can look at what the computer recorded to confirm that the object in question was there all along, even when we weren't looking at it. If we can similarily plug into someone's brain, some day, we'll be able to do the same.

This is philosophy, of course. Science assumes that the keyboard is there, all the time. But that's an assumption, not a claim.

It's an assumption based on every shred of evidence that every observation made in the history of the universe confirms. I call that pretty solid. Solipsism is an untenable proposition.

 

[westprog]

Wait, what ? You think that assuming that since everything we know is a physical entity testable by science, consciousness must also be such an entity, is guesswork ?

If you're assuming, it's guesswork. And the claim that everything we know is a physical entity when that is precisely the point in question

It's permissible to make working assumptions in science, but not to assume that said assumptions are necessarily true.

Again you are creating a special "subjective experience" category where none is needed. A computer can make such an observation, and then we can look at what the computer recorded to confirm that the object in question was there all along, even when we weren't looking at it. If we can similarily plug into someone's brain, some day, we'll be able to do the same.

Relevant portion highlighted.

It's an assumption based on every shred of evidence that every observation made in the history of the universe confirms. I call that pretty solid. Solipsism is an untenable proposition.

You can't determine the nature of observation based on the results of observation. And metaphysical speculation is not, and cannot be, science.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Solipsism is an untenable proposition.

Are you referring to a simulated/brain in a vat solipsism or an external real-world solipsism?

 

[rocketdodger]

Claiming that being able to logically deduce that one is not a brain in a vat is the same as being able to know the ultimate nature of reality doesn't parse to me. Sorry RD.


Here's the entirety of what I posted again.




Referring to what I've bolded in my original quote... again I am referring to us being able to deduce whether we exist in a simulation/vat. Or not.

Do you believe advanced vat programming prevents such a possibility?

I see "logically deduce" and I equate that with "know." Are you assuming some other meaning to "logically deduce?" Seems to me that if we consider our logic valid, and furthermore sound, then any deduction is knowledge. Is that not correct?

 

[Third Eye Open]

Well thank you for finally admitting the circularity of this argument.

So, westprog, do you think a computer could ever be conscious?

If not, why not?

Good luck with that, lol. Pixy has been trying to get him to answer this question with a straightforward 'yes' or 'no' for months now. Possibly much longer, but I tend to stop paying attention after the second dozen 'a computer doesn't do anything different than a bowl of soup' type posts in any one thread.

Just so you know, from the view of a layman outsider this thread reads like:

"Let's try to explain consciousness!"
"NO! WE CAN'T!"

Repeated for hundreds of pages.

 

[westprog]

Good luck with that, lol. Pixy has been trying to get him to answer this question with a straightforward 'yes' or 'no' for months now. Possibly much longer, but I tend to stop paying attention after the second dozen 'a computer doesn't do anything different than a bowl of soup' type posts in any one thread.

Just so you know, from the view of a layman outsider this thread reads like:

"Let's try to explain consciousness!"
"NO! WE CAN'T!"

Repeated for hundreds of pages.

What I "think" or "believe" is like what my favourite colour is. I'm making my arguments and I'm establishing my position quite explicitly.

This started with RD wanting to figure out what my motivations were. Some people can't accept that anyone could actually disagree with them unless they had some hidden secret agenda.

 

[rocketdodger]

What I "think" or "believe" is like what my favourite colour is. I'm making my arguments and I'm establishing my position quite explicitly.

This started with RD wanting to figure out what my motivations were. Some people can't accept that anyone could actually disagree with them unless they had some hidden secret agenda.

Correct.

The agenda, however, is very relevant when one is deciding whether or not to bother continued discussion.

In your particular case, your argument that a bowl of soup does the same thing as a working computer is the result of your desire to convince yourself and others that consciousness is divine, not computational in nature. It really has nothing to do with computation, or what soup does, or what a computer does, or even any rational train of throught.

So why continue? It is obvious that you want consciousness to be from your God, and any logical argument to the contrary is going to be subconsciously twisted and doublethinked into oblivion by your brain.

I agree there is merit to the initial exchanges, where perhaps one might learn something from trying to formulate arguments that they hope you will understand. I know I learned alot. But at some point, your repeated denial of even the most obvious arguments yields diminishing returns and, at that point, knowing your true motivation factors strongly into any decision regarding whether or not to take you seriously.

 

[Philosaur]

Whether or not I think that a computer can be conscious - whatever that precisely means - doesn't really matter at all. I try to avoid thinking that things are true, or believing stuff in this kind of discussion, as much as I can avoid it.

I've been saying where I stand on the question. I've been confining myself to what I think is well established, and based on substance. I don't think I can reasonably be portrayed at refusing to commit myself where I think commitment is warranted.

What I "believe" is of no consequence, outside of the reasons I have for believing it.

What I "think" or "believe" is like what my favourite colour is. I'm making my arguments and I'm establishing my position quite explicitly.
This started with RD wanting to figure out what my motivations were. Some people can't accept that anyone could actually disagree with them unless they had some hidden secret agenda.

You've got to be kidding. Repeating "I've stated my position explicitly" is NOT the same as actually stating your position. Maybe you have done so in another thread. I don't know. I do know that I have never asked you your position before, and your refusal to answer just looks suspicious--though I can't fathom what you would be trying to hide by not answering.

And do you really object to my asking what you "think" or what you "believe"? What are the magic words I need to use to get you to indicate where you stand on the issue of computer consciousness?

 

[PixyMisa]

Just so you know, from the view of a layman outsider this thread reads like:

"Let's try to explain consciousness!"
"NO! WE CAN'T!"

Repeated for hundreds of pages.

That's what it looks like to me too.

 

[AlBell]

It's true that 100% materialists must defend SRIP! Church-Turing! Read GEB! as all that needs to be said. Buy that and the answer must be obvious to the meanest intelligence.

 

[westprog]

You've got to be kidding. Repeating "I've stated my position explicitly" is NOT the same as actually stating your position. Maybe you have done so in another thread. I don't know. I do know that I have never asked you your position before, and your refusal to answer just looks suspicious--though I can't fathom what you would be trying to hide by not answering.

And do you really object to my asking what you "think" or what you "believe"? What are the magic words I need to use to get you to indicate where you stand on the issue of computer consciousness?

How often do I have to repeat it? Until we understand how consciousness is produced, there is no particular reason to suppose we can produce it by running programs on a computer. If consciousness is real, and physical, then it can't be produced by a computer simulation any more than any other physical process can be produced by a computer simulation.

Do I know whether or not computer consciousness is possible? No, and nor does anyone else.

 

[Third Eye Open]

How often do I have to repeat it? Until we understand how consciousness is produced, there is no particular reason to suppose we can produce it by running programs on a computer. If consciousness is real, and physical, then it can't be produced by a computer simulation any more than any other physical process can be produced by a computer simulation.

Do I know whether or not computer consciousness is possible? No, and nor does anyone else.

Consciousness is produced by physical processes.

Physical processes can produce consciousness.

We can in principle discover the physical processes that produce consciousness.

We can in principle reproduce the physical processes that produce consciousness.

Reproducing the physical processes that produce consciousness would produce consciousness.

Disagree with any of this?

 

[Nonpareil]

This:

Do I know whether or not computer consciousness is possible? No, and nor does anyone else.

contradicts this:

If consciousness is real, and physical, then it can't be produced by a computer simulation any more than any other physical process can be produced by a computer simulation.

 

[tsig]

It's true that 100% materialists must defend SRIP! Church-Turing! Read GEB! as all that needs to be said. Buy that and the answer must be obvious to the meanest intelligence.

Glad you understood it then.

 

[tsig]

Good luck with that, lol. Pixy has been trying to get him to answer this question with a straightforward 'yes' or 'no' for months now. Possibly much longer, but I tend to stop paying attention after the second dozen 'a computer doesn't do anything different than a bowl of soup' type posts in any one thread.

Just so you know, from the view of a layman outsider this thread reads like:

"Let's try to explain consciousness!"
"NO! WE CAN'T!"

Repeated for hundreds of pages.

Added dialog.

"Let's try to explain consciousness!"
"NO! WE CAN'T! My consciousness is special and precious to me. You cant have my precious"

 

[tsig]

Consciousness is produced by physical processes.

Physical processes can produce consciousness.

We can in principle discover the physical processes that produce consciousness.

We can in principle reproduce the physical processes that produce consciousness.

Reproducing the physical processes that produce consciousness would produce consciousness.

Disagree with any of this?

My guess is:

All of the above.

 

[Philosaur]

How often do I have to repeat it?

No idea. But I only asked you to tell me once.

Until we understand how consciousness is produced, there is no particular reason to suppose we can produce it by running programs on a computer.

Ok, that's a conservative, if a little bit narrow, point of view.

If consciousness is real

Who's denying it's real?

, and physical,

Is anyone claiming it's not physical?

then it can't be produced by a computer simulation any more than any other physical process can be produced by a computer simulation.

Ok, so you're one of those people who thinks that if a computer does it, it's NECESSARILY a simulation, and since a simulation is different from the real thing, then a computer can't produce consciousness.

Is a game of chess real?

Is a game of chess physical?

When Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov, did *anyone* claim that the computer was merely "simulating" a chess game, and therefore didn't really win?

Do I know whether or not computer consciousness is possible? No, and nor does anyone else.

I find your epistemological rigor both tiresome and inconsistent. Tiresome because nobody asked you whether you "know" if computer consciousness is possible, and inconsistent because you can't possibly know whether someone else knows if it's possible or not.

But I do appreciate you making your views on the subject clear.