I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

Ahh, yes, of course. And the topic here is "Your best alternative to materialism", and you have presented yours. Duly noted.

I presented my interpretation of idealism(I am not an idealist) in the first few posts of mine in this thread. This discussion about consciousness is a sideline to the OP, which started when I presented the notion of atman in consciousness.

I hope you have duly noted that we are not impressed

Quite.

You have presented a completely unfounded idea.

Really?

If that's your best, fine.

No it's not my best, it's a distraction.

.... Next?

Are you talking to me? Or any other punters?

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes because my point is that it may be the part of the cell not involved in the performing the task of being a bit which generates the basic consciousness of the organism.

You have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the theory that it is computation which results in consciousness has mountains of it.

Really?

Yes, really. The notion of atman, soul, or anything else is and always has been completely unfounded and lacking any supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

[punshhh]

No, you aren't. You are presenting speculation which actively ignores all evidence in play.

What like the evidence that it is organisms which exhibit consciousness and the knowledge of our lack of understanding of how it does it?

You have yet to present any reason to believe this.

Belief is irrelevant, surely one would work it out for one's self. You reduce it to the act of nervous computation in the absence of a working model

You simply don't like the idea.

The idea's fine, i just don't see the need to turn it into an assumption.

How do you know that StarCraft is not generated in and sustained in the individual metal bits in your processor?

obfuscation.

Life is not consciousness.

Are you sure? Perhaps you are over reductionist again.

We know that it is due to the computation.

Where is your working model?*

You repeatedly ignoring this does not change it.

Im quite happy to believe it, when it is demonstrated in a working model.

I cannot point at which specific part of my video card processes the image now appearing on the screen. Therefore, I must accept that it is possible that electricity itself contains that image.

Obfuscation and semantic word games.

Those two things are not equivalent.

My computer can process a great deal of information. It is not intelligent in any way, shape, or form.

It is intelligent, it can perform intelligent computations of many kinds. And if you are to be believed, beyond a certain threshold of complexity, that computation will miraculously produce sentient self-consciousness.

What does the thing consciousness is have to do with consciousness? Again, I point you to Christof Koch.

Reductionism again

All consciousness is computational. Not all computation is consciousness.

All self-consciousness is computational. All computation above a certain threshold of complexity is conscious, apparently.

Airplanes don't exist and flight is an exclusively biological process.

Semantic word games.

Quite. Which I have never denied. In fact, this is exactly what I have been saying this entire time.

You are hopelessly lost here, the use of the word true in this next passage belies this.Did you not hear what I said about truth?

A natural result of this is that, if your "chitta chatta" does not correspond in any meaningful way to this external world, what you think you are saying is, in fact, word salad. This is why definitions are important, and why such positions as idealism and solipsism are entirely incoherent. There is no meaningful way in which they can be said to be true, because there is no situation where they will ever correspond, at all, to anything in the external world.

This is entirely irrelevant and misses the point. To repeat, the point is that all chitta Chatta is potentially word salad, semantic games etc. this must be screened out and scientific and philosophical language developed to meaningfully address the external world. Now are you re-writing philosophy here in regard to idealism and solipsism? Or was that just name dropping.

It's called "rationality". You should try it some time.

Where's the philosophical rigour? When I give you a philosophical problem such as mimicry, you just ignore it, mock it, obfuscate, run round in circles.

You are free to do this, of course, just as you have always been free to straw man ceaselessly in an attempt to hide the weaknesses of your own position.

But this is what you are doing, along with the hard materialists. To stand on a pedestal and state things we don't know don't exist.

You define "consciousness" as "metabolism", then say that consciousness is exclusively biological since only biological entities have a metabolism. That's wonderful.

A caricature again. The problem is we don't know what in the organism results in the basic phenomena of conscious being. So it can not be pinned down to one particular process in the cell metabolism

No one cares.

Really.

It isn't in any way a useful definition, it has nothing to do with the entity actually being discussed, and attempting to act as though you have contributed anything to the discussion by saying it is rather silly.

When this is pointed out, you switch to saying that consciousness requires a metabolism, and is thus exclusively biological in nature. This is flatly wrong, and there is no evidence whatsoever supporting it. You simply look at the systems which contain what you recognize as consciousness, see that they have metabolisms, and assert that it must have a link to their organic natures.

Your running around in circles and semantic word games are a distraction.

This is entirely equivalent to saying that building flying machines is impossible because all known flying systems are organic. It is rather silly on the face of it. All evidence points to flight being the result of aerodynamic properties; the fact that only organic systems naturally result in it is rather a banal thing to point out.

This is obfuscation because flying is an obvious mechanical process. In a sense organic life is necessary for flight, because only organic life has produced it, by producing wings and machines. But by analogy it fails to present an equivalent to a phenomena which is not mechanical, ie the subjective realm and mind. It fails to present an equivalent to an object with a quality which cannot be explained in its reduction to its constituent parts. Or a phenomena which can only be known as a phenomena when it is fully operational.

We have mountains of evidence indicating that consciousness is computational. We know that consciousness arises from the brain; we know that the brain is a computer; we know that altering the computations taking place alters the consciousness of the subject; we know that we can decode the computations taking place and translate them into coherent outputs. Literally every piece of evidence we have indicates that consciousness is computational and only computational.

Irrelevant this is all about how intelligence works. You might aswell be talking about an automaton.

You say that this is "overly reductionistic". We ask what it is reducing. You answer with concepts like the atman, which are entirely incoherent and undefined beyond a basic "magical life force". We point out that saying "you are ignoring the atman" is a meaningless phrase if you cannot coherently define what the atman is, let alone produce evidence of its existence. You claim that this is a semantic argument.

Atman is besides the point. I have not stated that Atman plays a role in consciousness, intelligence, mind. I have not stated its role as stated in the literature.
I have told you what it is reducing, it reduces fully sentient self-consciousness to the neuron and the synapse, while ignoring the cell itself.

And you proceed to get sillier from there, then tell us that we are the ones getting lost in a sea of meaningless words.

Obfuscation.

It's getting rather old.

Quite.

 

[Nonpareil]

What like the evidence that it is organisms which exhibit consciousness and the knowledge of our lack of understanding of how it does it?

This is completely wrong.

You ignoring our knowledge of how the brain works does not suffice as an argument.

Belief is irrelevant, surely one would work it out for one's self. You reduce it to the act of nervous computation in the absence of a working model

You have yet to point out any actual flaw in doing so.

It is intelligent

You do not understand what that word means.

And if you are to be believed, beyond a certain threshold of complexity, that computation will miraculously produce sentient self-consciousness.

No.

If Christof Koch is to be believed, any integrated computation, however complex or simple, is consciousness.

Did you not hear what I said about truth?

Yes. You were wrong.

This is entirely irrelevant and misses the point. To repeat, the point is that all chitta Chatta is potentially word salad, semantic games etc. this must be screened out and scientific and philosophical language developed to meaningfully address the external world.

That is exactly what I said.

The problem is that you then attempt to make up alternate definitions that do not correspond to anything, and then pretend that you have made some sort of point.

Where's the philosophical rigour? When I give you a philosophical problem such as mimicry, you just ignore it, mock it, obfuscate, run round in circles.

Dismissing your arguments is not equivalent to a lack of rigor, and I have supplied ample reason to dismiss your objections on the field of mimicry.

That you do not like the fact that your arguments are so easily brushed aside does not actually make them any stronger.

But this is what you are doing, along with the hard materialists. To stand on a pedestal and state things we don't know don't exist.

Except it's not.

Read my posts.

Your running around in circles and semantic word games are a distraction.

I am not the one playing word games.

This is obfuscation because flying is an obvious mechanical process.

Consciousness is a computational process.

In a sense organic life is necessary for flight, because only organic life has produced it, by producing wings and machines.

You actually just said that.

But by analogy it fails to present an equivalent to a phenomena which is not mechanical, ie the subjective realm and mind. It fails to present an equivalent to an object with a quality which cannot be explained in its reduction to its constituent parts. Or a phenomena which can only be known as a phenomena when it is fully operational.

You assume that consciousness cannot be reduced to a computational process. All evidence is against you. You cannot even provide a coherent definition of that which you believe is being ignored.

Your argument is dismissed.

Irrelevant this is all about how intelligence works. You might aswell be talking about an automaton.

No. It is about consciousness.

You are playing word games again.

I have told you what it is reducing, it reduces fully sentient self-consciousness to the neuron and the synapse, while ignoring the cell itself.

And we have explained that the cell is unimportant. The computation taking place does not care what hardware is used to process it.

You counter with "nuh-uh" and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[punshhh]

Why waste time with philosophical rhetorics, when it's so simple? Look, there's nothing but evidence of the material. There's not a single evidence of one thing that isn't material or that can't be traced to a material thing.

I am only disputing the idea that consciousness(self-consciousness) is solely a result of a certain level of complexity of computation/integrated information processing. I have no other dispute with current knowledge.

 

[punshhh]

You have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever.

I don't require evidence, all I am doing is presenting a maybe. It is you who is presenting an it is. Yours in an assertion, mine isn't. Can you provide any evidence showing that basic consciousness experience is not a product of the cell?

Meanwhile, the theory that it is computation which results in consciousness has mountains of it.

It is provisionally evidence until a working model is produced.

Yes, really. The notion of atman, soul, or anything else is and always has been completely unfounded and lacking any supporting evidence whatsoever.

This is besides the point here, as I am not suggesting atman has anything to do with the generation of consciousness in the body. Anyway atman is part of a philosophical tradition, evidence other than through revelation is unimportant in considering it.

 

[punshhh]

I would not presume consciousness in AI, I would say that AI could eventually be made to meet the criteria of consciousness.

Agreed. Criteria as understood by humans.

 

[punshhh]

What is it about a single cell that leads you to presume it "experiences" consciousness? Specifically what about a multicellular life form, say a mushroom, or a fern, leads you to presume it "experiences" consciousness?

Do you avoid answering my questions because the answers are embarrassing to your argument?

Sorry, it takes a long time to answer all these questions and my time is limited.

Basically I take a broad wide ranging view on what consciousness is and entails. Repeatedly enquiries lead to it being an artefact of living organisms. The basic unit of organic life is the cell. This is reason enough to take it seriously that it may have something to do with complex animals being able to experience sentient self-consciousness.

I am not saying that sentient self-awareness is not possible in the absence of living cells. But that any mechanism of AI produced may require some equivalent to living metabolism to achieve it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes because my point is that it may be the part of the cell not involved in the performing the task of being a bit which generates the basic consciousness of the organism. If this is the case, then the computation is not the origin of the consciousness in the organism. Even though the computation enables it to be experienced and to be experienced in more complex organisms as self-consciousness.

So if you emulate the computation involved in self-conscious experience, in the absence of this cellular metabolism, you may fail to make your emulation conscious/self-conscious, it is simply an automaton.

Idle speculation. You may like to think this, but without some kind of evidence, discussing it is a waste of time.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

There are a few facts,

No, there are no facts.

it's more a question of perspective I think. In my control, there is a biological organism which is conscious, these are the facts and one could look at the evidence of its evolution.This is sufficient evidence for me to consider if the consciousness observed in the control is not necessarily produced in the nervous system of the organism, but some other part of its life. What we observe as consciousness in the nervous system my be a combination of metabolic life and the computation occuring in the nervous system(intelligence). Neither producing self-consciousness in isolation.

Speculation.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Are you talking to me? Or any other punters?

If you have anything to add, beside repeated speculations, I'll gladly listen.

Or you can keep playing the current broken record, it's an open forum. However, personally, I have no more time for it.

Hans

 

[MuDPhuD]

Basically I take a broad wide ranging view on what consciousness is and entails. Repeatedly enquiries lead to it being an artefact of living organisms. The basic unit of organic life is the cell. This is reason enough to take it seriously that it may have something to do with complex animals being able to experience sentient self-consciousness.



I am not saying that sentient self-awareness is not possible in the absence of living cells. But that any mechanism of AI produced may require some equivalent to living metabolism to achieve it.

From what I have read here your "broad ranging view on what consciousness is" includes simple existence, as long as it is a living thing? Is there nothing you can specify about a single cell or a simple multicellular organism that suggests to you that it has an "experience of consciousness"? If a mushroom has a conscious experience, then why not a rock?

 

[punshhh]

Idle speculation. You may like to think this, but without some kind of evidence, discussing it is a waste of time.

Just like the "idle" speculation that computation is in principle the origin of self-consciousness.


Where is the working model?

No, there are no facts.

Likewise with computation in principle being the origin of self-consciousness.

Speculation.

Yes, but that is all we have, isn't it?

If you have anything to add, beside repeated speculations, I'll gladly listen.

Well if it's facts you require. Here are a few, for starters.
It is a fact that humanity doesn't know or understand the origin of matter, time, dimensionality, natural law, the origin or processes involved in the so called Big Bang. If the current understanding of physical matter answers any of the metaphysical questions in any way. If our world is actually the way it appears. How come life occurs in the universe, how it has evolved(beyond a basic understanding). If there are any purposes, or unknown aspects of our world in existence, such as the possibility that what we perceive is a construct, or a confection, or our personal experience of being in this world is not distorted, or in someway inverted. Etc etc etc.

These are all facts and what answers does "materialism" give?

Or you can keep playing the current broken record, it's an open forum. However, personally, I have no more time for it.

Well thanks for your input anyway.

 

[punshhh]

From what I have read here your "broad ranging view on what consciousness is" includes simple existence, as long as it is a living thing? Is there nothing you can specify about a single cell or a simple multicellular organism that suggests to you that it has an "experience of consciousness"? If a mushroom has a conscious experience, then why not a rock?

Because the mushroom is a being, an organism, not that different in its cellular life from our own being/organism.
If there were examples of rocks with consciousness, then it would be reasonable to consider that different kinds of rock might be too.

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't require evidence, all I am doing is presenting a maybe. It is you who is presenting an it is. Yours in an assertion, mine isn't.

Yes, it is.

Can you provide any evidence showing that basic consciousness experience is not a product of the cell?

Yes.

Cells are not conscious. Altering cells does not alter consciousness except when said alteration also serves to alter the computation taking place.

It is provisionally evidence until a working model is produced.

No, it isn't. Your continued denial of this fact does not change it.

Anyway atman is part of a philosophical tradition, evidence other than through revelation is unimportant in considering it.

"Revelation" is not evidence of anything.

Just like the "idle" speculation that computation is in principle the origin of self-consciousness.

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between speculation and conclusion.

Where is the working model?

Not knowing how nuclear fusion works does not mean that you can open the door to a wizard being the actual power source.

Yes, but that is all we have, isn't it?

No.

Well if it's facts you require. Here are a few, for starters.

<snip irrelevancy>

And none of this in any way refutes anything that has been said in this thread, whether regarding the computational nature of consciousness or materialism.

Because the mushroom is a being, an organism, not that different in its cellular life from our own being/organism.
If there were examples of rocks with consciousness, then it would be reasonable to consider that different kinds of rock might be too.

Mushrooms are not conscious.

Consciousness is not metabolism.

 

[Myriad]

I will point out the obvious: that if a person's brain is destroyed, consciousness cannot be maintained by the liver, the gluteus maximus muscle, or the heart. Yet all these organs perform the same metabolic functions as brain cells.

Show me the guy with the massive head wound, who remains alert and responsive and experiencing due to his liver-consciousness, and I'd be willing to entertain a greater role for basic metabolism, beyond being the power supply pathway, in generating conscious experience.

 

[punshhh]

Yes, it is.

Ahh so. So now a may be is the same as an it is.

Yes.

Given my definition of consciousness?

Cells are not conscious. Altering cells does not alter consciousness except when said alteration also serves to alter the computation taking place.

This presumably is a comment about self-consciousness, this is not in dispute. It would be ridiculous to consider a cell to be self-conscious.

No, it isn't. Your continued denial of this fact does not change it.

So where is your working model which verifies it as a fact, rather than speculation?

"Revelation" is not evidence of anything.

Let me see, oh yes revelation and religion in general is nonsense.

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between speculation and conclusion.

Try looking in a mirror and repeat that. It is you who can't distinguish between assumption and conclusion. Wait a minute, is conclusion the same as fact now?

Not knowing how nuclear fusion works does not mean that you can open the door to a wizard being the actual power source.

Obfuscation again. It is only you who keeps bringing up magic.

No.

Where's your proof?

And none of this in any way refutes anything that has been said in this thread, whether regarding the computational nature of consciousness or materialism.

Yes, materialism as presented around here is only concerned with local conditions.

Mushrooms are not conscious.

Mushrooms are not self-conscious.

Consciousness is not metabolism.

Self-consciousness is not metabolism.

I repeat, the usual/commonly held, definition of consciousness is archaic. We are in the 21st century now, not the 19th. This definition appears to be copied and pasted from classical philosophy.

 

[punshhh]

I will point out the obvious: that if a person's brain is destroyed, consciousness cannot be maintained by the liver, the gluteus maximus muscle, or the heart. Yet all these organs perform the same metabolic functions as brain cells.

Show me the guy with the massive head wound, who remains alert and responsive and experiencing due to his liver-consciousness, and I'd be willing to entertain a greater role for basic metabolism, beyond being the power supply pathway, in generating conscious experience.

The distinction is that an organism which is dis-functional, severely injured is not likely to be conscious, as its integrity is broken. People have developed a central nervous system to such an extent that their sense of being, self-conscious awareness is virtually entirely seated in the computation of the brain. A sponge(the animal) has not developed a central nervous system and can be passed through a sieve(divided into its individual cells) and will re-organise itself into a sponge again. It's integrity has not been broken, likewise its consciousness* has not been broken.

*what conscious experience is like for a sponge is probably inconceivable to us.

 

[Nonpareil]

Ahh so. So now a may be is the same as an it is.

No. An assertion of possibility is still an assertion.

You seem to have serious issues with definitions.

Given my definition of consciousness?

You have not given a definition of consciousness, save that it is somehow, vaguely, linked to metabolic processes. Everything that is generally accepted as consciousness is known to be the result of computation in the brain.

So where is your working model which verifies it as a fact, rather than speculation?

Not being able to personally build a car does not mean we don't know that the engine is what makes it move.

Obfuscation again. It is only you who keeps bringing up magic.

No, you keep bringing it up under various different names and then pretending you haven't.

Again, "magic" is shorthand for "supernatural nonsense of varying kinds".

Where's your proof?

Read up on neuroscience. We have been over the evidence for consciousness as computation multiple times in this thread, including the nature of emotions, perceptions, conscious decision-making, and any number of other things. You apparently did not listen, and I am not in the mood to spoon-feed further.

People have developed a central nervous system to such an extent that their sense of being, self-conscious awareness is virtually entirely seated in the computation of the brain.

Yes.

And if you remove the brain, they are no longer conscious.

A sponge(the animal) has not developed a central nervous system and can be passed through a sieve(divided into its individual cells) and will re-organise itself into a sponge again. It's integrity has not been broken, likewise its consciousness* has not been broken.

*what conscious experience is like for a sponge is probably inconceivable to us.

Sponges are not conscious.

 

[Myriad]

The distinction is that an organism which is dis-functional, severely injured is not likely to be conscious, as its integrity is broken. People have developed a central nervous system to such an extent that their sense of being, self-conscious awareness is virtually entirely seated in the computation of the brain. A sponge(the animal) has not developed a central nervous system and can be passed through a sieve(divided into its individual cells) and will re-organise itself into a sponge again. It's integrity has not been broken, likewise its consciousness* has not been broken.

*what conscious experience is like for a sponge is probably inconceivable to us.

Can you conceive the sponge not being conscious at all? I certainly can. And that's by far the most likely possibility.

If the sponge is unaffected by being divided by the sieve and then re-organized back into a sponge, then it cannot have contained any non-periodic patterns of any meaning. That is, no information and hence no memory. Hence, as far as all the evidence we currently have is concerned, no conscious experience.

A glass of water can likewise be divided by a sieve and then re-formed, none the worse for wear. Try that with a book, though (pulp it, pass it through a seive, press the pulp back into paper, and re-make the paper into a new book) and you'll find that important qualities of the original book have failed to carry over into the new one. That's why it's often worth my time to read books, but never to read glasses of water.

A definition of "book" that's inclusive of glasses of water would be useless; so is a definition of "consciousness" that includes the metabolism of a sea sponge.