I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[MuDPhuD]

Given my definition of consciousness?

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.

Here is your equivocation regarding the word "consciousness" in your own words.
The usual/common definition of consciousness, what we all think of as consciousness;
the human sense of awareness of being in the present;
awareness of our past, and dreams of the future;
the voice in our heads;
our memories, emotions and sensations;

You're not talking about any of that at all! You call that "self-consciousness", and you agree that that IS explained by computation in the brain!

What you refer to as "consciousness" is simply the existence of life. It's what anyone else would call the idea of "life force" or "vital force", which as I pointed out earlier was abandoned by science long ago as unnecessary and inaccurate.

You can offer no qualifications for your definition of "conscious" other than being alive (but not brain damaged, by the way). Why not just use "alive", or "vital force" instead of redefining a word which everyone else uses to mean something else?

When posters here say "we understand consciousness(common definition) as the product of computations in the brain", you say "NO we have no idea what consciousness(your esoteric definition) is. That is the very essence, a textbook example, of equivocation, and leads to nothing but circles of pointless arguing (witness this thread) because your'e not even talking about the same thing! "OH!", you say, "your definition of consciousness is WRONG (although the usual and customary one), everyone should switch to MY (esoteric) definition!"

I can't believe this thread has continued on this theme for so long.

 

[Mashuna]

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.

This is both an argument for a good definition of consciousness and a reason why homeopathy doesn't work.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What you refer to as "consciousness" is simply the existence of life. It's what anyone else would call the idea of "life force" or "vital force", which as I pointed out earlier was abandoned by science long ago as unnecessary and inaccurate.

Yeah, vitalism. I remember that now. How could I ever have forgotten...

***

I do not see the mystery in the idea that once we ascribe a set of behaviors to define consciousness, we will see these behaviors progressively exhibited in evolutionary terms, with the (rumored) maximum expression in humans. This eventually will be defined in concrete terms as to when roughly each facet came about, possibly many times, in so far as these behaviors may be as inferred from descendants, since fossils do not offer neurological data. Certainly how constituent behaviors scale up in the existing animal kingdom is already fairly obvious.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah, vitalism. I remember that now. How could I ever have forgotten...

***

I do not see the mystery in the idea that once we ascribe a set of behaviors to define consciousness, we will see these behaviors progressively exhibited in evolutionary terms, with the (rumored) maximum expression in humans. This eventually will be defined in concrete terms as to when roughly each facet came about, possibly many times, in so far as these behaviors may be as inferred from descendants, since fossils do not offer neurological data. Certainly how constituent behaviors scale up in the existing animal kingdom is already fairly obvious.

Mmm, I had given up on you, Punshhh, but perhaps you would be good enough to state your definition of consciousness. The one that will fit a sponge?

Fair warning:

If your definition includes 'being alive' I shall nail you for circular argumentation.

If it does not, I shall show how consciousness of this level has long existed in artificial devices.

Hans

 

[Nonpareil]

Here is your equivocation regarding the word "consciousness" in your own words.
The usual/common definition of consciousness, what we all think of as consciousness;
the human sense of awareness of being in the present;
awareness of our past, and dreams of the future;
the voice in our heads;
our memories, emotions and sensations;

You're not talking about any of that at all! You call that "self-consciousness", and you agree that that IS explained by computation in the brain!

What you refer to as "consciousness" is simply the existence of life. It's what anyone else would call the idea of "life force" or "vital force", which as I pointed out earlier was abandoned by science long ago as unnecessary and inaccurate.

You can offer no qualifications for your definition of "conscious" other than being alive (but not brain damaged, by the way). Why not just use "alive", or "vital force" instead of redefining a word which everyone else uses to mean something else?

When posters here say "we understand consciousness(common definition) as the product of computations in the brain", you say "NO we have no idea what consciousness(your esoteric definition) is. That is the very essence, a textbook example, of equivocation, and leads to nothing but circles of pointless arguing (witness this thread) because your'e not even talking about the same thing! "OH!", you say, "your definition of consciousness is WRONG (although the usual and customary one), everyone should switch to MY (esoteric) definition!"

I can't believe this thread has continued on this theme for so long.

Yep. As I've said, it's just word games.

It's always word games.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Mmm, I had given up on you, Punshhh,

Might want to edit the quote up there if you are speaking to Punshhh.

 

[punshhh]

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

Yes taking the common definition of consciousness, it is not conscious. I don't know if you read my suggested definitions of consciousness(I will give them in my next reply to MRC_Hans).

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.

The information enabling the cells to reorganise into a sponge is internal to the cells and is not lost. The sponge is a colony of living conscious(my definition) organisms cooperating for the purposes of forming a larger organism.

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.

Yes, likewise if you pass a person through a sieve. A person is a colony of conscious cells just like the sponge, but this colony has become so integrated now that it can only function as the larger organism.

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.

A definition of consciousness which distinguishes between the consciousness of the body and the consciousness of the mind is of use.

Anyway, I only brought this up to point out a problem with the assumption that AI would be conscious solely because it entails a certain level of information processing.

 

[punshhh]

No. An assertion of possibility is still an assertion.

Those blinkers again. An assertion of a maybe is not actually an assertion of the possibility, it is actually an assertion that there is not any evidence precluding the possibility. Do you have any evidence that it is not a possibility?
An assertion of an it is, is a statement that it is a fact, quite different.

You seem to have serious issues with definitions.

So a may be is the same as an it is then.

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.

My definition simply distinguishes between the sentient thought of the human brain and the basic conscious awareness of simple organisms. If they are not conscious of their environment and their position in that environment, how could they operate as an organism, a being with experience?
It was only a few pages back that you said that an ant has a brain/mind and is thus conscious, by your definition I presume. Perhaps you need to revise your definition.

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

I could make a car and instead of an engine it could have a team of hamsters running on hamster wheels and various other devices to mimic the sounds and behaviours of a car. Without actually looking under the bonnet, it would be identical to a car. It would be a mimic though, if it's combustion which defines a car.

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

Nonsense, I am only pointing out that cellular life is more significant in the experience of being human than is generally considered.

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

Oh so it's a catch all phrase declaring that an issue is nonsense. You should take a look at a dictionary.

Let me spell it out again.
Magic only ever refers to something which happens which is not currently understood, or which cannot be explained (apart from sleight of hand, which is a conjuring trick). Something which happens is natural, ie occurs in nature and will have a perfectly rational explanation once it is discovered. Supernatural is the same, it only ever refers to something that happens, which is not understood. If it happens, it is natural, as it occurs in nature and will have a rational explanation once it is discovered.

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.

No need, I am well aware of this evidence. It explains well the sentient self-consciousness found in a human. It does not isolate the seat of consciousness though, it is always assumed.

Yes.

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

Yes because they would be dis-functional, broken as a mechanism.

Sponges are not conscious.

I suppose they are nothing more than a chemical formulae.

 

[punshhh]

Here is your equivocation regarding the word "consciousness" in your own words.
The usual/common definition of consciousness, what we all think of as consciousness;
the human sense of awareness of being in the present;
awareness of our past, and dreams of the future;
the voice in our heads;
our memories, emotions and sensations;

You're not talking about any of that at all! You call that "self-consciousness", and you agree that that IS explained by computation in the brain!

Yes, I did explain this distinction and give my definitions at the begining of this part of the discussion.

What you refer to as "consciousness" is simply the existence of life. It's what anyone else would call the idea of "life force" or "vital force", which as I pointed out earlier was abandoned by science long ago as unnecessary and inaccurate.

No, my use of consciousness refers to the personal experience of existing, experienced by an organism. It is not its life, it is a quality or attribute of that life.

You can offer no qualifications for your definition of "conscious" other than being alive (but not brain damaged, by the way). Why not just use "alive", or "vital force" instead of redefining a word which everyone else uses to mean something else?

By qualifications, I presume you mean states, or abilities. This rudimentary level of consciousness is aligned with the state of an organism acting as a being, an entity. Awareness is involved in this, but not consciously as experienced by humans. More like an electrochemical awareness.

When posters here say "we understand consciousness(common definition) as the product of computations in the brain", you say "NO we have no idea what consciousness(your esoteric definition) is. That is the very essence, a textbook example, of equivocation, and leads to nothing but circles of pointless arguing (witness this thread) because your'e not even talking about the same thing!
"OH!", you say, "your definition of consciousness is WRONG (although the usual and customary one), everyone should switch to MY (esoteric) definition!"

Yes, it is challenging the status quo and could be labelled equivocation.

I can't believe this thread has continued on this theme for so long.

Because I am challenging the status quo, why not join in.

 

[punshhh]

Yeah, vitalism. I remember that now. How could I ever have forgotten...

***

I do not see the mystery in the idea that once we ascribe a set of behaviors to define consciousness, we will see these behaviors progressively exhibited in evolutionary terms, with the (rumored) maximum expression in humans. This eventually will be defined in concrete terms as to when roughly each facet came about, possibly many times, in so far as these behaviors may be as inferred from descendants, since fossils do not offer neurological data. Certainly how constituent behaviors scale up in the existing animal kingdom is already fairly obvious.

Not vitalism, it's more an insistence on holisticism, or to not throw the baby (metabolic consciousness) out with the bath water, once the conclusion that it is computation based is made.

 

[punshhh]

Mmm, I had given up on you, Punshhh, but perhaps you would be good enough to state your definition of consciousness. The one that will fit a sponge?

Fair warning:

If your definition includes 'being alive' I shall nail you for circular argumentation.

If it does not, I shall show how consciousness of this level has long existed in artificial devices.

Hans

You weren't replying to my post, I am happy to give you my definitions though. They may be slightly different to how I defined them before, but they are not set in stone, they are provisional.

Consciousness = the basic awareness, experience and responsiveness of the organism.

Self-consciousness = the sentient intelligent self-awareness of a human.

 

[punshhh]

Yep. As I've said, it's just word games.

It's always word games.

It may be for you

 

[MRC_Hans]

Might want to edit the quote up there if you are speaking to Punshhh.

No, it was your post that inspired me to give it another try.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

You weren't replying to my post, I am happy to give you my definitions though. They may be slightly different to how I defined them before, but they are not set in stone, they are provisional.

No, however, another poster inspired my post to you.

Consciousness = the basic awareness, experience and responsiveness of the organism.

Since that is very far from the established definition, I suggest you find another word.

Anyway, there are lots of artificial things that meet this definition. I give robot vacuum cleaners and automatic cars as obvius examples, but there are many others.

ERGO: "Consciousness" (Punshhh definition) does not require biology.

Self-consciousness = the sentient intelligent self-awareness of a human.

I would leave out "human".

HAns

 

[Hlafordlaes]

No, it was your post that inspired me to give it another try.

Hans

OK. I think you'd need to go back to earlier comments to put the one you quoted into more perspective. Not sure my ideas track along with those of Punshh.

For my part, I do not have a full list of behaviors, because I do not think there is an agreed one. If there is a reference, happy to look at it. Meanwhile, let's take the idea of decision-making as a constituent behavior.

Already the concept requires further parsing. We can characterize simple chemotaxis as one form, certainly non-cognitive. Other forms of decision-making would be those having basis in implicit memory, then explicit, then more elaborate cultural terms. My position is that if we track neurological structures along with behavior in the animal kingdom, the result is a scale of complexity that at some point, using our list of defined constituents, we call the sum of those behaviors 'consciousness.'

Top-down, the discussion is philosophical. Bottom-up, we can do science.

 

[punshhh]

No, however, another poster inspired my post to you.

Since that is very far from the established definition, I suggest you find another word.

I could, but certainly from my position it is the perfect word, with the qualification of self-, as in self-consciousness, distinguishing consciousness supported by intellectual, or subjective mind, from basic bodily consciousness.

Anyway, there are lots of artificial things that meet this definition. I give robot vacuum cleaners and automatic cars as obvius examples, but there are many others.

Did you miss the word "experience" in there?

ERGO: "Consciousness" (Punshhh definition) does not require biology.

Yes, it doesn't require biology, but I expect where it is found in another form, there will be a piece of apparatus generating experience, to give the computation sentience, self-consciousness.

I would leave out "human".

I know, but I include it because, we really have no idea what conciousness is, or would be like for any other example than human. I expect that we would have a fair idea what it is like for mammals in general and primates more than shrews. But even when one considers mammals other than primates, the sense of self and process of thinking, might be quite different, even inconceivable to us.

 

[MuDPhuD]

By qualifications, I presume you mean states, or abilities. This rudimentary level of consciousness is aligned with the state of an organism acting as a being, an entity. Awareness is involved in this, but not consciously as experienced by humans. More like an electrochemical awareness.

How do you know awareness is involved in being a mushroom? Other than being alive you have no knowledge of its awareness any more than that of a rock, to which you deny this quality. All the functions of an organism such a sponge can be explained with biochemistry and molecular biology, none of which requires an "awareness". In addition, the only "awareness" we do have knowledge of is clearly the result of a complex brain and sensory organs as you readily admit. You are imparting a sense of awareness where it is not necessary, and where there is no evidence for it.


What is it about a sponge which leads you to conclude it has an awareness?
Is it it's ability to self assemble?

These tiny simple robots are thus "aware"?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xK54Bu9HFRw

How about these independent but cooperative building robots:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dd8sIbxN4Zc
They must also qualify for your version of awareness?

How about these quad copters and their sensors and control systems? They are quite a bit more sophisticated then self assembly.
http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2013G/None/RaffaelloDAndrea_2013G-480p.mp4
Surely they qualify for awareness by your definition?

 

[punshhh]

OK. I think you'd need to go back to earlier comments to put the one you quoted into more perspective. Not sure my ideas track along with those of Punshh.

For my part, I do not have a full list of behaviors, because I do not think there is an agreed one. If there is a reference, happy to look at it. Meanwhile, let's take the idea of decision-making as a constituent behavior.

Decision making requires a mind and there are conscious and unconscious decisions, ie instinct.

Already the concept requires further parsing. We can characterize simple chemotaxis as one form, certainly non-cognitive. Other forms of decision-making would be those having basis in implicit memory, then explicit, then more elaborate cultural terms. My position is that if we track neurological structures along with behavior in the animal kingdom, the result is a scale of complexity that at some point, using our list of defined constituents, we call the sum of those behaviors 'consciousness.'

Yes there is probably a point where it is considered conscious, I just put the point a bit further back than others.

Top-down, the discussion is philosophical. Bottom-up, we can do science.

Unfortunately science only speculates with regard to experience and being, from scientific observation. There seems to be very little successful experimentation on life and the initiation of consciousness of various degrees. There are no working models.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Decision making requires a mind and there are conscious and unconscious decisions, ie instinct.

I don't think simple chemical reactions are 'mind.' I do think that they are the beginning of a path leading there. But not there yet, not by quite a long shot.

Yes there is probably a point where it is considered conscious, I just put the point a bit further back than others.

How is this justified? One can 'go back' via metaphor, or via examination of observable data. I realize you do not like behavior as the measure, since subjective experience seems divorced from that. I'm against that kind a of divorce, as what defines agents is precisely behavior.

Unfortunately science only speculates with regard to experience and being, from scientific observation. There seems to be very little successful experimentation on life and the initiation of consciousness of various degrees. There are no working models.

I think the progressive convergence of psychology, neuroscience, and pharmacology indicates science is getting along quite nicely. As for philosophical definitions of being, science could care less.

Among the wide variety of mental states we have awareness, responsiveness, coma, sleep, naturally drugged states, brain death, and many combinations thereof (well, except the brain death; I suppose that's not mix-friendly). How much subjective experience is possible under these scenarios, and its reported qualities by subjects when able to do so, indicates that brain and mind are like theater equipment and movies (just to avoid the HW/SW again).

 

[MRC_Hans]

I could, but certainly from my position it is the perfect word, with the qualification of self-, as in self-consciousness, distinguishing consciousness supported by intellectual, or subjective mind, from basic bodily consciousness.

If you want to make sense to other people, I suggest you find another word.

Did you miss the word "experience" in there?

No. The devices I mentioned do gather experience.

Yes, it doesn't require biology, but I expect where it is found in another form, there will be a piece of apparatus generating experience, to give the computation sentience, self-consciousness.

So you concede that biology is not required.

I know, but I include it because, we really have no idea what conciousness is, or would be like for any other example than human. I expect that we would have a fair idea what it is like for mammals in general and primates more than shrews. But even when one considers mammals other than primates, the sense of self and process of thinking, might be quite different, even inconceivable to us.

The self-awareness of a chimpanzee is far from inconceivable to us.

Hans