I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Nonpareil]

A person is a colony of conscious cells

There is no meaningful definition of "consciousness" that can be applied to the cell.

Not even yours.

"The basic awareness, experience and responsiveness of the organism" does not happen within the cell. Cells are not aware of anything. Cells do not experience anything. Experience and awareness are the results of the nervous system.

A cell has no sensory apparatus. It has no capacity to experience anything.

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

You have yet to provide any meaningful distinction between the two.

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.

You failed to do so.

Those blinkers again. An assertion of a maybe is not actually an assertion of the possibility

Then why are you bringing it up?

Do you have any evidence that it is not a possibility?

Yes.

Cells lack sensory capacity.

My definition simply distinguishes between the sentient thought of the human brain and the basic conscious awareness of simple organisms.

Both of which only exist because of the nervous system, and have varying degrees of intelligence associated with them depending on how sophisticated that nervous system is.

Why are you trying to crowbar in a distinction where none exists?

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.

I have never said otherwise.

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

You have no basis for claiming this.

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.

No. It is concluded.

You constantly attempt to equivocate between these two.

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.

A quality which you cannot have without the ability to experience. You cannot have experience without an experiencer, and without some sort of nervous system, you have no experiencer. There is no mechanism by which the system can be said to experience anything.

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

It is equivocation.

And that is a fallacy.

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

Because challenging the status quo for the mere sake of challenging the status quo, rather than there actually being a reason to do so, is rather silly.

 

[punshhh]

How do you know awareness is involved in being a mushroom?

As I said, they are in terms of their cellular structure similar to ourselves.

Other than being alive you have no knowledge of its awareness any more than that of a rock, to which you deny this quality.

If rocks had a similar cellular structure, I would equally consider them to have awareness.

All the functions of an organism such a sponge can be explained with biochemistry and molecular biology, none of which requires an "awareness".

Yes, just like all the functions of a human can be explained, none of which requires sentient self-consciousness. In the human there is sentient self-awareness and in the sponge there is likely 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.

Likewise, you( the materialist position) are imparting a sentient self-awareness where it is not necessary in humans.

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

It is a living being, an existing entity. This entity is present and experiencing things.

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?

Nice examples, but like with the sponge, they don't require an experiencing being to perform those tasks. Likewise a notional highly advanced robot (like Data in Star Trek), would not be required to have sentient self-awareness to perform all the tasks of a human. All that is contributed by that self-awareness in a human to the experience of being a human, can be processed with software. Which is not in any way "self-aware".

Note, as I have already pointed out to Nonpareil, we only have one example of sentient self-awareness to examine( a human), this is our control and there is no way (as I have likewise pointed out) that an advanced mimic like Data can be distinguished from the control, other than by dissecting the body to determine if it's structure is identical to the control(in which case, it could reasonably be concluded that it is sentient and self-aware).

 

[punshhh]

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

Yes, this may be a difficulty. Unfortunately the common definition of consciousness is to me equivalent to my definition of "mind". Mind seems a far more appropriate word for the processes concerned because the processes are computation leading into thinking, memory, sentient experience etc.

Likewise I see a human mind and an AI device to be very similar and I have no dispute with the materialist position on this.

If I substitute my word "conscious" for "life"(common def') and my word "self-conscious" for "mind"(common def'), I expect we will be in perfect agreement on most things.

No. The devices I mentioned do gather experience.

By experience I am referring to a living being, which has living experience. The devices, aren't living beings and there is no requirement for them to have an experience, they just go through the motions.

So you concede that biology is not required.

Of course.

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

You say this, but I suggest you try to imagine what it is like to think as a chimpanzee, it would probably be like that of a human with a mental age of about 2 years of age. Do you remember what that was like?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, this may be a difficulty. Unfortunately the common definition of consciousness is to me equivalent to my definition of "mind". Mind seems a far more appropriate word for the processes concerned because the processes are computation leading into thinking, memory, sentient experience etc.

Well, I suggest you live with it or open a thread discussing revision of the English language.

Likewise I see a human mind and an AI device to be very similar and I have no dispute with the materialist position on this.

Really? Actually, there is no such materialist position. They are both qualitatively and quantitatively different.

If I substitute my word "conscious" for "life"(common def') and my word "self-conscious" for "mind"(common def'), I expect we will be in perfect agreement on most things.

Then why do you use the wrong words?

By experience I am referring to a living being, which has living experience.

Ahhh, so 'experience' is also redefined in Punshhhspeak.

The devices, aren't living beings and there is no requirement for them to have an experience, they just go through the motions.

Oh yes, there is a requirement. The experience is required for their survival. If they did not do this, their functionality would be impared, and they would be discarded.

You say this, but I suggest you try to imagine what it is like to think as a chimpanzee, it would probably be like that of a human with a mental age of about 2 years of age. Do you remember what that was like?

A chimpanzee intelligence measures in at the level of a 6-7 year human (an age I remember quite well), but of course it is different because a human child has an unfinished intellect; it is still under construction, whereas the ape is an adult.

Still, if you read a bit about chimpanzees you will find that they are not that difficult to understand. They are certainly no harder to comprehend than some humans.

Hans

 

[MuDPhuD]

Yes, just like all the functions of a human can be explained, none of which requires sentient self-consciousness. In the human there is sentient self-awareness and in the sponge there is likely an awareness.
Likewise, you( the materialist position) are imparting a sentient self-awareness where it is not necessary in humans.

What do you mean "it is not necessary in humans"? Human self awareness is the one example we are all sure of. The sponge has none of the neural wiring which you already agreed is what gives rise to self awareness (consciousness as most of us know it), thus it is a mistake to suggest a sponge has awareness at all similar to our own.

Nice examples, but like with the sponge, they don't require an experiencing being to perform those tasks. Likewise a notional highly advanced robot (like Data in Star Trek), would not be required to have sentient self-awareness to perform all the tasks of a human. All that is contributed by that self-awareness in a human to the experience of being a human, can be processed with software. Which is not in any way "self-aware".

Agreed, the robots do not "require" a "being" to perform those tasks, just as the sponge or the mushroom or the termite do not also require an experiencing being. That's my point, thank you for agreeing with me. The logical conclusion of your paragraph above is that living cells do NOT require an "experiencing being" to perform their complex functions.

I fully agree, a complex robot similar to Data could theoretically be constructed where every situation and response were preprogrammed and the behavior would appear like a human, and self awareness would not be required. But something would be missing, and I think you and I would in fact know the difference. Vida infra

Note, as I have already pointed out to Nonpareil, we only have one example of sentient self-awareness to examine( a human), this is our control and there is no way (as I have likewise pointed out) that an advanced mimic like Data can be distinguished from the control, other than by dissecting the body to determine if it's structure is identical to the control(in which case, it could reasonably be concluded that it is sentient and self-aware).

When we finally do construct a conscious machine it will not be a "mimic" of human responses. If we give the machine a sensorium, multiple memories, a sense of time, and a language function (for communicating with us), and these basic functions are INTEGRATED with one another with a rich network of feed forward and feedback loops, then the machine will function as a consciousness. It's responses will not be programmed. It will exhibit novel un-programmed responses and solutions, creativity, and possibly self motivation. That is how we will know we have created machine consciousness.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So still stuck at:

Consciousness just has to be (scientifically understandable concepts) with X Factor added onto it because X is where the Woo goes, buried in mountains of semantics, word salad, and special pleading.

Again name one aspect of the functioning of the human mind that requires Woo.

 

[punshhh]

Well, I suggest you live with it or open a thread discussing revision of the English language.

Its fine, if the definitions are given.

Really? Actually, there is no such materialist position. They are both qualitatively and quantitatively different.

Positions have been presented here, I am the one who has been saying that they are qualitatively different and presumably we are discussing AI of equivalent complexity to the human mind.

Anyway, the point is that it is degree of computation in the human mind which results in sentient self-consciousness and degree of computation in AI which in theory would result in self-consciousness.

It is all computation, apparently.

Then why do you use the wrong words?

They are not wrong and they work well for me.

Ahhh, so 'experience' is also redefined in Punshhhspeak.

This is not redefined. Are you not aware of the philosophical complexity of experience? Or are you confining the definition to the "materialist" position?

Oh yes, there is a requirement. The experience is required for their survival. If they did not do this, their functionality would be impared, and they would be discarded.

Is this the MRC_Hansspeak use of the word experience? So if we have an abacus which records each sum it adds aswell as doing the adding, it is having experiences?(gathering experiences)

A chimpanzee intelligence measures in at the level of a 6-7 year human (an age I remember quite well), but of course it is different because a human child has an unfinished intellect; it is still under construction, whereas the ape is an adult.

A Bonobo perhaps, anyway my point is more complex than this, (which you allude to in your reference of its maturity.) A chimpanzee's abilities in intelligence tests is besides the point. The chimp being tested is probably using far more instinct than a human would, along with subconscious processing. He/she is probably not aware when they perform an intelligent act why they are doing it, other than fulfilling an urge or desire of some kind. Or that it is intelligent and it is probably doing very little sentient thinking through out the whole process. Anyway, I doubt we as humans can easily conceive what it is like to be the mind of a chimp.

Still, if you read a bit about chimpanzees you will find that they are not that difficult to understand. They are certainly no harder to comprehend than some humans.

Yes, in an analytical way, chimps are not difficult to understand, we are talking about their personal experience of being though.

Also even if it is difficult to understand some other humans, imagine how difficult it is to imagine their personal experience of being.

 

[doronshadmi]

Exactly as by modern science space and time are inseparable non-hierarchical aspects of a one realm, so is the case about matter and spirit, they are inseparable non-hierarchical aspects of a one realm.

Neutral monism naturally provides the optimal non-hierarchical conditions for harmonious interactions among inseparable multiple aspects like space\time, matter\spirit, nothing\something object\subject, tautology\contradiction etc.

The optimal non-hierarchical conditions of harmonious interactions among inseparable multiple aspects, enable to refine the diversity among the opposite and non-hierarchical inseparable aspects, which are all derived from the neutral monist substance that is not limited to any of its multiple aspects.

More inseparable non-hierarchical aspects are aware of the Neutral monist substance, more the harmonious refinement among them is naturally increasing and provides clear direction of evolutionary development among multiple universe phenomena.

Here is a general illustration of such evolutionary development among multiple universe phenomena, where the uniform semi circles represent the simplest aspect of Neutral monism among multiplicity:

More a given particular phenomenon is aware of its non-particular Neutral monist substance, its ability to be developed into an harmonious factor among multiple universe phenomena, is naturally increased.

Moreover, the mechanism of Evolution is deeply related to the increased diversity among non-hierarchical opposites' multiple aspects, and Neutral monism provides the natural substance of it.

Being aware of the non-particular Neutral monist substance and stabilizing it among increased diversity, can't be done by being aware only to multiple particular phenomena, so the main goal of Science is to develop the needed one's abilities to directly be aware of the non-particular Neutral monist substance and stabilizing it during its daily life, in order to be developed into an harmonious factor among multiple universe phenomena, which is the natural way for evolutionary development.

---------------------------------------

Unfortunately most of the discussions in this thread are doing nothing in order to support the development of harmony among different points of view, and as a result they do not contribute to the increased diversity as the natural conditions for actual evolution.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Exactly as by modern science space and time are inseparable non-hierarchical aspects of a one realm, so is the case about matter and spirit, they are inseparable non-hierarchical aspects of a one realm.

Exactly? Metaphorically, and without proof.

 

[doronshadmi]

Exactly? Metaphorically, and without proof.

The proof is all over what is called multiplicity aspect of reality and it is not only metaphorical, the spiritual and material are inseparable of each other (for more details pleas look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10474280&postcount=1878).

If you disagree, then please provide a concrete example that matter and spirit are essentially disjoint.

More generally, what is proof for you?

 

[punshhh]

There is no meaningful definition of "consciousness" that can be applied to the cell.

Not with the common definition.

Not even yours.

incorrect.

"The basic awareness, experience and responsiveness of the organism" does not happen within the cell. Cells are not aware of anything. Cells do not experience anything. Experience and awareness are the results of the nervous system.

A cell has no sensory apparatus. It has no capacity to experience anything.

It is easier to understand the distinction if one considers single cell organisms. One cell in the human body has in a sense seeded its responsiveness to the organism as a whole.
Also experience as per the common definition of consciousness, ie self-consciousness, requires a central nervous system. This is a naive anthropomorphism.

You have yet to provide any meaningful distinction between the two.

Meaningfull to you, I suppose. I noticed you did not address my point that self-consciousness as experienced by a human is a recent development in evolutionary terms. Animals before this point were conscious in reality. But with your definition they must have been dumb animals like Pzombies and we had a eureka moment a few million years ago and "consciousness" was born. While the rest of the body of the animals concerned was unchanged.

You failed to do so.

Really, at what point does the abacus become sentient?

Then why are you bringing it up?

Yes.

Cells lack sensory capacity.

There's that anthropomorphism again.

Both of which only exist because of the nervous system, and have varying degrees of intelligence associated with them depending on how sophisticated that nervous system is.

Why are you trying to crowbar in a distinction where none exists?

Its simple enough, if there is a kind of consciousness in a cell, it is naturally different to any consciousness found in the nervous system of a multi cellular organism.

I have never said otherwise.

Except when it's a perfect mimic*.

You have no basis for claiming this.

So organisms are only conscious of their environment when they have a central nervous system?

No. It is concluded.

Oh yes, conclusion is the same as fact, I know.

A quality which you cannot have without the ability to experience. You cannot have experience without an experiencer, and without some sort of nervous system, you have no experiencer. There is no mechanism by which the system can be said to experience anything.

Perhaps not in the terms of human consciousness. But how do you know that primitive organisms don't experience something in a rudimentary way?

It is equivocation.

If there is any equivocation in there, it is used as a devise to make a point.

Because challenging the status quo for the mere sake of challenging the status quo, rather than there actually being a reason to do so, is rather silly.

I have plenty of reason to do so.Which can be seen by your constant ignoring, obfuscation and diversionary tactics.

*Your position on perfect mimics is vague, because you suggest that perfection of various kinds can be determined by humans, which are limited beings, with limits, presumably limits in their abilities to distinguish perfection from imperfection with the appearance of perfection.

 

[doronshadmi]

Hi punshhh,

What are the discussed subjects that Nonpareil and you are both agree with each other?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Its fine, if the definitions are given.

No it's not. You do not get to impose your private definitions on a debate.

This is not redefined. Are you not aware of the philosophical complexity of experience? Or are you confining the definition to the "materialist" position?

Is this the MRC_Hansspeak use of the word experience? So if we have an abacus which records each sum it adds aswell as doing the adding, it is having experiences?(gathering experiences)

Experience is the knowledge or mastery of an event or subject gained through involvement in or exposure to it.[1] Terms in philosophy, such as "empirical knowledge" or "a posteriori knowledge," are used to refer to knowledge based on experience. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience )

The robot vacuum clearner and the autonomous care are not just recording data, they are learning and processing information which then influences their behavor.

As for self-awareness, chimps (and some birds) pass the recognized tests for self-awareness, thus you cannot restrict the definition to humans. Simple as that. What you personally think of the comprehensibility of their intellect is irrelevant.

Hans

 

[punshhh]

Hi punshhh,

What are the discussed subjects that Nonpareil and you are both agree with each other?

How the brain generates the mind and self-awareness.

 

[punshhh]

No it's not. You do not get to impose your private definitions on a debate.

I am challenging the utility of the accepted definition of consciousness and offering an alternative.

Experience is the knowledge or mastery of an event or subject gained through involvement in or exposure to it.[1] Terms in philosophy, such as "empirical knowledge" or "a posteriori knowledge," are used to refer to knowledge based on experience. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience )

Yes I am familiar with these interpretations. I am actually referring to something else(ahh, those differing definitions again). The personal experience of being/existing, without this any mechanism gathering experiences and knowledge, is not sentient and conscious, as experienced by a human.

To be, to be an existing entity, the organism/mechanism experiences its own existence, presence in a domain. I am linking being with experience, neither is possible without the other.

The robot vacuum clearner and the autonomous care are not just recording data, they are learning and processing information which then influences their behavor.

Do they "care", about something? Anthropomorphism?

As for self-awareness, chimps (and some birds) pass the recognized tests for self-awareness, thus you cannot restrict the definition to humans. Simple as that. What you personally think of the comprehensibility of their intellect is irrelevant.

My point is that consciousness as experienced by other organisms is likely quite different to the experience of being a human. Even in our close relatives, the primates. This being the case, the subject of consciousness is not just a simple intellectual interpretation of the human experience. Indeed, the subject of consciousness in other organisms is barely addressed by science.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

The proof is all over what is called multiplicity aspect of reality and it is not only metaphorical, the spiritual and material are inseparable of each other (for more details pleas look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10474280&postcount=1878).

If you disagree, then please provide a concrete example that matter and spirit are essentially disjoint.

More generally, what is proof for you?

Logic and math are wonderful. They are also fairly useless for making claims until empirically based. There is no such thing as 'the spiritual,' and no one need spend time proving there is not. That time is better spent making more coffee.

 

[doronshadmi]

Logic and math are wonderful. They are also fairly useless for making claims until empirically based.

What do you mean exactly by "empirically based"?

More generally, how do you explain the fact that there are links among pure and applied math, and how these links are evolutionary developed?

There is no such thing as 'the spiritual,

How do you understand the term spiritual?

More generally, do you think that life phenomena can be developed into an harmonious factor among the evolution of the observed reality?

 

[doronshadmi]

How the brain generates the mind and self-awareness.

Please briefly explain how the brain generates the mind and self-awareness and how, in your opinion, life phenomena can be developed into an harmonious factor among the evolution of the observed reality?

 

[punshhh]

Please briefly explain how the brain generates the mind and self-awareness

This is done through information processing in the brain, computation. To be clear, I am referring specifically to intelligence here, not consciousness. Consciousness as I see it is generated independently of this process.

and how, in your opinion, life phenomena can be developed into an harmonious factor among the evolution of the observed reality?

You may need to be more specific, but my first reading of this is in terms of spirituality, indicated in your previous comments. In which case, it is quite simple. One cultivates the state of mind and behaviour resulting in the alignment of one's mental faculties with ones natural or spiritual nature.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What do you mean exactly by "empirically based"?

Fact and peer-review based.

More generally, how do you explain the fact that there are links among pure and applied math, and how these links are evolutionary developed?

Same system; ought to be links. Not sure evolution is anything more than human cultural progress in this case. But in general, the value of a mathematical theory depends on its relation to the workings of observable physical phenomena, not on its intrinsic beauty or complexity.

How do you understand the term spiritual?

Concept derived from religious belief and/or unexplained experiences. Normally taken as something not definable in terms of the laws of physics, independent of observed and observable reality. For many, that which remains unexplained and subject to speculation, such as perception of 'presences' (now shown to be brain-induced, though cannot recall which part of the brain must be stimulated for the god-presence experience).

More generally, do you think that life phenomena can be developed into an harmonious factor among the evolution of the observed reality?

I have no idea what that sentence means.