We have been over this. Literally every piece of evidence we have points to consciousness being computational in nature,
Let me tease this out a bit. The use of "consciousness" here is to vague for the sentence to mean anything in particular. The evidence presumably points out that the workings of the brain(which presumably is what you are talking about here) carry out computations to process the various informational tasks involved in having a thinking mind and processes involved in interaction with the outside world. I am happy that all these processes can be carried out by a computer with the appropriate capacity and the appropriate receivers of stimuli, or data(although this latter could just as well be simulated).
Fine, but what has consciousness got to do with any of this? There is no requirement for it, or the use of the word "consciousness", as all we are talking about here is the intelligence or processing power of a piece of hardware.
In fact all your comments about consciousness, are not addressing it in any meaningfull way, which wouldn't be equally explained by the use of the word "intelligence".
Consciousness is always a ghost in the machine, which is conveniently labelled "what the brain does", allowing it to be reduced to an inevitable by-product of sufficient computation.
and we have precisely zero evidence supporting the assertion that only biological systems can be conscious - only that biological systems are the only ones which currently possess it, which is so far from being equivalent that you couldn't spot equivalence with the Hubble.
What are you talking about? I have on numerous ocassions stated that I expect consciousness can be generated in inorganic systems. Systems which include hardware which produces consciousness in the AI device, independently of the computation(intelligence) of the system.
So all known cases of consciousness are in
living, cellular, organisms, Thankyou.
If you want to see the evidence for yourself, you are free to re-read the thread, open a textbook on neuroscience, or access any of the other hundreds of sources which are readily available to you. As has been previously noted, I am tired of spoon-feeding.
I am well aware of the evidence. Do you wish to point to the definitive piece of evidence which supports the assertion?
Or perhaps you could point out any of these "vagaries". Or even the single "great big knot" that you think is present.
Thanks for your input, it was most enjoyable.
I have nothing more to say,
as, like I have pointed out far too many times already,
I'm barely even doing philosophy at this point. "A thing that is conscious is conscious and saying otherwise is logically incoherent" should not be a contentious statement; it is essentially a tautology.
Yes I am well aware of the amount of philosophy stated.
Materialism(the brand common around here), is based upon some important assumptions which require the negation of various philosophical considerations.
But you are so wrapped up in the idea of p-zombies being an inarguable problem for materialism that you refuse to accept that X equals X, saying instead that X might "really" equal Y. This is a meaningless statement. It is nothing but pointless word games.
Your rationale explaining the incoherence of Pzombies is to simplistic to explain an incoherence, which suffers from the same short comings as your (big knot), conflating notional perfect mimics, with imperfect mimics. Ie, it is assumed that humanity would naturally percieve any difference in the hardware of a synthetic mimic, meaning that it can easily be distinguished from the control. Ignoring human limitations in ability. While in fact an imperfect mimic is possible, which is not conscious, and yet could not be distinguished from the control by a human.
And yes, this problem extends to idealism as a whole, as I have been over before.
You failed to explain this assertion either. Because your rationale only extended to the frailty of human explanations of how an idealist universe might work. Not if it is possible that we are in an idealist universe, or not, which is where the philosophically distinction lies.
Then you get wrapped up in trying to crowbar a requirement for life into the definition of consciousness, which is entirely without evidential support and still doesn't change the fact tha p-zombies are a logically incoherent concept. Even if we run into a world-shattering revelation that conclusively establishes organic life as a requirement for consciousness (and it would be world-shattering at this point), p-zombies would remain completely incoherent. So would idealism.
I am merely pointing out that there may be a metabolic origin for the personal experience of existing. I am quite happy to agree that life is not a necessity, only that some process equivalent to metabolism would be required.
You are fighting the dictionary. The dictionary wins.
I am sure as the science of consciousness develops, there will be revisions and additions to the dictionary.
This is only true if we want a perfect mimic of a specific organism.
Yes, the control. When it comes to self-consciousness, there is only one organism, a human, genetically closely related to other humans
We have been over this many, many times before. Too many times for you to have missed this being said previously.
I didn't forget it, perhaps you missed its meaning. Only a perfect mimic of the control can be said to be conscious, any imperfect mimic, may only have the appearance of being conscious. And due to human limitations in ability, it's mimicry may be to good for a human to distinguish it from the control.
Perhaps you should repeat this next time you look in a mirror.
