I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Myriad]

No it's not conscious at all and a more complex device could be fabricated which can perform all the behaviours of a human and it would be no more conscious than the bi-metallic strip. For example the character of Data in Star Trek, no consciousness whatsoever.

Okay, good starting point. Now, suppose I invent a new thermostat. Instead of a bi-metallic strip, it contains a bacterium that I've selected because it has flagella that move faster at higher temperatures. The rest of the device consists of an elaborate life-support system to feed nutrients and oxygen to the bacterium, and a microscope-camera and computer that figures out the temperature from how fast the flagella are waving, and activates the heater when the temperature is below the pre-set lower threshold. So it performs the same function and has the same results as the bi-metallic thermostat.

Same questions. Is this one conscious, even a little bit?

 

[Myriad]

How do they know? Is it because they are programmed to give the response that they know something.

Ah, the old "computers only repeat what the programmer puts in" canard.

You do know that it's possible to examine program code and tell whether it's outputting pre-programmed strings of data or not. Otherwise why would companies pay millions to have their data examined by IBM's Watson, if for all they knew Watson was just repeating numbers previously fed into it?

Or is your concept of what computing can and cannot do based on the behavior of non-player characters in video games?

Let me give you an example. Supposed you have a quadruped robot with all the sensors and actuators needed for the robot to walk. What is needed is the program to control the individual actuators to make it happen.

If you program a specific unvarying sequence of actuator signals that makes the robot walk, that might get you a decent grade on a weekly assignment for a college introductory undergraduate robotics course.

If you program the robot to figure out an effective gait using trial and error, with no pre-existing gait pattern templates in the program, based only on feedback from the robot's sensors, that might get you a PhD in cybernetics.

And guess what? The professors teaching the courses and sitting on the PhD thesis review boards can tell the difference. Even though the robot's gait, in the end, might look exactly the same.

How do you know whether the AI understands and means what it says rather than repeating fixed programmed responses? You examine how it works.

I do know something, that's a start.

Are you programmed to say that?

 

[Dancing David]

It's problematic because of the chance that you could have two mechanisms, one which is self-conscious and one which is not conscious and it is impossible to distinguish between the two.

I would argue then that there is no difference.

 

[Dancing David]

I do know something, that's a start.

What if you have the appearance of knowing something, but really lack the quality of knowing in an of itself.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Suppose you have a quadruped robot with all the sensors and actuators needed for the robot to walk?

Reminded me of this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

If one is naturally in harmony with you, he\she will not park in front of your garage.

That is not what I asked. I asked you if one can dematerialize objects with the mind.

 

[punshhh]

Okay, good starting point. Now, suppose I invent a new thermostat. Instead of a bi-metallic strip, it contains a bacterium that I've selected because it has flagella that move faster at higher temperatures. The rest of the device consists of an elaborate life-support system to feed nutrients and oxygen to the bacterium, and a microscope-camera and computer that figures out the temperature from how fast the flagella are waving, and activates the heater when the temperature is below the pre-set lower threshold. So it performs the same function and has the same results as the bi-metallic thermostat.

Same questions. Is this one conscious, even a little bit?

Living elements are conscious in a rudimentary way like all cellular lifeforms, but the device isn't.

This brings up something interesting, could one make a biological computer and if you did, would that be conscious/self-conscious?

 

[doronshadmi]

That is not what I asked. I asked you if one can dematerialize objects with the mind.

No, it can't be done since mind and matter are both inseparable particular multiple expressions of one non-particular (and therefore neutral) substance.

Both of them are naturally derived from and return to the neutral substance, which is naturally simpler than its multiple expressions, including matter and mind.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... This brings up something interesting, could one make a biological computer and if you did, would that be conscious/self-conscious?

My parents tried that a few decades ago, with mixed results.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Living elements are conscious in a rudimentary way like all cellular lifeforms, but the device isn't.

You keep asserting this, but were is the evidence? This is your personal belief, and nothing else.

This brings up something interesting, could one make a biological computer and if you did, would that be conscious/self-conscious?

Yes one could, but why would it be different from an electronic one?

Hans

 

[Myriad]

Living elements are conscious in a rudimentary way like all cellular lifeforms, but the device isn't.

Okay, we'll disregard the rest of the device and focus on the bacterium. Next thought experiment: I breed a bacterium based on the one described, but with all its genes deleted except for those responsible for the formation of the cell membrane, fluid biostasis across that membrane (keeping the cell properly inflated), and the temperature-dependent flagella. The engineered bacterium no longer has any reproductive function, and its metabolic mechanisms for respiration have also been removed. Instead, the necessary energetic compounds (such as ATP) needed to power the remaining enzymes are steadily injected into the cell, and any breakdown products are filtered out, by an external mechanical device through which the cell's cytoplasm is cycled. Note that this would be exceedingly difficult to accomplish technologically, but not impossible in principle, so the thought experiment should be valid.

Is this organism still conscious in a rudimentary way?

This brings up something interesting, could one make a biological computer and if you did, would that be conscious/self-conscious?

One could certainly (and without much difficulty) make a biological computer. Unfortunately, though, it might not be possible to discuss the question in any interesting way, as long as you continue to assert the claim that all living organisms are conscious and no nonliving systems can be, without a clear rationale for so asserting. So for the time being, I'd prefer to continue to attempt to elucidate that rationale.

 

[Bubba]

Patient 'dies' and is revived during surgery.

Later, patient says that while 'dead' he looked down at the scene. Patient accurately reports conversation of the medical team. Patient also mentions a handwritten technical note an electrician left in a ceiling light fixture.

Curious surgeon dismantles the light fixture. Surgeon confirms patient's report of the note verbatim. The note could not be seen without dismantling the light fixture.

Variables are dismissed, ie there is no way patient could have had prior knowledge of the note.

Would that suffice as a viable alternative to materialism ?

 

[punshhh]

My parents tried that a few decades ago, with mixed results.

Yes, humans are produced this way regularly. But if you were to construct a biological brain out of neurons produced in Petri dishes, would it be conscious, just intelligent?

 

[punshhh]

You keep asserting this, but were is the evidence? This is your personal belief, and nothing else.

It is my personal suspicion. As far as I can see there is insufficient evidence to determine the answer to this question.

Yes one could, but why would it be different from an electronic one?

Could? Is that a maybe, or a definite? Likewise for the electronic one?

 

[MuDPhuD]

Patient 'dies' and is revived during surgery.

If the patient is alive to tell the tale then they did not die, they "almost died".

Later, patient says that while 'dead' he looked down at the scene.

As I mentioned above, in your scenario the patient was never dead.
A memory of looking down on the scene is called an autoscopic hallucination, and this could have occurred any time during the resusitation or afterward as the patient regains consciousness.

Patient accurately reports conversation of the medical team.

Having heard a conversation during the resusitation is also easily accounted for, as the patient was not dead.

Patient also mentions a handwritten technical note an electrician left in a ceiling light fixture.

Curious surgeon dismantles the light fixture. Surgeon confirms patient's report of the note verbatim. The note could not be seen without dismantling the light fixture.

Variables are dismissed, ie there is no way patient could have had prior knowledge of the note.

Would that suffice as a viable alternative to materialism ?

Reporting the contents of a previously unknown note which was hidden from view of everyone present would indeed constitute evidence which would be difficult to explain using current knowledge of the human nervous system.

Of course this has never happened and I am quite sure it never will. It would be similar to a successful remote viewing which as I'm sure you are aware has never been demonstrated.

A successful remote viewing would not constitute "an alternative" to materialism, but would require investigation as to possible mechanism. The same could be said of successful telepathy, telekinesis, or any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen.

 

[punshhh]

Okay, we'll disregard the rest of the device and focus on the bacterium. Next thought experiment: I breed a bacterium based on the one described, but with all its genes deleted except for those responsible for the formation of the cell membrane, fluid biostasis across that membrane (keeping the cell properly inflated), and the temperature-dependent flagella. The engineered bacterium no longer has any reproductive function, and its metabolic mechanisms for respiration have also been removed. Instead, the necessary energetic compounds (such as ATP) needed to power the remaining enzymes are steadily injected into the cell, and any breakdown products are filtered out, by an external mechanical device through which the cell's cytoplasm is cycled. Note that this would be exceedingly difficult to accomplish technologically, but not impossible in principle, so the thought experiment should be valid.

Once you start tampering with the cell, at some unknown point it would cease to be a functioning entity and become a dysfunctional body, or dead. It could perhaps be maintained in a state resembling a functioning entity, but like with the mimic, it may become little more than a puppet for our entertainment. Like frogs legs made to move using electrodes.

Is this organism still conscious in a rudimentary way?

Who knows, as we don't know what consciousness a cell has when fully functional to begin with other than by inference. Rather like our understanding of the mechanism generating human self-consciousness, it is to a certain extent inferred.

One could certainly (and without much difficulty) make a biological computer. Unfortunately, though, it might not be possible to discuss the question in any interesting way, as long as you continue to assert the claim that all living organisms are conscious and no nonliving systems can be, without a clear rationale for so asserting. So for the time being, I'd prefer to continue to attempt to elucidate that rationale.

ok, my point here is essentially we have little understanding of living things and even more so of their internal states other than through observation and inference. Indeed, (correct me if I'm wrong) any experimentation with cellular structure and generating living cells is in its infancy as far as I can see.

 

[Bubba]

If the patient is alive to tell the tale then they did not die, they "almost died".



As I mentioned above, in your scenario the patient was never dead.
A memory of looking down on the scene is called an autoscopic hallucination, and this could have occurred any time during the resusitation or afterward as the patient regains consciousness.


Having heard a conversation during the resusitation is also easily accounted for, as the patient was not dead.




Reporting the contents of a previously unknown note which was hidden from view of everyone present would indeed constitute evidence which would be difficult to explain using current knowledge of the human nervous system.

Of course this has never happened and I am quite sure it never will. It would be similar to a successful remote viewing which as I'm sure you are aware has never been demonstrated.
A successful remote viewing would not constitute "an alternative" to materialism, but would require investigation as to possible mechanism. The same could be said of successful telepathy, telekinesis, or any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen.

How is it you are sure such things do not happen?

*****************************************************
On the phone, 3,000 miles away I mentioned to my friend that I was being called to dinner and I'd call her back later. She said "You having eggplant?" I had no idea what my friends were planning for dinner, and I said so.

When I went upstairs to dinner, eggplant parmesan was the main dish. Later, back home, I mentioned this at a gathering. Her friends and family laughed and said: "She has been doing that for decades and she is always right."
******************************************************

Let me guess, you are sure that this is included in "...any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen."

Again, how is it you can be certain of your view about my friend being always right about what's for dinner, for around 45 years?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Patient 'dies' and is revived during surgery.

Later, patient says that while 'dead' he looked down at the scene. Patient accurately reports conversation of the medical team. Patient also mentions a handwritten technical note an electrician left in a ceiling light fixture.

Curious surgeon dismantles the light fixture. Surgeon confirms patient's report of the note verbatim. The note could not be seen without dismantling the light fixture.

Variables are dismissed, ie there is no way patient could have had prior knowledge of the note.

Would that suffice as a viable alternative to materialism ?

It would, given the current definition of materialism.

Of sourse, it would have to be very well confirmed.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is my personal suspicion. As far as I can see there is insufficient evidence to determine the answer to this question.

The it is intellectually dishonest of you to constantly refer to it as if it was a fact.

It is something you believe. You have no evidence for it, and quite frankly you don't appear to understand the evidence against it.

Could? Is that a maybe, or a definite?

We know how to build a computer using biological components. Mind you, it is not alive as such, but the components are biological.

Likewise for the electronic one?

Are you asking if we can build an electronic computer? The answer is yes.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

How is it you are sure such things do not happen?

*****************************************************
On the phone, 3,000 miles away I mentioned to my friend that I was being called to dinner and I'd call her back later. She said "You having eggplant?" I had no idea what my friends were planning for dinner, and I said so.

When I went upstairs to dinner, eggplant parmesan was the main dish. Later, back home, I mentioned this at a gathering. Her friends and family laughed and said: "She has been doing that for decades and she is always right."
******************************************************

Let me guess, you are sure that this is included in "...any of a number of "paranormal" phenomena which do not in fact happen."

Again, how is it you can be certain of your view about my friend being always right about what's for dinner, for around 45 years?

It is an anecdote. However, your friend's alleged ability could be tested relatively easily. Some years back, the claim would be eligible for the MDC, but I am not sure under the current rules.

Obviously, we are not ready to rewrite science because of something your friend told you on the phone.

Hans