I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

It is your right to doubt it. It is not reasonable, in the meaning rational, because there is no evidence for it.

What is the requirement for evidence? The positive claim is that AI will automatically be conscious, once a certain(unspecified) complexity is produced.

My evidence is the human being, which is undeniably conscious. This is my control (X). Feel free to conduct the experiment. But don't presume the outcome.

No, it is quite possible. You see, to determine that anything is conscious, we need a falsifiable definition of 'conscious', and that will be appliable to anything.

Of course, it is possible once the process of consciousness is fully understood. My intuition is that it requires life.


I know that an ant is conscious(has a personal experience of being), but I do not know that the intelligent robot, which can figure things out like an ant, is conscious.

 

[punshhh]

there's no evidence to doubt artificial mechanisms can exhibit consciousness, and there's also no evidence to think they can. 11 things seem certain: 1) most folks doing AI aren't concerned w/ consciousness, and 10) it's going to take a new and great idea to get artificial mechanism to exhibit consciousness, or 11) someone will declare victory with a super watered down definition of consciousness

Quite, I listened to an interview with a scientist working on AI on the radio the other day and consciousness was not mentioned,(apart from a brief mention when they referred to the deep philosophical questions about being, in reference to the psychology of the experimenter),they used the word intelligence when discussing the mechanisms being discussed.

 

[wea]

When I began working on cognitive theory I couldn't imagine how I could ever disprove a mechanical consciousness. I think I can disprove it now. I can't yet say about an electronic consciousness.

can you hint to how you'd disprove it and/or what's the difference with electronics ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The question I made in my response remains, if our experience of being is physical, how can it also be a product of computation in the brain(mind/abstraction)?

Because computation in the brain is physical.

There is no evidence, or rationale which favours materialism or idealism over the other. As I pointed out in my first few posts in this thread.

And, as was pointed out to you repeatedly, that claim is false. There is no evidence for idealism, but plenty for materialism. You just chose to ignore it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

What is the requirement for evidence?

I suggest you read up on that. Google "scientific method". I'm not doing your homework for you.

The positive claim is that AI will automatically be conscious, once a certain(unspecified) complexity is produced.

That is one hypothesis, yes.

My evidence is the human being, which is undeniably conscious.

What is that evidence for?

I know that an ant is conscious(has a personal experience of being), but I do not know that the intelligent robot, which can figure things out like an ant, is conscious.

How do you know that the ant is conscious (any more than the robot)? Be specific.

Hans

 

[LarryS]

Because computation in the brain is physical.



And, as was pointed out to you repeatedly, that claim is false. There is no evidence for idealism, but plenty for materialism. You just chose to ignore it.

Hans

There is zero evidence for Materialism, there has been found zero matter outside of our being aware of it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

There is zero evidence for Materialism, there has been found zero matter outside of our being aware of it.

I will assume you are joking.

Or are you claiming that, say, distant galaxies did not exist till we became aware of them?

Hans

 

[LarryS]

I will assume you are joking.

Or are you claiming that, say, distant galaxies did not exist till we became aware of them?

Hans

as others have already suggested, to think/state that human observation creates reality is a naive understanding of idealism

rather, the mind, sentience, and the measurable/quantifiable objects of reality, all exist in awareness

or, awareness is natural, and the positing of a physical reality independent of awareness is the positing a supernatural

 

[Dancing David]

LarryS,
So if all you have is awareness, do you care for your apparent body? Or would you let a car run you over?

If you would not let a car run you over, why not?

After all, if all that exists is the awareness then you don't need an apparent body, right?

 

[LarryS]

LarryS,
So if all you have is awareness, do you care for your apparent body? Or would you let a car run you over?

If you would not let a car run you over, why not?

After all, if all that exists is the awareness then you don't need an apparent body, right?

This question could be asked of anyone who suggests that reality is a single fundamental substrate . . . why should a materialist jump out of the way of an oncoming vehicle? - it's all material?

It's a silly question, because whether the fundamental substrate of reality is more like awareness or more like matter, either way, the role and effect of organizing that substrate into discrete units of existence is the same.

 

[MRC_Hans]

as others have already suggested, to think/state that human observation creates reality is a naive understanding of idealism

It is certainly nonsense.

rather, the mind, sentience, and the measurable/quantifiable objects of reality, all exist in awareness

The measureable objects of reality exist independently of awareness.

or, awareness is natural, and the positing of a physical reality independent of awareness is the positing a supernatural

Could you translate that into something meaningful?

Hans

 

[LarryS]

It is certainly nonsense.



The measureable objects of reality exist independently of awareness.


Could you translate that into something meaningful?

Hans

The highlighted above is according to Materialism - an Idealist would disagree with that statement.

Re a meaningful translation, it's mostly theatrics: according to Materialism, the 'mind' of Idealism is supernatural or incoherent gibberish. Likewise, according to Idealism, 'matter' is supernatural or incoherent gibberish.

 

[Myriad]

Re a meaningful translation, it's mostly theatrics: according to Materialism, the 'mind' of Idealism is supernatural or incoherent gibberish. Likewise, according to Idealism, 'matter' is supernatural or incoherent gibberish.

But the first part of that is not true at all. According to materialism, mind is a real (and increasingly, as tools improve, measurable and observable) phenomenon that occurs in certain physical systems.

If matter is an incoherent concept in idealism, then that would appear to be a weakness in idealism. But I don't think that's actually the case. Most mystical systems I'm aware of, for instance, appear to acknowledge a realm or "plane" of matter in which matter inherently asserts the properties we commonly ascribe to it.

 

[LarryS]

But the first part of that is not true at all. According to materialism, mind is a real (and increasingly, as tools improve, measurable and observable) phenomenon that occurs in certain physical systems.
If matter is an incoherent concept in idealism, then that would appear to be a weakness in idealism. But I don't think that's actually the case. Most mystical systems I'm aware of, for instance, appear to acknowledge a realm or "plane" of matter in which matter inherently asserts the properties we commonly ascribe to it.

Agreed . . . I was referring to Materialists take on 'mind' from Idealism, that is, most Materialists would describe the 'mind of Idealism as supernatural gibberish.

Also, according to most flavors of Idealism, the notion of 'matter', as a substance that exists independent of awareness, is gibberish and unsubstantiated - and an appeal to the supernatural.

 

[Dancing David]

This question could be asked of anyone who suggests that reality is a single fundamental substrate . . . why should a materialist jump out of the way of an oncoming vehicle? - it's all material?

It's a silly question, because whether the fundamental substrate of reality is more like awareness or more like matter, either way, the role and effect of organizing that substrate into discrete units of existence is the same.

So would you say that the universe seems to behave as though it is materialistic?

 

[Myriad]

Agreed . . . I was referring to Materialists take on 'mind' from Idealism, that is, most Materialists would describe the 'mind of Idealism as supernatural gibberish.

Also, according to most flavors of Idealism, the notion of 'matter', as a substance that exists independent of awareness, is gibberish and unsubstantiated - and an appeal to the supernatural.

That depends. Matter as a substance that exists independent of whose experience? I have plenty of evidence that matter exists independent of my experience, because I'm constantly encountering new things that turn out not to be new to other people. As far as I can tell, everyone else has similar limited knowledge of a larger shared world, so matter can exist independent of any human's experience. The distant galaxies whose existence we as a species only learned about within less than a century ago must have existed independent of all humans' experience, in order to have emitted the light before humanity existed that we detect today. There are various animals that seem to exhibit various degrees and qualities of conscious experience, but there's no evidence that any of them ever experienced distant galaxies or extrasolar planets or the iron forming in the center of the sun or the photons of the 4°C cosmic background radiation either.

In whose experience did Hoag's Object exist 600,000,000 years ago, when it emitted the light we detect from it today? Who is this experiencing entity or group? What do we know about this entity or entities, apart from the necessarily implied fact that they collectively cannot possibly learn anything, because everything that exists only does so because it/they are already experiencing it?

 

[LarryS]

That depends. Matter as a substance that exists independent of whose experience? I have plenty of evidence that matter exists independent of my experience, because I'm constantly encountering new things that turn out not to be new to other people. As far as I can tell, everyone else has similar limited knowledge of a larger shared world, so matter can exist independent of any human's experience. The distant galaxies whose existence we as a species only learned about within less than a century ago must have existed independent of all humans' experience, in order to have emitted the light before humanity existed that we detect today. There are various animals that seem to exhibit various degrees and qualities of conscious experience, but there's no evidence that any of them ever experienced distant galaxies or extrasolar planets or the iron forming in the center of the sun or the photons of the 4°C cosmic background radiation either.

In whose experience did Hoag's Object exist 600,000,000 years ago, when it emitted the light we detect from it today? Who is this experiencing entity or group? What do we know about this entity or entities, apart from the necessarily implied fact that they collectively cannot possibly learn anything, because everything that exists only does so because it/they are already experiencing it?

I carefully did not use the term 'experience' . . . human experience, or any entities experience, does not create reality. Experience, and the objects of experience, occur within awareness/reality.

As (according to materialism) a bar of gold does not create matter, but 'occurs' in matter, and, according to Materialism, our experience of the gold bar occurs in matter/reality.

Either reality and our experience of it is all awareness, or all matter.

 

[LarryS]

So would you say that the universe seems to behave as though it is materialistic?

Yes, as a concession to a conventional understanding of how things work together, IE developing a more efficient combustion engine or finding a cure for cancer.

Does materialistic model provide a working description of our experience? That depends . . . if one feels like a separate identity localized in one's head, living a computational life inside our skull, then Yes. If one feels more connected with reality, a lively intimacy with the world, and experience occurs in awareness as a fundamental substrate, then No.

 

[Myriad]

That depends. Matter as a substance that exists independent of whose awareness? I have plenty of evidence that matter exists independent of my awareness, because I'm constantly encountering (becoming aware of) new things that turn out not to be new to other people. As far as I can tell, everyone else has similar limited knowledge of a larger shared world, so matter can exist independent of any human's awareness. The distant galaxies whose existence we as a species only learned about within less than a century ago must have existed independent of all humans' awareness, in order to have emitted the light before humanity existed that we detect today. There are various animals that seem to exhibit various degrees and qualities of conscious awareness, but there's no evidence that any of them ever aware of distant galaxies or extrasolar planets or the iron forming in the center of the sun or the photons of the 4°C cosmic background radiation either.

In whose awareness did Hoag's Object exist 600,000,000 years ago, when it emitted the light we detect from it today? Who is this aware entity or group? What do we know about this entity or entities, apart from the necessarily implied fact that they collectively cannot possibly learn anything, because everything that exists only does so because it/they are already aware of it?

 

[Dancing David]

Does materialistic model provide a working description of our experience? That depends . . . if one feels like a separate identity localized in one's head, living a computational life inside our skull, then Yes. If one feels more connected with reality, a lively intimacy with the world, and experience occurs in awareness as a fundamental substrate, then No.

You sure make a lot of assumptions about materialism, why do you ignore the study of perceptions and cognition? You blanket assertions of POVs that you are discussing makes it difficult to converse with you.

These can be discussed under materialism the experiences and the beliefs, I would ask you for ideas however how 'awareness as a fundamental substrate' would operate any differently than materialism.

I am a philosophical naturalist, the universe acts as though it is material, so regardless of it possibly being butterfly dreams, godthought or dancing energy it is acting as though it is materialistic.

Unless you have a way to tell the difference between materialism and 'awareness as a fundamental substrate'...