I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

If the first table I encounter is made of wood, I know that tables are composed of wood. So if I then encounter a similar sized object consisting of a flat piece of plastic with four plastic legs, I know it can't be a table. Because it doesn't have the same composition as a table.

This not what I am saying, I have stated a few times that I have no objections the possibility that consciousness can be produced artificially, for example in a robot. But that if it were the case, there would be found in that artificial consciousness apparatus, a component producing consciousness, distinct from the component producing intelligence(a computer).

 

[Pixel42]

This not what I am saying, I have stated a few times that I have no objections the possibility that consciousness can be produced artificially, for example in a robot.

That is certainly not the impression I got from your posts. But OK, maybe I misunderstood.

But that if it were the case, there would be found in that artificial consciousness apparatus, a component producing consciousness, distinct from the component producing intelligence(a computer).

What are your grounds for this assertion? What is the component in the human brain that produces consciousness, distinct from the component that produces intelligence?

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is not an unfounded assertion, it is an observation. Until a working model is produced it is reasonable to consider that it is organisms which produce consciousness. Which is the observation on the ground.

No. You are making a claim. At least if you are writing English (something I sometimes doubt).

Well in the case of the robots I have observed, yes. I am not asserting that no robot can have a similar composition to myself, or that robots cannot be conscious.

You have been asserting that. I now note that you have changed your position.

Simply I am saying that consciousness does not need to be defined to discuss it, because it is known through our personal experience of it.

I disagree. As long as we don't know what we are discussing, we make little sense.

Hans

 

[wea]

Simply I am saying that consciousness does not need to be defined to discuss it, because it is known through our personal experience of it.

AFAIU hallucination, self-deception, dream etc. are personal experiences too, better discussed once defined, otherwise what you "know" through them would be "real" just as scientific experi(ment)ence; as far as consciousness is regarded, possible definitions worth verifying have been reported(even in this thread, even by myself post #2515).

*This is an important thought process in mysticism, because through the realisation that things not understood can be known and therefore discussed, one can bypass the necessity for the mind in knowledge.

Well, I'm no mystic, I suspect any of the words "known", "knowledge", "mind", "realization", "discussed", "necessity" have a different meaning in that realm. Back to OP, this could shed some light on this conversation: is mysticism your best alternate to materialism?

 

[LarryS]

I got it that Pixel was being sarcastic - although the analogy of a table is a bit too clown-funny to be useful - the function of a table being well understood and well defined independent of the material. Consciousness is quite another 'matter' - not being well defined, or perhaps not defined at all - - and when the notion of being conscious is used it is measured in the context of worthy organisms . . . so I understand the position that Punshshsh may have held.

 

[punshhh]

That is certainly not the impression I got from your posts. But OK, maybe I misunderstood.

Fine, it was a long way back in the thread when I last said this. To be specific, I am arguing against computation as the basis for consciousness. So provided the robot has a part which produces consciousness distinct from the bit which produces intelligence(a computer), I have no objection.

What are your grounds for this assertion? What is the component in the human brain that produces consciousness, distinct from the component that produces intelligence?

The metabolic life of the body(of which the brain is a part). Note I am referring to a rudimentary conscious awareness here. Not full self conscious awareness as experienced by a human. This later conscious state does require brain processing.

 

[Fudbucker]

I got it that Pixel was being sarcastic - although the analogy of a table is a bit too clown-funny to be useful - the function of a table being well understood and well defined independent of the material. Consciousness is quite another 'matter' - not being well defined, or perhaps not defined at all - - and when the notion of being conscious is used it is measured in the context of worthy organisms . . . so I understand the position that Punshshsh may have held.

That is a major problem with consciousness- it's very hard to define. That allows for more wriggle room than usual when off-the-wall competing explanations, like Punshshsh's, are offered. The speed of light, on one hand, is very well defined. We don't need to posit something like an aether to explain it. Consciousness, on the other hand, can be produced by an organic brain... or a planet sized railroad system

 

[Fudbucker]

Fine, it was a long way back in the thread when I last said this. To be specific, I am arguing against computation as the basis for consciousness. So provided the robot has a part which produces consciousness distinct from the bit which produces intelligence(a computer), I have no objection.

This isn't something that you need to argue against. The burden of proof is on the computationalists, as they are the one's asserting a positive claim about consciousness. What is the evidence for their position? Computationalism is like String Theory (which is also dying a slow death): all right, that might look good on paper, now PROVE IT!

 

[punshhh]

No. You are making a claim. At least if you are writing English (something I sometimes doubt).

The only claim I can find is that it is something about living organisms which produces consciousness. A claim with lots of evidence.

You have been asserting that. I now note that you have changed your position.

My position on artificial consciousness has remained throughout that I see no reason why it is not possible. All that would be required is some apparatus which produces equivalent effects as the body (apparatus) of an organism. The point I am making is that it is not solely the computational processing in the brain which produces consciousness. But that it is the body which produces consciousness. That computational processing in the brain enables the kind of self-conscious awareness experienced by a human. But without the rudimentary consciousness of the living body*, that processing in the brain would be devoid of awareness, experience, or knowledge, rather like a computer.

* It is problematic to talk about separating parts of the body of an organism, because it is a fully integrated unit and only functions as a whole.

I disagree. As long as we don't know what we are discussing, we make little sense.

We do know what we are discussing from the begining, because it is our primary knowledge. What we are discussing is necessary to experience, or know anything, without it we would be entirely unconscious.What we are discussing is the very thing which enables us to discus it.
Or can we only discuss things explained and demonstrated through scientific experiment?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The only claim I can find is that it is something about living organisms which produces consciousness. A claim with lots of evidence.

The claim that living organisms can produce consciousness has plenty of evidence, and I haven't noticed anybody refuting it.

The claim that only living organisms can produce consciousness has no evidence for it. It also have limited evidence against it, at least for the common definition of consciousness. However, at the level where you define consiousness, there is evidence against it: Some of our existing automated devices are functionally fully on par with simpler life-forms, like insects.

My position on artificial consciousness has remained throughout that I see no reason why it is not possible. All that would be required is some apparatus which produces equivalent effects as the body (apparatus) of an organism. The point I am making is that it is not solely the computational processing in the brain which produces consciousness. But that it is the body which produces consciousness.

Yep, and that is the claim that lacks evidence.

Hans

 

[punshhh]

AFAIU hallucination, self-deception, dream etc. are personal experiences too, better discussed once defined, otherwise what you "know" through them would be "real" just as scientific experi(ment)ence; as far as consciousness is regarded, possible definitions worth verifying have been reported(even in this thread, even by myself post #2515).

Those are experiences. I was referring to the personal experience of being.

Well, I'm no mystic, I suspect any of the words "known", "knowledge", "mind", "realization", "discussed", "necessity" have a different meaning in that realm. Back to OP, this could shed some light on this conversation: is mysticism your best alternate to materialism?

Those words have the dictionary meaning as usual. Mysticism is a variant of materialism, so is not an alternative. It is idealism alone as far as I can see which posits some kind of none material existence, or dualism. Which on closer inspection reduces to monism(hence material), anyway.

 

[punshhh]

The claim that living organisms can produce consciousness has plenty of evidence, and I haven't noticed anybody refuting it.

This is the only claim I have made as far as I can see.

The claim that only living organisms can produce consciousness has no evidence for it. It also have limited evidence against it, at least for the common definition of consciousness. However, at the level where you define consiousness, there is evidence against it: Some of our existing automated devices are functionally fully on par with simpler life-forms, like insects.

I am not claiming that only living organisms can produce consciousness. I am pointing out that it is only organisms which have been found to produce consciousness. And until it has been successfully reproduced artificially, the necessity for life cannot be ruled out.

Yep, and that is the claim that lacks evidence.

I gave evidence a while ago. Thinking brains are only a recent development in evolutionary terms. Before this development, lots of animals (and perhaps plants) were going around with personal experience of being. And going further back, before brains evolved those primitive lifeforms where being themselves and having experiences just like us. Only they didn't have the brain to process the experiences. The experiences still happened and their bodies where present and experienced it physically.

 

[wea]

Mysticism is a variant of materialism.

I had a look at Merriam-Webster dict.: mysticism is defined as a religious practice based on the belief that knowledge of spiritual truth can be gained by praying or thinking deeply. I use the words materialism and material world as e.g. in hypothetical realism, see Popper or Lorenz, so I don't understand how the former could stem from the latter, or any relation among them. I could be lost in translation .

 

[tsig]

I had a look at Merriam-Webster dict.: mysticism is defined as a religious practice based on the belief that knowledge of spiritual truth can be gained by praying or thinking deeply. I use the words materialism and material world as e.g. in hypothetical realism, see Popper or Lorenz, so I don't understand how the former could stem from the latter, or any relation among them. I could be lost in translation .

I believe you have to be somewhere beyond the event horizon of the gormless for that to make sense.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This is the only claim I have made as far as I can see.

Then your vision is somewhat below 20/20.

I am not claiming that only living organisms can produce consciousness. I am pointing out that it is only organisms which have been found to produce consciousness. And until it has been successfully reproduced artificially, the necessity for life cannot be ruled out.

In AD1900, you could have made the same claim about flight.

Hans

 

[LarryS]

Then your vision is somewhat below 20/20.



In AD1900, you could have made the same claim about flight.
Hans

. . . and now we know that that claim would be false . . . and how do we know that the claim is false?

 

[punshhh]

I had a look at Merriam-Webster dict.: mysticism is defined as a religious practice based on the belief that knowledge of spiritual truth can be gained by praying or thinking deeply. I use the words materialism and material world as e.g. in hypothetical realism, see Popper or Lorenz, so I don't understand how the former could stem from the latter, or any relation among them. I could be lost in translation .

Perhaps I come to words like material from a different perspective. Rather the principle of a substance with extension, dimension and temporal qualities, as seen in the matter we encounter around us. I just don't restrict material to the "physical matter", of science. Rather I accept that there may be other kinds of material around.

The difference between me and an idealist is I regard all as material, rather than seperating it from some kind of immaterial mind. I do consider the existence of a spiritual world, or God like beings, but all constituted of material and not requiring belief.

 

[punshhh]

Then your vision is somewhat below 20/20.

Feel free to point out any claims.

In AD1900, you could have made the same claim about flight.

This is different to a discussion of primary knowledge. The problem with primary knowledge(if it is a problem) is that all else is secondary to it. So it cannot be reduced into secondary terms. This is presumably the reason why there is this whole issue of a dichotomy between materialism and idealism.

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps I come to words like material from a different perspective. Rather the principle of a substance with extension, dimension and temporal qualities, as seen in the matter we encounter around us. I just don't restrict material to the "physical matter", of science. Rather I accept that there may be other kinds of material around.

The difference between me and an idealist is I regard all as material, rather than seperating it from some kind of immaterial mind. I do consider the existence of a spiritual world, or God like beings, but all constituted of material and not requiring belief.

Still noting evidence of the bolded part (bolding by me).
Other than speculation the evidence for 'spiritual world, or God like beings' is what?
Thanks

 

[MuDPhuD]

This is the only claim I have made as far as I can see.


I am not claiming that only living organisms can produce consciousness. I am pointing out that it is only organisms which have been found to produce consciousness. And until it has been successfully reproduced artificially, the necessity for life cannot be ruled out.

That's one claim.

I gave evidence a while ago. Thinking brains are only a recent development in evolutionary terms.
Before this development, lots of animals (and perhaps plants) were going around with personal experience of being.

Why only "perhaps" plants?
You are suggesting that having a "personal experience of being" does not require a thinking brain, so why are you unsure about plants?

Can you please identify for me any aspect or your "personal experience of being" which does not require your thinking brain?
I predict you will ignore the question, or not provide any direct answer.

And going further back, before brains evolved those primitive lifeforms where being themselves and having experiences just like us. Only they didn't have the brain to process the experiences.

Again, "experiences just like us". Please enumerate what experiences you have which do not require your thinking brain. I suspect that you cannot name a single one.

The experiences still happened and their bodies where present and experienced it physically.

I cannot think of any experience you have which does not require your sense organs and your cerebral circuits. Please identify something you experience which you believe does not involve your brain.

Because all of a human's experience does require the sensory organs and brain, we consequently have NO knowledge of what your term "experience it physically" could be, whether it exists, or whether instead you have simply made it up. This is the bare assertion without evidence you are making.

If you are unable to identify an aspect of human experience which is is not based on the activity of the human brain, then your CLAIM that that there is some "experience" not based on brain function is BARE ASSERTION (as pointed out by MRC Hans).