I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

Well, here is the problem with this line of reasoning, go long enough back through time and you and I have common ancestors, which were not self-conscious. So you can't use ancestors as evidence of consciousness, because you have ancestors, which were not conscious.

This is irrelevant because the common ancestor I have with any other human who is alive today was self conscious and any unconscious ancestors are much further back in the history of my evolution.

punshhh, try to think through your arguments before you post them.

Correction, I have thought them through, such as the point about common ancestors.

Well, try for once and read the other posts about how we know that other entities are conscious.

I am aware of the technique of assessing if another human is self-conscious at the time of the enquiry, by observing their behaviour. In actuality, all that is being confirmed by this observation is that the apparatus of their body is functioning correctly. As it is already known that the human in question is a highly evolved self-consciousness machine, which will be self-conscious by default if functioning correctly.

I know you are conscious, because you exhibit behavior I have when I am conscious. So how do you know that we are conscious? You know this because you liken our behavior with your own.

Yes I am aware of this approach. Don't you realise that to make my point it was necessary to point out that it is possible to arrive at the same conclusion via a different line of reasoning. One more pertinent to the issue being discussed.

 

[LarryS]

That may sound like a logical (or rational in some way) train of thought, but it is full of holes and smacks of the naivety of this sciencism based thinking.
Fine, but it doesn't act exactly the same unless the hardware is the same. To say otherwise is to ignore the nature of the hardware and the intricacies of how that hardware performs (acts, or behaves) in the carrying out of the observed computation and to consider only the appearance of the behaviour which is perceived on the human scale, I.e the scale to which the sensory apparatus of the human body have developed over time. On other scales such as microscopic the behaviour is quite different in each potential class of hardware, which is forming the basis of the behaviour on the human scale. Meaning that the overall behaviour is different in each case, while appearing identical on the human scale.

unfortunately you have just compounded the naivety I have just described.
It isn't that simple at all. I keep dropping in different problems with this conclusion and you just ignore them or brush them aside as irrelevancies, while repeating the same unsupported mantra.

I lost track where you were going with this, but if your claim is that it may not be possible to artificially create consciousness without the use of organic compounds, ie proteins, that's a possibility. The endeavor might be a modern version of medieval alchemy.

 

[Nonpareil]

That may sound like a logical (or rational in some way) train of thought, but it is full of holes and smacks of the naivety of this sciencism based thinking.

No. It is entirely correct.

And I note that you are incapable of actually pointing out anything wrong about it.

Fine, but it doesn't act exactly the same unless the hardware is the same.

It does not act exactly the same as that construct. It may still be self-conscious.

By the train of logic that you are relying on here, ENIAC was not a computer because my computer does different things and is based on different hardware. But none of that matters, because none of that is part of the definition of "computer".

You are still attempting to weasel in a requirement for metabolism where none exists.

unfortunately you have just compounded the naivety I have just described.
It isn't that simple at all. I keep dropping in different problems with this conclusion and you just ignore them or brush them aside as irrelevancies, while repeating the same unsupported mantra.

Then perhaps you might consider the fact that they are irrelevancies.

 

[punshhh]

In which case it would not be a mimic any more.

So a puppet on strings* is the person depicted, in all cases?

*There are numerous ways in which a puppet can be replicated in a more complex form rather than with strings. For example, the puppet could have carrier pigeons instead of strings, which take the data to a room of thousands of people who read each message, perform a small calculation with pencil and paper to be returned by the pigeon to the device.

This is not complicated.

Yes, it's simplistic.

It would be possible. Brains are computers.

Yes and it would also be possible to make one which does all that(all the behaviours of a self-conscious person) mechanically with no requirement for self-consciousness.

And the result would be self-conscious.

But that self-consciousness would not be a requirement, what is its purpose?
You seem to have got to this point and then something magic happens and suddenly the machine is self-conscious, while an identical puppet machine is sitting next to it performing all the same behaviours, without self-consciousness.

Perhaps they are all puppets.

Because it behaves in every way exactly as though it were conscious.

Pinocchio lives!

That is what "is" means.

This mantra has the problem I pointed out before. It is reducing the reality outside the mind to what is acceptable to the semantics of the mind. For example, there cannot be Y in existence because it doesn't fit (compute) in the simplistic logical abstraction in my brain. This claim ignores the reality outside the mind, while dictating it.

 

[punshhh]

No, the requirement was that the behaviour is indistinguishable under all circumstances. It is the behaviour that is exactly the same. If this is done by computation, so be it.

So Pinocchio and Punch and Judy live(are self-conscious).

No-one says it is. It is the self-conscious behaviour that is perfectly mimicked, so the mimic is self-conscious.

The puppet is self-conscious.

The argument is that if it is perfectly mimicking consciousness, then it is conscious; and if it is perfectly mimicking self-consciousness, it is self-conscious.

I have conceded that the mimic could have a rudimentary form of consciousness, like that of a toaster. This is all that is required to perform all the behaviour, there is no need for self-consciousness.

Comprehension error; punshhh, it's you that keeps making this mistake. A rope duck is not a perfect imitation of a duck, so it isn't a duck. Nonpareil just agreed that a perfect mimic of a duck would include every chemical in the body of the duck, i.e. it would be a duck. That's the whole point. Behaviour completely indistinguishable from consciousness would be consciousness.

Well if he had agreed that, he would have shot himself in the foot. Meaning that only a mimic of a human which is identical in all it's organic detail, would be equivalent in consciousness.

 

[punshhh]

I lost track where you were going with this, but if your claim is that it may not be possible to artificially create consciousness without the use of organic compounds, ie proteins, that's a possibility. The endeavor might be a modern version of medieval alchemy.

Yes, this is what I am suggesting. Any AI device not including cellular metabolism may not be conscious and there would be no way to prove that it where conscious to the degree of self-consciousness. Mimicry could not be ruled out.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes, this is what I am suggesting. Any AI device not including cellular metabolism may not be conscious and there would be no way to prove that it where conscious to the degree of self-consciousness. Mimicry could not be ruled out.

Your problem is that there is neither a way to prove nor disprove that an AI is self-consciousness, which also doesn't apply to humans 3rd person. I.e. any objective, neutral and so on methodology applies both to humans and other entities.

Now what you do, is a double standard:

• I know that other humans are self-conscious. (Something you don't know.)
• Consciousness requires cellular metabolism and no other form is possible. (How do you know that no other form is possible and how do you propose to test for the possibility that consciousness is possible for no cellular metabolism?)

punshhh, here is the end game. How you think/feel doesn't decide whether something other than you is conscious or not. You have to ask yourself, how do you purpose to know whether something other than you is conscious or not?

 

[punshhh]

No, a robot exhibiting all the behaviors of self-consciousness is self conscious.

I am aware of the reasoning behind this idea. But there are some problems with the conclusion. Firstly we don't know, to the degree of laboratory replication, what consciousness is, or what it is to be conscious, other than personal experience of it. Secondly it could be impossible to determine if it is actually self-conscious, or feigning self-conscious behaviour. This is illustrated nicely in the film Blade Runner.

 

[punshhh]

No, It's NOT virtually identical. It's less than 50% identical. You know, Punshhh it would really be nice if you made an effort to learn stuff, here.

In terms of the genetic coding you may be right. I was aware of this when I made the point. I made it anyway because, in terms of the mechanism responsible for the generation of self-consciousness, the body is the same in my mother and your mother and our common ancestor. We are talking here of cellular structure in the body including the brain. Apart from the genetic variation in my genetic code, my body is a near perfect replica (clone) of my mother and our common ancestor.

Yes, that's my question.

Yes, I know there is no way of testing if a robot which appears self-conscious is not self-conscious. This is why I am interested in the make up of the apparatus, rather than the behaviour.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I am aware of the reasoning behind this idea. But there are some problems with the conclusion. Firstly we don't know, to the degree of laboratory replication, what consciousness is, or what it is to be conscious, other than personal experience of it. Secondly it could be impossible to determine if it is actually self-conscious, or feigning self-conscious behaviour. This is illustrated nicely in the film Blade Runner.

That is the core of it. You can't know that other humans have a personal experience of consciousness, because it is personal. So it is impossible not just for non-humans, but also for other humans for you to know it.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In terms of the genetic coding you may be right. I was aware of this when I made the point. I made it anyway because, in terms of the mechanism responsible for the generation of self-consciousness, the body is the same in my mother and your mother and our common ancestor. We are talking here of cellular structure in the body including the brain. Apart from the genetic variation in my genetic code, my body is a near perfect replica (clone) of my mother and our common ancestor.
Yes, I know there is no way of testing if a robot which appears self-conscious is not self-conscious. This is why I am interested in the make up of the apparatus, rather than the behaviour.

Okay, so how do you know that human brains are special in principle; i.e. only biological entities are capable of self-consciousness?

 

[doronshadmi]

No, it's because I understand it more than you. Your ignorance of all things physics is killing you, here.

The reason why I'm not 100% of anything (except the axiom "something exists.") is that my point of view is not omniscient, and that future evidence may lead me to different conclusions.

By http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10441071&postcount=148 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10441593&postcount=1497 it is clearly concluded (according to a well designed scientific experiment) that the behavior of a single photon that was traveling in vacuum, was changed (its speed was less than c in vacuum) because of the changes that were done in its wave form (no single photon was destroyed or created in any part of that experiment).

You are talking all along this thread about matter's behavior, but when new scientific results of matter's behavior are clearly shown by well designed scientific experiment, you simply ignore them.

If you disagree with me, then please provide the exact part of this experiment that explicitly shows that a single photon was destroyed and created during or after its wave pattern was changed, and also do not ignore the fact that the speed of the single photon remained less than c in vacuum after it passed the mask that have changed its wave pattern (so no destruction or creation was involved with this single photon after it passed through the mask).

When the photon exists, it is at c.

No, according to this research the speed of the single existing photon remained less than c in vacuum after it passed the mask that have changed its wave pattern, and you simply ignore the results of this research ( http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584 ):

They sent photons - individual particles of light - through a special mask. It changed the photons' shape - and slowed them to less than light speed.

The photons remained travelling at the lower speed even when they returned to free space [to vacuum].

 

[Belz...]

In terms of the genetic coding you may be right.

Why is it that, every time someone counters one of your false assertions, you counter with "in terms of X, you may be right" ?

In all terms, I'm right on this. Your claim was wrong.

 

[Belz...]

No, according to this research the speed of the single existing photon remained less than c in vacuum after it passed the mask that have changed its wave pattern, and you simply ignore the results of this research ( http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584 ):

It's fortuitous for you that this came out five days ago, isn't it ?

Unfortunately it's a news article and not a science paper. I can't even find the citation on the webpage, so you'll forgive me if I don't throw relativity out the window just yet.

However this doesn't help you. Whatever speed a photon has at time t, it is the same for all observers. That's the main point you keep ignoring because you didn't expect anyone to throw an invariant at you, despite the fact that any objective measurement is, by definition, invariant from one observer to the next (which was, I remind you, your original request, goalpost moving nonwithstanding).

 

[doronshadmi]

so you'll forgive me if I don't throw relativity out the window.

You don't have to, the speed of a single photon that has plane wave pattern is exactly c for all observers, no matter what their speeds are, simply because no physical phenomenon can move faster than c in free space (vacuum) (which means that c+c=c).

This is not the case if a single photon does not have plane wave pattern, in this case two single photons have two different speeds for all observers, no matter what their speeds (of the observers) are, and you can't conclude that the speed of all photons is the same for all observers.

However this doesn't help you. Whatever speed a photon has at time t, it is the same for all observers. That's the main point you keep ignoring because you didn't expect anyone to throw an invariant at you, despite the fact that any objective measurement is, by definition, invariant from one observer to the next (which was, I remind you, your original request, goalpost moving nonwithstanding).

This was the original question and the original answer:

Please show me even a single objective evident that is absolutely invariant.

That's easy: light travels at 300,000 km per second.

Speed, whether it is constant (invariant) or not is inseparably involved with positions' changes, so it can't be considered as absolutely invariant.

In other words, you did not demonstrate objective evident that is absolutely invariant

 

[Belz...]

This was the original question and the original answer

Yeah but you forgot what we were talking about: objective observations.

Speed, whether it is constant (invariant) or not is inseparably involved with positions' changes,

No matter how many times you repeat that, it remains irrelevant.

 

[punshhh]

Why is it that, every time someone counters one of your false assertions, you counter with "in terms of X, you may be right" ?

Feel free to nit pick if you like. But the presence of sexual reproduction in humanity does not mean that the structure of my body is any different to a clone of my mother in the way self-consciousness is produced in my body. Likewise your body, or our common ancestor.

In all terms, I'm right on this. Your claim was wrong.

But the structure of my body is more than 50% equivalent to my mother and more than 25% equivalent to her mother etc etc. if it were so it would only be necessary to look back a few generations to see a creature unlike any life form on the planet.

I will return to my initial mention of this in my response near to the beginning of the thread. Humanity, indeed the majority of life on the planet is basically one organism, one life. A life which has found it advantageous to exploit the environment by dividing into numerous pieces. It is this one life (if one views it this way) which has developed the quality of consciousness.

 

[punshhh]

That is the core of it. You can't know that other humans have a personal experience of consciousness, because it is personal. So it is impossible not just for non-humans, but also for other humans for you to know it.

I know I am conscious and by extension the creature which produced me through a repetitive process of reproduction which has produced millions of creatures equivalent to me. It would be rather unusual for my brother to be a P Zombie, it would break the pattern.

 

[doronshadmi]

No matter how many times you repeat that, it remains irrelevant.

Only to persons like you that have no clue what is actually absolutely invariant.

Yeah but you forgot what we were talking about: objective observations.

I did not forget it, you simply ignore the fact that objective observations are not absolutely invariant, exactly as addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10444401&postcount=1535.

Furthermore, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10435584&postcount=1388 you can realize that I understand very well what are objective observations.

I can't even find the citation on the webpage

It is right at the beginning of http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584 (after the movie, and I suggest you also to look at this movie).

 

[punshhh]

Okay, so how do you know that human brains are special in principle; i.e. only biological entities are capable of self-consciousness?

I don't, I am just observing all the instances of self-consciousness out in the world around me and noting that they are all produced by biological processes. I fully expect that other kinds of self-consciousness might occur out there. But I see no reason to presume that AI devices are self-conscious, other than wishful thinking.