I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[JoeMorgue]

Honestly I don't think conscious does exist as something separate from just... brain activity.

Mostly the term gets used as a Woopendix, something added to our understanding of how the brain works that doesn't explain anything, just is used to justify Woo.

 

[Belz...]

I ask because Nonpariel has stated that self awareness is a behavior, presably a physical process so it should I'm principle be detectable

Of course it's detectable, like running. You can detect the feedback loop of the neurons, their polarization, and the actual behaviour of the person. That works only if you define consciousness as a behaviour, but since everything is defined as a behaviour, it should work.

Now, how do YOU tell if people is conscious or not ?

 

[Nonpareil]

I ask because Nonpariel has stated that self awareness is a behavior

No.

Self-awareness is an emergent property of certain computational systems* that results in a collection of behaviors.

presably a physical process so it should I'm principle be detectable

It is, albeit imperfectly at the current time.

We also know that it is the result of physical processes, because we know that altering those physical processes can remove the sense of self.

*: Technically speaking, it could be classified as a "behavior" as well, but that's getting into a semantic argument that really serves no purpose.

 

[tsig]

And honestly I admit to having self consciousness maybe 20 seconds a week. So solipsism is a stretch

You are posting unconscious?

 

[LarryS]

You tell me: what logic do you use to tell if people around you are conscious ?

We share a common nervous system and brain structure, like behaviors and language. These are obviously species specific

 

[LarryS]

You are posting unconscious?

I can post and conduct business without self awareness

 

[Belz...]

We share a common nervous system and brain structure, like behaviors and language. These are obviously species specific

So it's the structure and specific abilities, not the use of it ? I'll remind you that even with said structures and abilities you are often decidedly unconscious.

In addition, I see your criteria above exclude a spirit or soul. Do I have that right ?

 

[tsig]

I can post and conduct business without self awareness

Then how do you know who is doing the posting?

 

[Nonpareil]

We share a common nervous system and brain structure, like behaviors and language. These are obviously species specific

So you admit that consciousness has its origins in that brain structure.

Why could a different brain not produce consciousness, albeit of a different type? Animal brains, for instance. Are cats not conscious? What about dolphins? Great apes?

What makes producing a brain out of non-organic material impossible?

What law states that a non-organic brain could not be conscious?

 

[LarryS]

Then how do you know who is doing the posting?

I'm using the phrase 'self awareness' to mean the intentional act of establishing "I am conscious" or answering "How do I know I'm conscious", contrasted with the ordinary activity of being aware of x, where x is a myriad of things, ideas, memories and various states of mind.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
That's the problem with Solipsism, once you get there you really can't get out. Or go anywhere else.

Just like Mississipi.

Tell me about it.

 

[LarryS]

So it's the structure and specific abilities, not the use of it ? I'll remind you that even with said structures and abilities you are often decidedly unconscious.

In addition, I see your criteria above exclude a spirit or soul. Do I have that right ?

Correct, I do not believe in spirits or souls, and wouldn't even know where to begin believing in them.

Correct, as I defined self awareness for Tsig, I can not verify another's self awareness, or detect their own verification. My extension of self awareness to other humans is based on sophistication of abilities and not on observation of another's self awareness. I think we'd all have to admit that some of our motivations for extending self awareness are cultural. Note that it's possible to be programmed to not detect/accept the self awareness of other groups of humans, ie, 'the enemy'

 

[LarryS]

So you admit that consciousness has its origins in that brain structure.

Yes. It makes more sense then the alternative, that consciousness created the brain.

Why could a different brain not produce consciousness, albeit of a different type? Animal brains, for instance. Are cats not conscious? What about dolphins? Great apes?

I don't know about any other specific species, but I suspect that different brains can produce consciousness. My point was that there exists no agreed upon test or means to verify. There may be no test or means to verify the intentional act of self awareness*, even in principle.

What makes producing a brain out of non-organic material impossible?

What law states that a non-organic brain could not be conscious?

Should be possible.

*I fully admit that declaring self awareness as different than a case of awareness of x would need to be substantiated.

 

[Nonpareil]

My extension of self awareness to other humans is based on sophistication of abilities and not on observation of another's self awareness.

You and punshhh both keep saying this.

That doesn't make it true.

Note that it's possible to be programmed to not detect/accept the self awareness of other groups of humans, ie, 'the enemy'

That is not what military training does.

I don't know about any other specific species, but I suspect that different brains can produce consciousness.

We know that other brains produce consciousness.

My point was that there exists no agreed upon test or means to verify.

Generally, observation suffices.

There may be no test or means to verify the intentional act of self awareness*, even in principle.

There is no reason to believe this.

 

[Belz...]

Correct, I do not believe in spirits or souls, and wouldn't even know where to begin believing in them.

Then you are a materialist. I didn't figure that, based on your posts.

Correct, as I defined self awareness for Tsig, I can not verify another's self awareness, or detect their own verification.

That's because you're not a behaviourist. Science is all behaviour-based anyway, so it's not a problem.

 

[LarryS]

Then you are a materialist. I didn't figure that, based on your posts.



That's because you're not a behaviourist. Science is all behaviour-based anyway, so it's not a problem.

It could be that I'm not using the term behavior in the same way you are. You are likely thinking of facts and constants as relevant only as science investigating behaviors. IOW, c is only applied as a behavior.

 

[LarryS]

I just found this doc - it's the kind of thinking I was looking for.

http://www.fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

 

[Belz...]

It could be that I'm not using the term behavior in the same way you are. You are likely thinking of facts and constants as relevant only as science investigating behaviors. IOW, c is only applied as a behavior.

I'm thinking of how particles and bodies act. That's behaviour.

 

[punshhh]

No. It is entirely correct.

So there is no difference between a person in a Pinocchio suit imitating Pinocchio and the puppet Pinocchio itself, in terms of their levels of consciousness?

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

As I said, you ignore the string of problems I have presented.

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

(Hurrah! You used the word may rather than is.) It depends on where the consciousness emerges, is it in the hardware, the computation, or the sensory apparatus. If it emerges in the hardware, it would only be conscious if the hardware in the mimic were bio-chemically equivalent to the person being mimicked.

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".

The computational effectiveness emerges out of the computation, not the hardware. As such any structure which provides effective computation is equivalent to any other computing device with the same capacity.

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

No, it is the default position until a non organic specimen is produced.

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

Perhaps, but I am addressing rational concerns. I am happy to repeat them, provided you address them.

 

[Nonpareil]

So there is no difference between a person in a Pinocchio suit imitating Pinocchio and the puppet Pinocchio itself, in terms of their levels of consciousness?

Of course there is.

Read my posts before replying.

As I said, you ignore the string of problems I have presented.

No. I have dismissed the string of problems you have presented, because they are not actually problems.

It depends on where the consciousness emerges, is it in the hardware, the computation, or the sensory apparatus.

It is neither the first nor the last*.

We have brains without consciousness; those in a vegetative state are not conscious.

We have consciousness without sensory apparatuses; those who are blind are conscious.

No, it is the default position until a non organic specimen is produced.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that your entire argument thus far has consisted of attempts to define away artificial intelligence as non-conscious precisely because it isn't organic, and the fact that there is still absolutely no evidence that organic life is a prerequisite for consciousness, "there is no other life anywhere in the universe" is not the default position just because we haven't yet made first contact.

Your position relies entirely upon rejecting all evidence in hand and saying "but you haven't really proven it yet". Well, no. We haven't technically proven that Earth isn't the only planet in the entire universe that hosts life of any sort.

But maintaining that it is doesn't show that you are skeptical. It shows that you are incredibly stubborn and unwilling to accept the conclusions offered by the evidence.

*: With the qualifier that the hardware must be capable of running the necessary calculations, through whatever means.