I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

I am using such a technique. It's called critical thinking and reason,

A sufficient critical thinking and reason is the result of the depth of one's awareness, and the deepest state of awareness is direct awareness of the simplest state of existence.

So critical thinking and reason actually improved by practicing techniques like TM.

Your critical thinking and reason explicitly exclude direct awareness of X and deal only with X behavior.

You call X "Matter" and X behavior "Matter's behavior".

The beautiful thing is that no matter what name you give to X (Matter, Spirit, Neutral etc.), you can't actually know its behavior without first directly know X, and then use it among all of its possible behaviors (expressions or manifestations).

Furthermore, your request for objective evidence is actually fulfilled only if you get things right from their substance, which is really independent of what you are thinking or reasoning about it.

Since your critical thinking and reason is done only at the level of X behavior, your awareness is always bounded by the naturally uncertain and ever changed aspect of existence, and it is never actually fulfilled (it is only about critical thinking and reason that can't deal with http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823#p269007).

More about direct awareness of X is given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10440785&postcount=1481.

 

[punshhh]

Blatant strawmanning doesn't help your case.

So puppets and mimics are straw? But how do you know they are not possible, i.e. such apparatus cannot be fabricated to produce all the behaviours of a self-conscious person?

And do it in the absence of;
1, self-consciousness?
2, the equivalent of human self-consciousness?

Simple, yes.

In reality the issue is not simple at all (unless you choose to adopt that position), I have barely started outlining the problems with such a simplistic approach.

No, it wouldn't. You are still running right up against the definition of "is" and trying to say "but it isn't really".

It looks like I am going to have to address your use of "is", I hope we can cover it without a derail, (or word games).

Self-consciousness is not a requirement even for humans. It simply is.

Yes, self-consciousness is not a requirement to be a human equivalent, such as in the analogy of Data (StarTrek), or a Pzombie.

Simply is? You are beginning to sound like an idealist. It simply occurs in the absence of any requirement for it. Yes I agree, it is a happy (or not) consequence of evolutionary forces. However in reality, as I have been pointing out, the precursors for self-consciousness have been present in organisms for a very long time in evolutionary terms and full self-conscious sentience is only a recent development, which capitalises on the existing metabolic life of the organism. Without which it could not occur*.

*This does not preclude other forms of self-consciousness being possible, including synthetic forms.

No. I get to that point and both machines are self-conscious.

You're the one who's desperately clinging to an incoherent concept.

Pardon? You have just agreed on the lack of a requirement for self-consciousness. In which case Pzombies are now rational. If this is the concept you are referring to?

You haven't actually pointed out any problem with it.

This is completely, utterly incorrect.

You are aware, surely, of the distinction between thinking which focuses on the semantic, logical nature of thought and its coherence etc, independent of the outside world (a) and the thinking which focuses on what there is, or may be, in the outside world (b)? ( I say this because there appears to be a blind spot to this distinction on these boards).

Your definition of "is" falls entirely within (a).

Toasters are not conscious.

And a machine with a rudimentary form of consciousness can be fashioned using similar devices.

...I really just had to say that.

well it's nice to hear you say it?

I fail to see how that is shooting myself in anything. If you want a perfect replica of a duck's consciousness, you find a duck. If you want a perfect replica of ENIAC, you find ENIAC.

But we aren't looking for a duck. We are looking for self-consciousness, which is a property that ducks have. Saying that something that is not a duck cannot have self-consciousness is idiotic.

An object exhibiting the behaviours (consciousness) of a duck, is not a duck, unless it was layed by a duck.

You have not given any reason to believe this is true, given that the concept has been pointed out to you multiple times as incoherent.

Perhaps it is time for you to show the incoherence of mimics and Pzombies?

And yet you have not actually ruled it out.

This is an exceptionally weak attempt to dodge the issue of observation, punshhh.

I was addressing someone else.
In reference to the issue of observation, I routinely explore different rational routes to an explanation, or understanding of something. Such as my approach in this case, along with others. Utilising parallel ideologies is a useful approach.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi punshhh

Try it around How would you decide if an AI is self-conscious? Answer that

 

[Nonpareil]

So puppets and mimics are straw? But how do you know they are not possible, i.e. such apparatus cannot be fabricated to produce all the behaviours of a self-conscious person?

No, puppets are not conscious. I have never maintained otherwise. Technically speaking, yes, you could rig something together that could produce consciousness out of wood and straw, the same way that you could do it with pulleys, given perfect knowledge of how to set up sensory apparatuses and the like, but I very much doubt that you were talking about that.

And do it in the absence of;
1, self-consciousness?

That concept remains incoherent.

2, the equivalent of human self-consciousness?

Human self-consciousness is not the only type of self-consciousness.

In reality the issue is not simple at all (unless you choose to adopt that position), I have barely started outlining the problems with such a simplistic approach.

No, you haven't. You have gone quite a ways into outlining a series of issues that illustrate the fact that you do not actually understand the argument being made.

Yes, self-consciousness is not a requirement to be a human equivalent

Your point?

Simply is? You are beginning to sound like an idealist.

If you say so.

It simply occurs in the absence of any requirement for it. Yes I agree, it is a happy (or not) consequence of evolutionary forces. However in reality, as I have been pointing out, the precursors for self-consciousness have been present in organisms for a very long time in evolutionary terms and full self-conscious sentience is only a recent development, which capitalises on the existing metabolic life of the organism.

And now you are playing word games again. This time, it's with the word "requirement".

Stop trying to score points and address the actual arguments.

Pardon? You have just agreed on the lack of a requirement for self-consciousness. In which case Pzombies are now rational.

No, they aren't.

Not all humans are self-conscious. Again, we know of humans in a vegetative state. Thus, being self-conscious is not a prerequisite for being human.

This in no way alters anything else that I have said.

You are aware, surely, of the distinction between thinking which focuses on the semantic, logical nature of thought and its coherence etc, independent of the outside world (a) and the thinking which focuses on what there is, or may be, in the outside world (b)? ( I say this because there appears to be a blind spot to this distinction on these boards).

Your definition of "is" falls entirely within (a).

No, it doesn't.

Because (b) fails entirely as soon as you have any coherent definition of "is". Otherwise, you are stuck with solipsism - again - which I have addressed repeatedly throughout this thread.

An object exhibiting the behaviours (consciousness) of a duck

Behaviors and consciousness are not equivalent. Consciousness is a type of behavior. It is not all behavior.

Perhaps it is time for you to show the incoherence of mimics and Pzombies?

The definition is self-contradictory.

We've been over this.

 

[Myriad]

@doronshadmi

Critical thinking and reason and the scientific method are ways of overcoming the limitations of direct experience.

Direct experience (both ordinary experience, and the extraordinary experiences sought and practiced my mystics for millennia) tell us that the sun travels in an arc over the stationary earth. It took critical thinking, reasoning, and the collection and evaluation of evidence beyond direct individual experience (such as what Venus looks like through a telescope, or how long the shadows are in two different cities at the same time) to figure out otherwise, that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun.

Direct experience (both ordinary experience, and the extraordinary experiences sought and practiced my mystics for millennia) tell us that when we hear speaking, it's because something is talking to us, even if the thing speaking is invisible (as a spirit or demon might be) and the voice seems to be coming from inside our own heads. It took critical thinking, reasoning, and the collection and evaluation of evidence beyond direct individual experience (such as comparison of written records of cases from different centuries and countries, pharmaceutical studies, and brain scanning instruments) to figure out otherwise, that diseased, damaged, or stressed conditions in the brain can cause people to perceive thoughts or voices that their own brains generate, as if they were external.

The lesson is, direct experience is unreliable for determining the nature of the world. Direct experience can lead to prejudices, superstitions, mistaken certainty, misjudgments, and disastrously poor solutions to problems (e.g. exorcism or execution for mental illness).

You (or at least, one of the TM videos that you've posted repeatedly) are advocating that the entire structure of modern physics, derived via extensive collaborative experimentation, be disregarded in favor of a certain form of direct experience of the fundamental nature of reality. Is that direct experience any more accurate about reality than the direct experience of seeing the sun rise up over the earth? You have no way to know. Yet on that basis you would replace a hundred years of physics research with, literally, an empty triangle. Not with a better theory that explains better or more clearly, but with a few words of ad copy that says "this is better than physics." Even if the current theoretical models of fundamental physics are wrong, that exchange would be just plain foolish.

I'm one of the biggest critics here of rationalists' tendencies to regard direct experience as unimportant. I think it's very important; ultimately it's all we have of the world. All pain is "only in your head." Aspects of direct experience matter a lot, especially in social interactions within and between communities. When the subject comes up, I try to point out that praying to a God that doesn't actually exist "just because it makes you feel better" actually makes perfect sense, if it does indeed make you feel better. If what you do makes you feel better, and you think it would make others feel better, then go ahead and promote those benefits.

But when you piss all over everybody else's experiences and understandings, by arguing that your own direct experiences are the only valid ones, then you're doing the same thing you're accusing rationalists of doing. You might have experienced a lifetime of TM practices which others have not, but many here have experienced a lifetime of critical thinking practices which you have not. It's arrogant and unseemly to claim that your answers are better.

 

[doronshadmi]

Consciousness is a type of behavior.

This is the variant aspect of consciousness, known in terms of behavior.

It is not all behavior.

Because consciousness in itself is direct awareness of the simplest form of existence, which is the invariant substance of all possible behaviors, which are naturally variant (bonded expressions of the unbounded and non-composed simplest state of existence), as addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10446239&postcount=1601.

 

[Belz...]

A sufficient critical thinking and reason is the result of the depth of one's awareness, and the deepest state of awareness is direct awareness of the simplest state of existence.

Blah blah blah. Your claim is unevidenced. Any claim you make based on it are worthless.

Prove your claim yourself or admit that you can't.

You lose.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, I know you think reality is nonsense.

I'm fully aware of the particle-wave duality.

The resolution is that they are waves all the time, just under higher energy interactions teh cross section of interaction become more constrained.

 

[Nonpareil]

Because consciousness in itself is direct awareness of the simplest form of existence, which is the invariant substance of all possible behaviors, which are naturally variant (bonded expressions of the unbounded and non-composed simplest state of existence).

I'm still waiting on that dressing. Service in this thread is terrible.

 

[doronshadmi]

Blah blah blah.

Yes, this is exactly the level of awareness (yours, in this case) that gets existence only in terms of behaviors, where one form of behavior is talking about X, without actually directly be aware of it as the simplest state of existence, which is really independent of any Blah blah blah (talking or thinking) about it.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm still waiting on that dressing. Service in this thread is terrible.

It is about time to serve yourself, because no one can be directly be aware of the simplest state of existence for you.

Currently Belz... and Nonpareil are looking for somebody else to directly be aware of it for them.

It will never happen, yet they are seating and waiting and waiting ... and blah blah blah about it.

 

[doronshadmi]

@doronshadmi

Critical thinking and reason and the scientific method are ways of overcoming the limitations of direct experience.

Critical thinking and reason and the scientific method are results of the simplest state of existence, which is not known by senses or thoughts, that are both its variant expressions.

But when you piss all over everybody else's experiences and understandings, by arguing that your own direct experiences are the only valid ones

This is the beautiful thing of directly be aware of the simplest state of existence, it is non-personal (it is exactly the same thing in itself that simply can't be geocentric, personal, or any kind of boundedness).

Since you are currently only aware about it, you wrongly get it terms of personal experience.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10440785&postcount=1481.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, this is exactly the level of awareness (yours, in this case) that gets existence only in terms of behaviors, where one form of behavior is talking about X, without actually directly be aware of it as the simplest state of existence, which is really independent of any Blah blah blah (talking or thinking) about it.

I see your response to my request remains 'no, I won't prove it'.

Currently Belz... and Nonpareil are looking for somebody else to be aware of it for them.

The disconnect here is that despite all we've told you, you still think that introspection is the best way to gather knowledge. We've tried that, Doron, for thousands of years, and it didn't work. It led us to silly conclusions like geocentrism and gods that made lightning. It's only by fighting against introspection with other methods that we have been able to progress. Your suggestion is literally the worst you could find.

 

[LarryS]

Punshhh, I think you and I suffer the same 'malaise', we have not fully made the leap to a Materialist POV. In a Materialist POV, consciousness is a physical process, or the result of one, and that physical process or behavior IS consciousness. Our malaise is thinking that the behavior is a proxy for consciousness - and therefore it can be mimicked.
Or perhaps we accept Materialism, but have remaining vestiges of a form of Dualism, that is, perhaps consciousness is a product of a material process, but then there sits consciousness in our brains, in the background and watching the show. But there is no consciousness AND something to look at, there is only the behavior of being conscious of something.
So either get yourself fixed or get out of this forum now while you still can.

 

[Nonpareil]

Punshhh, I think you and I suffer the same 'malaise', we have not fully made the leap to a Materialist POV. In a Materialist POV, consciousness is a physical process, or the result of one, and that physical process or behavior IS consciousness. Our malaise is thinking that the behavior is a proxy for consciousness - and therefore it can be mimicked.

Of course it can be mimicked. The problem arises when you claim that a perfect mimic could exist while, somehow, not being actually conscious.

It's an extremely simple thing. If something acts, in every way, exactly like it is conscious, it is conscious. If something acts, in every way, exactly like it weighs five pounds, it weighs five pounds. If someone acts, in every way, exactly like they are happy, they are happy.

If something acts exactly as though it has property X, it has property X. To maintain that it doesn't - such as for the p-zombie concept - is incoherent, because that is what we mean when we say "it has property X".

This is not hard. This is not complicated. It is not a matter of whether you are a materialist, or an idealist, or a dualist, or anything else (though its end result is that positions like solipsism crumble under the weight of their own incoherence). It does not depend on how you define "consciousness".

It is just what "is" means.

 

[doronshadmi]

We've tried that, Doron, for thousands of years, and it didn't work.

Direct awareness of the simplest state of existence has nothing to do with beliefs, thoughts, or any kind of behavior or personal opinions, which are always about it, but never actually it.

More details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10446443&postcount=1612.

 

[Belz...]

Direct awareness of the simplest state of existence has nothing to do with beliefs, thoughts, or any kind of behavior or personal opinions

It has everything to do with it, since it is a personal experience.

 

[doronshadmi]

It has everything to do with it, since it is a personal experience.

Direct awareness of the simplest stat of existence can't be but non-personal.

This is exactly the reason of why it is the substance of all bounded expressions, including personal experiences.

As long as you aware of it as personal experience, you are only aware about it, exactly as how you experience right know, by your own personal evidence (as equated above).

 

[Belz...]

Direct awareness of the simplest stat of existence can't be but non-personal.

If that were true you wouldn't be asking me to meditate on it, would you ?

 

[tsig]

Punshhh, I think you and I suffer the same 'malaise', we have not fully made the leap to a Materialist POV. In a Materialist POV, consciousness is a physical process, or the result of one, and that physical process or behavior IS consciousness. Our malaise is thinking that the behavior is a proxy for consciousness - and therefore it can be mimicked.
Or perhaps we accept Materialism, but have remaining vestiges of a form of Dualism, that is, perhaps consciousness is a product of a material process, but then there sits consciousness in our brains, in the background and watching the show. But there is no consciousness AND something to look at, there is only the behavior of being conscious of something.
So either get yourself fixed or get out of this forum now while you still can.

I looked for an alternative to the Materialist POV for a long time but no matter where I looked I couldn't find anything else going on in the brain other than electro chemical reactions so my conclusion is that consciousness is an emergent property of EC reactions in the brain.