I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Dancing David]

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

Wow you must have the vaguest definition of self conscious behaviors ever!

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Then how do you know you aren't just mimicking self consciousness?

 

[Dancing David]

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 a terrible choice the replicants in BladeRunner are not automata, they are biological constructs.

Um, I doubt you can actually say what makes you think that you are conscious.

Do you dislike the medical definition of consciousness.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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.

Yes, that is it.

 

[LarryS]

and we have to take the Materialist POV to its logical conclusion, there is no such process of consciousness, there are only conscious of x, conscious of y, conscious of z . . .

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
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.

Any sufficiently advanced woo is indistinguishable from...well, woo.

 

[Myriad]

Critical thinking and reason and the scientific method are results of the simplest state of existence, ...

So what? If there is such a thing as the simplest state of existence, then by definition everything must be the results of it or a variant expression of it. Otherwise, it either wouldn't be a complete state of existence or it wouldn't be the simplest.

"Everything" must include every experience and every practice, including your own. That does not give your own preferred narratives, practices, or experiences any special status.

... which is not known by senses or thoughts, that are both its variant expressions.

Then it can't be known by TM or any other practice or activity, because those must also be its variant expressions.

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.

This claim that everyone else gets it wrong, that you have the real truth and everything that disagrees is corruption or falsehood, is no different than claims by fundamentalist Christians, intolerant Muslims, devoted Scientologists, extremist Mormons, and crazy people ranting on subway platforms. They all claim their respective narratives and experiences reveal the only true nature of the universe, and their claims are as well-supported as yours. You have your guiding texts and experiences; they have theirs.

That you do not seem to be sufficiently self-aware to realize this does not speak well for the accuracy or usefulness of your revelations, just as it does not speak well for theirs.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

and we have to take the Materialist POV to its logical conclusion, there is no such process of consciousness, there are only conscious of x, conscious of y, conscious of z . . .

Well, no, consciousness as a process is epiphenomenal. I.e. you as a mind don't have a body, but a body has a process of consciousness and can use an I as word for computational self-reference.
So there is a physical process, which causes consciousness, but consciousness itself doesn't cause anything.

 

[Dancing David]

It's like porn. Can't define but know what it is.

Porn is easy, you stop looking at it after you have your jollies.

 

[LarryS]

Well, no, consciousness as a process is epiphenomenal. I.e. you as a mind don't have a body, but a body has a process of consciousness and can use an I as word for computational self-reference.
So there is a physical process, which causes consciousness, but consciousness itself doesn't cause anything.

are you implying the "I" or subject is only inferred and not given?

 

[Dancing David]

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.

You don't have to be a materialist, naturalism is much simpler.

 

[punshhh]

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.

A puppet can be a mimic, a computer can be a synthetic puppet and mimic. A computer can mimic a brain, it really is that simple.

Especially if the requirement for consciousness is computation. If this level of computation can be mimicked*, it is all that is required to replicate all the behaviours of self-consciousness.

*as I have already pointed out, all that is required to mimic advanced self-conscious behaviour is a rudimentary level of consciousness, or referential processes, programmed in such a way as to replicate all self-conscious processes.

That concept remains incoherent.

Self-consciousness is a special case, it does not need to be fully defined to be known or understood. It just requires some (b) type thinking.

Self-consciousness is a phenomena we can know and discuss while not fully understanding or defining it ((a) type thinking).

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

Agreed.

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.

They illustrate the assumption you have made in dismissing them.

Your point?

It is possible to produce AI, for example, which can perform all behaviours of a self-conscious human, while not being self-conscious.

If you say so.

Your self-conscious construct just is conscious, even when it can perform all behaviours required without it. This form of consciousness is just the icing on the cake, a gift, magic. It is so simple you just make a computer or some other AI device of a certain complexity and it just is self-conscious. I'm learning the mantra now.

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

what about the word necessity, necessary?

No, they aren't.

They don't need (it's not necessary for them) to be self-conscious to be human equivalent, only conscious.

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 is irrelevant, they are not self-conscious because their brain is not functioning correctly. Even if one is proposing a soul, it would just be in a dormant state in such a person.

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

If you say so.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does because we cannot know what anything is, so when we say that something is so and so, we are dictating* a reality which we cannot know with certainty.

* anything we do know about that reality is seen through the prism of the human mind and condition. So we are dictating a reality coloured by human bias and current understanding.

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.

You are saying that the world outside the mind cannot be represented and discussed, in the absence of scientific knowledge. All that is required to proceed is to replace the word "is" with the word "may".

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

The conscious behaviors of a duck are its consciousness.

The definition is self-contradictory.

We've been over this.

So the way it goes is this then, for a Pzombie to have property x it is x. So it can't also be in the absence of x while having the property of x and this is incoherent?

 

[LarryS]

A puppet can be a mimic, a computer can be a synthetic puppet and mimic. A computer can mimic a brain, it really is that simple.

Especially if the requirement for consciousness is computation. If this level of computation can be mimicked*, it is all that is required to replicate all the behaviours of self-consciousness.

*as I have already pointed out, all that is required to mimic advanced self-conscious behaviour is a rudimentary level of consciousness, or referential processes, programmed in such a way as to replicate all self-conscious processes.

If a biological entity or machine can successfully mimic the behavior of self-consciousness, then one's behavioral requirements of self-consciousness are not rigorous enough.
or
one has to take the position that self-consciousness is not the function of material bodies or immaterial minds. And, awareness can not be a function of anything and is just what is is. Furthermore, one would have to take the position that no one has shown how anything material can be aware of anything, except to suggest that awareness is a behavior of material processes, without explaining how a process can be aware of anything.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

are you implying the "I" or subject is only inferred and not given?

What do you mean by not given?

 

[Nonpareil]

Especially if the requirement for consciousness is computation. If this level of computation can be mimicked*, it is all that is required to replicate all the behaviours of self-consciousness.

*as I have already pointed out, all that is required to mimic advanced self-conscious behaviour is a rudimentary level of consciousness, or referential processes, programmed in such a way as to replicate all self-conscious processes.

Yes.

In which case, it is self-conscious.

Self-consciousness is a special case, it does not need to be fully defined to be known or understood. It just requires some (b) type thinking.

So you're not only committing the special pleading fallacy, you are cognizant of this fact and proud of it.

Good for you.

It is possible to produce AI, for example, which can perform all behaviours of a self-conscious human, while not being self-conscious.

No, it isn't.

Because it would be self-conscious.

They don't need (it's not necessary for them) to be self-conscious to be human equivalent, only conscious.

You keep trying to make some sort of differentiation there.

Define it.

This is irrelevant, they are not self-conscious because their brain is not functioning correctly.

Which doesn't change the fact that not all humans are self-conscious.

And that is entirely relevant. You even said why it is entirely relevant. Alter the brain, alter the computation, alter consciousness.

EYes it does because we cannot know what anything is, so when we say that something is so and so, we are dictating* a reality which we cannot know with certainty.

We've been over this.

Solipsism is not just a useless philosophy, it is an incoherent philosophy, because the universe acts exactly in every way as though it has objective existence. Thus, it has objective existence.

It is the same issue as the p-zombie problem. And, again, this is not a matter of what philosophies you do or do not embrace. It is a simple matter of definition.

You are saying that the world outside the mind cannot be represented and discussed, in the absence of scientific knowledge. All that is required to proceed is to replace the word "is" with the word "may".

Well, let's see.

This object reflects light with a wavelength of roughly four hundred and seventy five nanometers. It behaves exactly as though it is blue. Thus, it may be blue.

Technically a valid statement, but it doesn't really get you anywhere. You still have the same problem: the answer to your "may be" is "yes, it is, because that's what blue means".

So the way it goes is this then, for a Pzombie to have property x it is x. So it can't also be in the absence of x while having the property of x and this is incoherent?

Yes. "X AND ~X" is an incoherent statement, and a p-zombie is an entity that is defined as "X AND ~X". Thus, it is incoherent. That is all.

It boggles me that it has taken several pages to get this far.

If a biological entity or machine can successfully mimic the behavior of self-consciousness, then one's behavioral requirements of self-consciousness are not rigorous enough.

Or, hear me out on this, it's just possible that it might be self-conscious.

 

[doronshadmi]

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

The non-personality of the simplest state of existence is directly known only by practicing techniques that actually enable to directly be aware of its unbounded, non-composed, absolutely invariant and non-personal nature.

Actual direct awareness of it is not achieved as long as one's awareness is bounded by the composed expressions (behaviors) that appear from and disappear into the simplest state of existence.

 

[punshhh]

If a biological entity or machine can successfully mimic the behavior of self-consciousness, then one's behavioral requirements of self-consciousness are not rigorous enough.

If this is the case then the more rigorous approach would have to begin to including some of the behaviours, or inputs of specific biological organs in the body of the subject. To model enzyme and hormonal variation and perhaps even certain metabolic conditions.

or
one has to take the position that self-consciousness is not the function of material bodies or immaterial minds. And, awareness can not be a function of anything and is just what is is. Furthermore, one would have to take the position that no one has shown how anything material can be aware of anything, except to suggest that awareness is a behavior of material processes, without explaining how a process can be aware of anything.

Yes, there is an assumption that physical material if performing a certain process magically becomes conscious. We could make a fully self conscious machine, while not being able to find which cog or wire is actually conscious, only the whole thing is conscious and that consciousness is a ghost in the machine. Of course the machine can function perfectly without the ghost, we could just ignore it, or say it is the machine. But of course this would be incoherent.

 

[punshhh]

Then how do you know you aren't just mimicking self consciousness?

Because I know I am self-conscious, this does not rule out the possibility that I am mistaken, that the experience I have of be-ing is a construct, or illusory, or that the reality is entirely inconcievable to me.

 

[punshhh]

That is a terrible choice the replicants in BladeRunner are not automata, they are biological constructs.

Yes it may confuse the issue, I think the point still holds because the entity of the android is a human construct.

Um, I doubt you can actually say what makes you think that you are conscious.

Well I am of the opinion that it is possible to know things independently of thought. Only if they are aspects of or accessed via direct personal experience. For example I know that something exists and that I consist of this something, indeed I am very familiar with it what ever it is.

Do you dislike the medical definition of consciousness.

Not particularly, I do as I have pointed out divide consciousness into two distinct categories, basic consciousness, and self-conscious awareness.

 

[doronshadmi]

So what? If there is such a thing as the simplest state of existence, then by definition everything must be the results of it or a variant expression of it. Otherwise, it either wouldn't be a complete state of existence or it wouldn't be the simplest.

"Everything" must include every experience and every practice, including your own. That does not give your own preferred narratives, practices, or experiences any special status.

Techniques that enable to directly be aware of the simplest state of existence to, naturally transcend the all possible special (and therefore bounded) expressions (or behaviors) of it.

Then it can't be known by TM or any other practice or activity, because those must also be its variant expressions.

TM is a concrete example of a technique that actually enables one's awareness to transcend all possible activities, personal points of view, or special (and therefore bounded) expressions (or behaviors), in order to directly be aware of the simplest state of existence, which is absolutely invariant (it is not changed by all possible space\time phenomena).

This claim that everyone else gets it wrong, that you have the real truth and everything that disagrees is corruption or falsehood, is no different than claims by fundamentalist Christians, intolerant Muslims, devoted Scientologists, extremist Mormons, and crazy people ranting on subway platforms. They all claim their respective narratives and experiences reveal the only true nature of the universe, and their claims are as well-supported as yours. You have your guiding texts and experiences; they have theirs.

Direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is not right or wrong true or false, a kind of claim, belief, personal experience, agreed reasoning+researches' results among personal experiences (persons) including their measurements' tools (which are no more than agents of persons) etc.

As long as direct awareness of the simplest state of existence is not the invariant substance in daily life, science has no chance to fulfill itself by help us in order to be developed into harmonious factors among space\time phenomena.

This is exactly the reason of why techniques like TM must not have properties of any movement, and they have to be researched and developed by expending the abilities of Science itself right from its simplest substance, which is naturally non-personal.

That you do not seem to be sufficiently self-aware to realize this does not speak well for the accuracy or usefulness of your revelations, just as it does not speak well for theirs.

The simplest state of existence is the substance of all bounded expressions that constantly appear from and disappear into it by different space\time scales (from virtual-particles to entire universes).

Creatures like us have the needed complexity, diversity and self-recurrence ability in order to directly be aware of the simplest state of existence (as very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10440785&postcount=1481).

Moreover, you continue to miss the fact that diversity (subjective or objective) and self-recurrence are must have conditions for creatures like us, in order to actually be aware of their simplest substance.