Materialists......

[Belz...]

You are talking about internal access. We all know we can do this. The debate is about external access. This we cannot do, for the reasons explained better by chulbert than by myself.

Yes, his post was very interesting.

But going back to my original point about a "machine" that could read minds, it owuld still be feasable, so long as the entire brain was accessible, since the whole context would be there anyway.

 

[Belz...]

Arguing like this is pointless, because you guys simply STATE that you are correct without providing any form of reasoning to support it.

You don't know enough to argue. Kindergarten is in a different thread.

Thanks for confirming my point.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, his post was very interesting.

But going back to my original point about a "machine" that could read minds, it owuld still be feasable, so long as the entire brain was accessible, since the whole context would be there anyway.

No, it wouldn't. All you can do is copy the whole brain, and this is no use if you want to transfer parts of the data to a different brain.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, it wouldn't. All you can do is copy the whole brain, and this is no use if you want to transfer parts of the data to a different brain.

If there is a method (assume there is for the sake of argument) for the data stored in the neural net of the brain to get to the output, then that method can be viewed as a black box. On what do you(1) base the claim that it is not possible to reproduce that black box outside of the brain and use it on the same data source?

(1) ETA

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I see. Since you can't say what other necessary conditions there are I'll have to conclude that brains are in fact sufficient for minds.

So why do you think then that brains are necessary but not sufficient conditions for minds to exist?

Because I have no other way of explaining the existence of subjectivity. The link between brain and mind appears to be contingent rather than neccesary - there doesn't appear to be any logical reason why minds accompany brain processes. It is just a contingent fact. Brains only explain the content of mind, not the existence of mind. So you need something else to explain why minds exist. Whatever that something else is, that is the extra condition.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If there is a method (assume there is for the sake of argument) for the data stored in the neural net of the brain to get to the output, then that method can be viewed as a black box.

The whole net is the black box.

On what do you(1) base the claim that it is not possible to reproduce that black box outside of the brain and use it on the same data source?

(1) ETA

I haven't claimed that. You can reproduce the whole net and use it on the same data source. I am not ruling out the possibility that you can perfectly model a brain in something resembling a neural net A.I., either. The only thing I am ruling out is that such a thing would have a mind.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The whole net is the black box.



I haven't claimed that. You can reproduce the whole net and use it on the same data source. I am not ruling out the possibility that you can perfectly model a brain in something resembling a neural net A.I., either. The only thing I am ruling out is that such a thing would have a mind.

On what ground can you rule it out? Because it doesn't have a "soul"?

You won't even define what "a mind" is other than by using adjectives, so how can we evaluate your above statements?

 

[DreadNiK]

The whole net is the black box.
I haven't claimed that. You can reproduce the whole net and use it on the same data source. I am not ruling out the possibility that you can perfectly model a brain in something resembling a neural net A.I., either. The only thing I am ruling out is that such a thing would have a mind.

And how would you go about proving whether something is 'minded' or not?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And how would you go about proving whether something is 'minded' or not?

Empirically? I couldn't, not even theoretically. The Turing Test doesn't cut it, because it is itself critically dependent on a subjective human judgement ("Do I believe this is a human?"), and there's no other way of doing it. The fact that the machine couldn't be concious and the fact that we couldn't empirically determine it, even if it was, are linked. But the real problem here is there is a level of abstraction missing. In the case of the brain itself, the connections are manifest at the physical level of reality. In the case of the A.I. copy, those connections are merely virtual - so there is a fundamental difference between the two. The only way you could create an artificial consciousness is by copying the brain itself - by actually making another physical brain.

 

[.13.]

Because I have no other way of explaining the existence of subjectivity. The link between brain and mind appears to be contingent rather than neccesary - there doesn't appear to be any logical reason why minds accompany brain processes. It is just a contingent fact. Brains only explain the content of mind, not the existence of mind. So you need something else to explain why minds exist. Whatever that something else is, that is the extra condition.

So there just has to be something but you don't know what that is?

I'm not just going to take your word for it though.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So there just has to be something but you don't know what that is?

Not exactly. But an explanation would require a post the length of a short history of philosophy.

I'm not just going to take your word for it though.

Nobody takes Heidegger's or Wittgenstein's word for it either.

 

[Tricky]

LOL indeed. Evidence?

Hey, you were the one who used the word "prove". I'm assuming you think it is possible since you asked me to do it.

No it isn't, and that you would think so demonstrates, again, how far out of your depth you are in this thread.

Gosh, I asked for a list of characteristics of consciousness or thinking and that was the only one you gave me. I can't get any deeper when all you provide me is a blow-up wading pool for kiddies.

I choose to believe, and act, as if I have actual "free-will". I have no interest in "proving" anything about this subject to you. Go read a book; google some; something.

Well, you know, I also believe and act that way. But you were the one who brought up free-will too, seemingly to support the notion that a machine could not be conscious or thinking. Why do you keep suggesting these topics if you don't know how to defend them?

More meaningless babble.

Actually it's far too weighty for folks like you. Return to your navel contemplation.

Tricky, you couldn't buy a clue. Why not go crap elsewhere on something else you don't understand, and have no interest in learning about.

'Cause I wuv you Hammy. Even if you couldn't win a debate with a sleeping Raelian, you at least have the faintest hope of being decent at flaming. I respect you, if only for that.

 

[chriswl]

In the case of the brain itself, the connections are manifest at the physical level of reality. In the case of the A.I. copy, those connections are merely virtual - so there is a fundamental difference between the two. The only way you could create an artificial consciousness is by copying the brain itself - by actually making another physical brain.

You've no way of knowing that. I understand that it would be hard to claim that an exact physical copy of a brain was not conscious. But on what grounds do you "rule out" the possibility that a virtual brain isn't conscious?

 

[hammegk]

Hey, you were the one who used the word "prove". I'm assuming you think it is possible since you asked me to do it.

Nuance as usual eludes you.

Gosh, I asked for a list of characteristics of consciousness or thinking and that was the only one you gave me. I can't get any deeper when all you provide me is a blow-up wading pool for kiddies.

I try to educate myself. You can worry about you. You are already in water way over your head.

Well, you know, I also believe and act that way. But you were the one who brought up free-will too, seemingly to support the notion that a machine could not be conscious or thinking. Why do you keep suggesting these topics if you don't know how to defend them?

Actually it's far too weighty for folks like you. Return to your navel contemplation.

If you believe your pap above contains topics of merit, start a thread, please. Your puerile and inane comments offer nothing in this one. TTFN.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The information encoded within a neural net is distributed over the entire network. It is impossible to decode it at all. All you can do is observe the behaviour of the network and infer from this behaviour what sort of data it has encoded. But it is quite impossible to say exactly how or where that information is within the network because it is represented holisitically. None of it means anything in isolation from its relationship with the rest of the network, so you cannot retrieve anything at all from it unless you "ask" the entire network at the same time!

As long as you put the word "ask" in quotes, then I agree. In order to extract information from a neural net, you do need to analyze it as a whole. As far as the brain is concerned, however, I doubt that we have to analyze the entire thing to determine an answer. It's a big pile of somewhat loosely interconnected nets.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

Nuance as usual eludes you.

I try to educate myself. You can worry about you. You are already in water way over your head.

If you believe your pap above contains topics of merit, start a thread, please. Your puerile and inane comments offer nothing in this one. TTFN.

I admit I was wrong about you, Hammy. You're not really very good at insults either.

 

[nescafe]

Why do you consider it only applicable to "one human"?

What, all those others? Figments of my imagination, here to keep me from getting bored. At least this dialog with myself is somewhat amusing.

Anyways, so much for solipsism. It is complete (only three axioms, so easy to remember), consistent (um, I must have wanted it to be that way), and unfalsifiable (I can explain anything!).

 

[nescafe]

Empirically? I couldn't, not even theoretically. The Turing Test doesn't cut it, because it is itself critically dependent on a subjective human judgement ("Do I believe this is a human?"), and there's no other way of doing it. The fact that the machine couldn't be concious and the fact that we couldn't empirically determine it, even if it was, are linked. But the real problem here is there is a level of abstraction missing. In the case of the brain itself, the connections are manifest at the physical level of reality. In the case of the A.I. copy, those connections are merely virtual - so there is a fundamental difference between the two. The only way you could create an artificial consciousness is by copying the brain itself - by actually making another physical brain.

hmmm...

• Machines cannot be conscious.
• Brains are meat machines.
• Brains cannot be conscious.

All well and good so far...

• Brains cannot be conscious.
• I am conscious.
• My consciousness is not my brain.

We probably agree so far...

Either

1. My consciousness exists because it is what my brain does, or
2. My consciousness is attributable to the interaction between my brain and something else, or
3. My brain exists because I need something to explain my consciousness, or
4. Something even more bizzare and inexplicable than the above

If 1, then why should it matter whether or not the brain that gave rise to that conscoiusness was an actual physical brain or just a perfect simualtion of a brain (ignoring for now that such a simulation would probably be too slow to be useful)?

If 2, then what is that other thing, and why can't we detect it and model it to the point where 1 becomes an option again?

If 3, then why do we even mess around with all this newfangled methodological naturalism when all we have to do is Think Different (r)?

If 4, well, I have no question for that. If it is the Obvious Answer, mabye you can explain why?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

As long as you put the word "ask" in quotes, then I agree. In order to extract information from a neural net, you do need to analyze it as a whole. As far as the brain is concerned, however, I doubt that we have to analyze the entire thing to determine an answer. It's a big pile of somewhat loosely interconnected nets.

~~ Paul

That makes it even harder, not easier.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Either

1. My consciousness exists because it is what my brain does, or
2. My consciousness is attributable to the interaction between my brain and something else, or
3. My brain exists because I need something to explain my consciousness, or
4. Something even more bizzare and inexplicable than the above

If 1, then why should it matter whether or not the brain that gave rise to that conscoiusness was an actual physical brain or just a perfect simualtion of a brain (ignoring for now that such a simulation would probably be too slow to be useful)?

If 2, then what is that other thing, and why can't we detect it and model it to the point where 1 becomes an option again?

If 3, then why do we even mess around with all this newfangled methodological naturalism when all we have to do is Think Different (r)?

If 4, well, I have no question for that. If it is the Obvious Answer, mabye you can explain why?

It's 4. You are looking for solutions which preserve your current understanding of "material". The correct explanation for consciousness requires the correct understanding of what matter is. It is this which must change.