• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

On Consciousness

Is consciousness physical or metaphysical?


  • Total voters
    94
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consciousness - not defined enough to argue over. I'm inclined to consider it a notion akin to 'the soul'.

I think that's a key factor of some people's anti-computationalist positions. They are protecting their belief in their immortal souls. If they buy it that consciousness is just information processing in a physical brain, it takes away their faith in the afterlife.

I'm not suggesting EVERY anti-computationalist is letting protecting their faith in the afterlife drive their arguments, but it explains well the mean spirited tone in some of their postings.

I'm not as closed minded as I seem. I'm willing to consider evidence for the soul, if anyone could produce any.

If you think a soul is required for consciousness, then just say so, will you?
 
Last edited:
Do you remember my initial objection?

I don't, sorry.

You may be able to simulate consciousness, but have you actually created a new individual instance of consciousness? Or an elaborate puppet on a string?

How will you tell the difference? If your puppet acts exactly as if it is conscious, how can you claim it isn't?

All the justifications put forward for simulated consciousness are not addressing consciousness at all, but rather intelligence.

How do you define the difference?

Are you now saying that intelligence beyond a certain point of complexity requires consciousness as a constituent part?

I don't know what Pixy says, but I say they are two sides of the same coin; they are proportional. If we look at the intelligent creatures on this planet, it appears that the more intelligence, the more signs of consciousness.

Hans
 
I think that's a key factor of some people's anti-computationalist positions. They are protecting their belief in their immortal souls. If they buy it that consciousness is just information processing in a physical brain, it takes away their faith in the afterlife.

I'm not suggesting EVERY anti-computationalist is letting protecting their faith in the afterlife drive their arguments, but it explains well the mean spirited tone in some of their postings.

I'm not as closed minded as I seem. I'm willing to consider evidence for the soul, if anyone could produce any.

If you think a soul is required for consciousness, then just say so, will you?

What the heck is an anti-computationalist?

Define soul?
 
If the simulation is capable of doing the same things as a brain (ie. complex intelligence), then it is a "replica brain".

And where is the complex intelligence? on the screen, in an attached camera lens or in a component attached somewhere round the back of the simulator marked "replica brain"?
Does it somehow dwell in all three?
Or is it located in a virtual world which is in no exact location in the physical world?
 
So, the question is, would you want a computer that is only as good as another human being at understanding you? I'm guessing that the answer would be no, and that this would prevent people from actually thinking along the lines of making a conscious machine.

Your argument sort of ignores the video game industry, though.

Are you aware of just how much cash is flowing through that industry these days?
 
I see so mathematical models run on a computer are what we should judge AI progress by?
No, I expect to judge AI progress on how long it takes my pencil to spontaneously declare "I think therefore I am"!
:rolleyes:



Seriously: A.I. is a class of mathematical computer models. We can't simulate consciousness, yet. But, we can estimate the boundries of what they can achieve with other types of models.

We know from studying evolution, that the emergence of altruistic behavior is more fundamental than conciousness, not the other way around. So, we get to understand the circumstances by which altruism survives and thrives or dwindles and fails, without needing a truly conscious system to do it.

Our estimates could be wrong. Perhaps Strong A.I. would work so differently from natural intelligence, that some of these early models of altruism won't apply. But, it's unlikely.
 
Last edited:
I think that is the same as option #1, with the proviso that current general purpose computers are not adequate for the task.

I voted #1, on the premise that a computer will probably some day be built which is adequate for the task.

I doubt there will be any change in what computers can do, only in processing speed and storage capacity. Even "quantum computing", if it ever becomes practical, will not change the functionality of computers. So your premise only makes sense if you think speed of operation is a necessary component of consciousness, enormous amounts of storage will be needed (more than is currently available), or some sort of data processing machine will be invented that can evaluate noncomputable functions.

I would say we could do it now if we knew how, it would require a lot of storage, and the result would be too slow to be of any interest.
 
Q: How is a computer-simulated conscious brain NOT like computer-simulated photosynthesis?

A: The brain and a conscious computer both output the same thing: control signals for the body.

Computers routinely output control signals to animal and mechanical bodies. We can do this already.

Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?


:boggled::eye-poppi:eek::mad::confused::D

One day, when you figure out the answer to this question, you will look back at your mindset now and realize how childish and naive you were.

In the meantime I suggest you consider the words at minutes 52:15 to 52:30 in this video

Also ponder over these images

Relativity (Escher)
Escher%27s_Relativity.jpg



Dream Caused by the flight of a bee around a Pomegranate seconds before awakening (Dali)
Dream_Caused_by_the_Flight_of_a_Bumblebee_around_a_Pomegranate_a_Second_Before_Awakening.jpg


Metamorphosis of Narcissus (Dali)
Metamorphosis_of_Narcissus.jpg



I also suggest you go to some library and read Shakespeare or Miguel De Cervantes or Robert Frost or Rudyard Kipling or Homer or even Sun Tsu.

I also suggest you familiarize yourself with some science history and read about Isaac Newton and Leibniz and Descartes and Einstein and Fourier and Laplace and Pascal and Freud.

You may even enjoy the writings of some philosophers like Voltaire and Diderot and Russell.

Moreover, you may want to go to some museum and reflect over some art like Da Vinci's or Escher’s or Michelangelo's or Dali's.

Finally you may want to have a nice night out in a good Comedy Club and enjoy some good old human humor instead of spending the night playing video games or watching Star Trek reruns.... maybe that might help.
 
Last edited:
Before this thread degenerates into more nonsensical armchair speculations from laymen

Check


along with vitriolic hubristic defense of these conjectures by citing scifi fanfic

check


along with adamant unwavering “monumentally simplistic” “operational definitions” that are “of no practical value”...

Check


and before it gravitates towards hypotheses of how the characters in the Sims video game are conscious entities if only you could redefine reality to suit....

Check


and before it settles down to wishful thinking and aspirations of some laymen for becoming Deos Ex Machinas....


Check



Wow.... and only 111 posts so far.
 
What the heck is an anti-computationalist?

In a strict sense, someone who holds that consciousness is not based on computation.

In a weaker sense, someone who holds that consciousness is not based entirely on computation.

I consider the latter a "weaker" sense because fundamentally it isn't possible for consciousness to be only partially based on computation, meaning people that think so just don't quite fully understand what computation entails. I don't know that there are many people with this position so it doesn't matter much, but I wanted to be clear.
 
We can do that right now.

So you PixyMisa are "right now" able to produce a FUSION REACTION in your computer?

In reply to this I think you said it best…. “I have no words adequate to encompass the depth of your confusion.”



I have no words adequate to encompass the depth of your confusion.

I on the other hand have ONE WORD that is adequate to encompass the shallowness of your "monumentally simplistic" 'thinking' and the contemptibility of your arrogance.
 
Define what that is.

Well, it’s not a matter of defining “it” since the question is whether there is anything in terms of output to define in the first place (other than processing itself).

More specifically: If the “output of consciousness” would be considered to be analogous to what sugar is to photosynthesis … is it even meaningful to speak about consciousness in such terms, as some kind of substance it produces?


Here’s the original quote again:
Mr. Scott said:
It's like Pigliucci's assertion that consciousness is like photosynthesis, in that a computer could simulate photosynthesis, but it would fail to produce real sugar. Likewise, a computer that simulates consciousness would fail to produce real consciousness.

What, therefore, is the output of consciousness, the substance it produces, and what evidence is there that it's real?
 
State of the Art April 2012. Must see to be up to speed on this topic. ... "arrogance" checked ... check


BBC Horizon: The Hunt For AI
 
Last edited:
Well, it’s not a matter of defining “it” since the question is whether there is anything in terms of output to define in the first place (other than processing itself).

More specifically: If the “output of consciousness” would be considered to be analogous to what sugar is to photosynthesis … is it even meaningful to speak about consciousness in such terms, as some kind of substance it produces?


Here’s the original quote again:



Maybe Rocketdodger has a better definition
Perhaps things like the drawings, paintings, and literature you referenced in a previous post?
(I added the link)


What Pinocchio is able to produce this "output"?

Rudyard Kipling said:
The Betrothed
"You must choose between me and your cigar."
________________________________________​

Open the old cigar-box, get me a Cuba stout,
For things are running crossways, and Maggie and I are out.

We quarrelled about Havanas--we fought o'er a good cheroot,
And I knew she is exacting, and she says I am a brute.

Open the old cigar-box--let me consider a space;
In the soft blue veil of the vapour musing on Maggie's face.

Maggie is pretty to look at--Maggie's a loving lass,
But the prettiest cheeks must wrinkle, the truest of loves must pass.

There's peace in a Larranaga, there's calm in a Henry Clay;
But the best cigar in an hour is finished and thrown away--

Thrown away for another as perfect and ripe and brown--
But I could not throw away Maggie for fear o' the talk o' the town!

Maggie, my wife at fifty--grey and dour and old--
With never another Maggie to purchase for love or gold!

And the light of Days that have Been the dark of the Days that Are,
And Love's torch stinking and stale, like the butt of a dead cigar--

The butt of a dead cigar you are bound to keep in your pocket--
With never a new one to light tho' it's charred and black to the socket!

Open the old cigar-box--let me consider a while.
Here is a mild Manila--there is a wifely smile.

Which is the better portion--bondage bought with a ring,
Or a harem of dusky beauties, fifty tied in a string?

Counsellors cunning and silent--comforters true and tried,
And never a one of the fifty to sneer at a rival bride?

Thought in the early morning, solace in time of woes,
Peace in the hush of the twilight, balm ere my eyelids close,

This will the fifty give me, asking nought in return,
With only a Suttee's passion--to do their duty and burn.

This will the fifty give me. When they are spent and dead,
Five times other fifties shall be my servants instead.

The furrows of far-off Java, the isles of the Spanish Main,
When they hear my harem is empty will send me my brides again.

I will take no heed to their raiment, nor food for their mouths withal,
So long as the gulls are nesting, so long as the showers fall.

I will scent 'em with best vanilla, with tea will I temper their hides,
And the Moor and the Mormon shall envy who read of the tale of my brides.

For Maggie has written a letter to give me my choice between
The wee little whimpering Love and the great god Nick o' Teen.

And I have been servant of Love for barely a twelvemonth clear,
But I have been Priest of Cabanas a matter of seven year;

And the gloom of my bachelor days is flecked with the cheery light
Of stumps that I burned to Friendship and Pleasure and Work and Fight.

And I turn my eyes to the future that Maggie and I must prove,
But the only light on the marshes is the Will-o'-the-Wisp of Love.

Will it see me safe through my journey or leave me bogged in the mire?
Since a puff of tobacco can cloud it, shall I follow the fitful fire?

Open the old cigar-box--let me consider anew--
Old friends, and who is Maggie that I should abandon you?

A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke;
And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke.

Light me another Cuba--I hold to my first-sworn vows.
If Maggie will have no rival, I'll have no Maggie for Spouse!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom