Robot consciousness

[dlorde]

Those of you in the UK might be interested in the Horizon programme called 'The Secret You' recently broadcast on BBC2, which took an interesting fairly scientific look at the latest research into consciousness, awareness, and the sense of self. Should be available on BBC iPlayer.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Those of you in the UK might be interested in the Horizon programme called 'The Secret You' recently broadcast on BBC2, which took an interesting fairly scientific look at the latest research into consciousness, awareness, and the sense of self. Should be available on BBC iPlayer.

AWESOME documentary. Thankyou for the heads up.

 

[Philosaur]

lol

I'm afraid we're experiencing a semantic misunderstanding here, drkitten. I'm not intending to advance any New Age claptrap. I'm merely pointing out that anything one does, thinks, says, feels, conceives, perceives, etc., immediately, by definition, becomes and is part of one's conciousness. Your above examples supposedly "disproving" this only illustrate it.

The existential unity of consciousness with the objects of consciousness is not a scientific principle; it's a recognition of our fundamental existential situation. It's not any more falsifiable than is the truth "existence exists." It could be considered a philosophical or definitional axiom, but it's not a scientifically falsifiable theory.

So how is it relevant here on this thread, then? As I've indicated, we can conceive of human consciousness modeled in many other substrates, but the question remains whether those models are or should be called *actual human consciousness.*

This is semantic distinction, I admit (which I've already made clear), and yet it's a semantics which properly acknowledges the unknown rather than implying unobtainable, absolutely certain and exhaustive knowledge.

It's philosophers like you who give the rest of us a bad name. You're like a green belt in the mental martial arts: you know just enough to make yourself look silly.

"I'm merely pointing out that anything one does ... is part of one's consciousness."

Ever caught yourself tapping your foot or clicking a pen? You were doing it for some period of time before you realized it, right? So then you weren't conscious of something you were doing? Or take the quote from Saul Bellow: "I never know what I think until I see what I say". If what you're writing is true, then this should be immediately nonsensical to any sensible person, and yet most people identify with the idea. How is that?

And this "existential unity" of the objects of consciousness with consciousness itself is just bad philosophy. You don't think there's something more to consciousness than its objects? If so, then there's no "existential unity". Take Kant's idea that space and time are necessary prerequisite notions (or an organizing framework) for all consciousness. You don't perceive time or space in any usual sense, you assume them (involuntarily and non-consciously) to make sense of everything else.

A + B != A (for all B != 0)

"So how is it relevant here on this thread, then?" Yeah, how? The sentences that follow do nothing to elucidate how this is relevant.

Finally, I don't understand where you picked up the idea that this is about human consciousness in particular. A simple operational definition of "human consciousness" is consciousness in a human. Therefore, if it occurs in another substrate, then it's not human consciousness--much less "actual" human consciousness (whatever that's supposed to mean).