The Hard Problem of Gravity

[quixotecoyote]

How does your vision manifest? Does each neuron see or is some vast meta-entity created, and if so how does it affect each neuron?

Of course it could be completely different because the actual workings of the Chinese Nation experiment are left to the imagination.

 

[rocketdodger]

That's exactly right. The thermostat isn't interested. The molecules aren't interested. The rock isn't interested. The only element that's interested in the business is the human being.

If the thermostat isn't interested then why does it switch according to temperature?

If the temperature information is of equal value to room color information then why doesn't it switch on room color as well?

 

[rocketdodger]

Of course it could be completely different because the actual workings of the Chinese Nation experiment are left to the imagination.

If the chinese people with phones could emulate a neuron perfectly, then why would it be any different?

How do you know you aren't a chinese nation right now?

 

[rocketdodger]

You're claiming that consciousness cannot exist except without a human attribution of functionality applied to it?

Never mind. I decided not to waste my time.

 

[quixotecoyote]

If the chinese people with phones could emulate a neuron perfectly, then why would it be any different?

I assumed the question was deeper than "If X and Y are exactly the same, would they be different."

I could be wrong.

How do you know you aren't a chinese nation right now?

My cellphone's off.

 

[rocketdodger]

It's easy to make up engineering meanings that have nothing to do with the way human beings use the words. They have no physical meaning.

Ahh. Another gem. Sometimes you say things that are extremely illuminating when it comes to your real position.

So you are basically saying that most of this stuff we are talking about is just magic beyond the realm of science. It has "no physical meaning." Great.

I guess I am done with you too. Not that I am ignoring you -- I just don't think I can learn anything from a discussion with you. What a shame.

 

[rocketdodger]

I assumed the question was deeper than "If X and Y are exactly the same, would they be different."

That is the whole reason most of us think the HPC is a joke.

Fundamentally it questions why X and Y are different even if they are the same.

If you have a system X that models a conscious system Y down to an arbitrary level of precision, why isn't it X also conscious, even if it tells us it is?

What a joke.

 

[rocketdodger]

This will lead you to believe that humans are the only conscious entities, and this is clearly wrong.

Not just humans, and not all humans.

Your enemies are not conscious. My dog is. Other dogs -- breeds I don't like -- are not. Aliens are, of course, not. Unless you really like them, in which case they are. Although not like humans. But this doesn't mean non-humans can be conscious, just in special cases.

Wee! All aboard the merry-go-round of special pleading!

 

[PixyMisa]

Yeah Pixy and I have different definitions of conscious. I hold that anything making decisions is conscious, whereas Pixy holds that anything making decisions about itself is conscious. I reserve that behavior for self-conscious. No biggie, we both understand exactly where the other is coming from.

Okay, yeah. I would say aware and self-aware, where self-aware = conscious.

Thermostats are aware; rocks aren't.

Thermostats aren't self-aware; computers are.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If the chinese people with phones could emulate a neuron perfectly, then why would it be any different?

How do you know you aren't a chinese nation right now?

Chinese people on phones could not emulate neurons perfectly because they are not neurons. The best they could do is inefficiently emulate some gross patterns. You're basically saying that a person reading the script of Hamlet in ASL is the same as performing a full Shakespearean play.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Okay, yeah. I would say aware and self-aware, where self-aware = conscious.

Thermostats are aware; rocks aren't.

Thermostats aren't self-aware; computers are.

Rocks respond to temperature changes just as thermostats do. Even common pavement expands and contracts in response to variations in temperature. Your definition of 'awareness' is absurdly asinine.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Rocks respond to temperature changes just as thermostats do. Even common pavement expands and contracts in response to variations in temperature. Your definition of 'awareness' is absurdly asinine.

The difference between rocks and thermostats and why one is aware and the other is not has been described several times already. And I've only been skimming.

 

[AkuManiMani]

The difference between rocks and thermostats and why one is aware and the other is not has been described several times already. And I've only been skimming.

Every physical interaction is computational. Every object, including the universe at large, is a self-referential computational process. By the criteria of the S-AI proponents everything is conscious. Perhaps you should stop merely skimming and actually consider the logical implications of whats being said.

 

[PixyMisa]

Every physical interaction is computational.

True, in at least one useful sense.

Every object, including the universe at large, is a self-referential computational process.

False.

By the criteria of the S-AI proponents everything is conscious. Perhaps you should stop merely skimming and actually consider the logical implications of whats being said.

Nope. You're just wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Rocks respond to temperature changes just as thermostats do.

No. Try controlling your central heating with a rock.

Even common pavement expands and contracts in response to variations in temperature.

Try controlling your central heating with a pavement.

Your definition of 'awareness' is absurdly asinine.

You have yet to show this - or to provide a definition of your own.

 

[rocketdodger]

Every physical interaction is computational. Every object, including the universe at large, is a self-referential computational process. By the criteria of the S-AI proponents everything is conscious. Perhaps you should stop merely skimming and actually consider the logical implications of whats being said.

weee..

What are the logical implications of what you are saying?

 

[AkuManiMani]

You have yet to show this - or to provide a definition of your own.

Dude. You ARE ware that this is a public forum and that potentially any English literate person can read whats been posted, right? Its clear to anyone who can read that I and others have exhaustively provided a definition of consciousness and explained why yours is not sufficient. Simply asserting we haven't doesn't make you correct; it just shows you to be a self-deluded liar.

 

[AkuManiMani]

weee..

What are the logical implications of what you are saying?

One implication is that, taken to it's logical conclusion, your position is necessarily a form of idealism. Another is that your criteria for consciousness is clearly too broad and practically useless.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Every object, including the universe at large, is a self-referential computational process.

Not sure where you get that idea.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Every object, including the universe at large, is a self-referential computational process.

Not sure where you get that idea.

Physical processes are informational which is why they can be mathematically modeled in physical theory. Why don't you actually go and educate yourself on current science? You act as if what I'm saying is a completely alien concept to you. I'm absolutely astounded by the degree of cognitive dissonance that would allow some of you to claim that everything is quantitative, and then, act incredulous when the implications of your fundamental views are brought to bear.