The Hard Problem of Gravity

[Belz...]

Well, if the argument had been resolved I guess you would have given me the solution.

I didn't say we had all come to a happy consensus. But it would help if you knew what has already been said about it.

Not at all! I said I was only speculating on what awareness was. However, you seem pretty contempt with the way you see it.

Yes, contempt is the right word.

 

[Belz...]

It feels!

Bang!

Yep, that's what everyone's been saying. It "feels". I will never say it enough: what something "feels" like is not really useful.

How do you know if that heartfelt religious "feel" is god speaking to you or, say, indigestion ?

 

[PixyMisa]

It feels!

What is feeling? A thought - information. A mood - a series of thoughts - again information.

In the same way that I can sing "lady in red" and know what it means because I know what it feels to see the red colour. Now could a computer feels like that?

Can a computer compose a symphony? Write a sonnet?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Can an algorithm convey the knowledge of that feeling.

Of course.

You did not show me that piece of code yet.

Pick a language.

So you believe imagination has no place in science. Revise Einstein quotes!

No. But it must take a back seat to facts and logic.

You are right. Apart from experiencing of course!

We have already seen that this "experiencing" is a simple mechanical process. So no, not "apart from". Including.

Until you prove me that awareness is the same as processing then I should be the one asking why!

Tell me what function of awareness is anything other than information processing. Please.

Well, if all you have to propose if self-referential code, a self-referential pointer can be defined in even less lines than that. It still does not convey experience or show me how?

What is experience, then? Thoughts? Just information processing. Thoughts relating to a stimulus? The same. Thoughts relating to themselves? Self-referential information processing.

And still I argue that "lady in green" is the same as "lady in red" for the machine but not to me, and you know I mean!

Are you claiming that computers cannot understand context? References?

 

[porch]

Duh! In short: Experience. But if you can show me a piece of code that experiences something, bring it on! I want to see it!


Use your imagination...

Nope! What you describe is only processing which is all machine can do. Using awareness for processing in the case of machines is abusive. But then again, bring me that piece of code so I can have a laugh!


Well I guess without it you'd be pretty much dumb... a bit like a machine. But you might disagree and bring me that piece of code!

You seem to be forgetting that humans are machines. I request an apology for the harsh words you used towards machines. I find it dehumanizing.

 

[cyborg]

It feels! In the same way that I can sing "lady in red" and know what it means because I know what it feels to see the red colour. Now could a computer feels like that?

Depends.

Why do you feel like that?

Can an algorithm convey the knowledge of that feeling.

Feelings aren't knowledge - they're assertions.

You did not show me that piece of code yet.

Show me that you feel.

 

[cyborg]

And still I argue that "lady in green" is the same as "lady in red" for the machine but not to me, and you know I mean!

Ah.

You're not red-green colour blind I take it then?

Hmm...

 

[rocketdodger]

However, awareness to me seems to emanate from a superset of the universe.

Well, it is nice to see someone declare their duality from the get go.

 

[gargamel]

Well, now I know what it feels like to be attacked by a bunch of Zombies. Only being sarcastic here if you know what I mean

What is feeling? A thought - information. A mood - a series of thoughts - again information.

Bollocks! If that was the case there would be no HPC argument and that thread woudl not exist!

Can a computer compose a symphony? Write a sonnet?

Yes, yes, and yes.

That does not prove anything about experience. My calculator can make operations it does not prove it knows the meaning of any of them. Complete delusion!

Of course.

Let's see!

Pick a language.

I choose C but you can take C++ or C# if that's easier for you.

No. But it must take a back seat to facts and logic.

Yeah! The problem is cybernetic has given too much imagination to certain people who believe they are zombies...

We have already seen that this "experiencing" is a simple mechanical process. So no, not "apart from". Including.

We have seen!!?? It's time you update the wiki entry for HPC. You have figured it all out.

Tell me what function of awareness is anything other than information processing. Please.

That precise function you will not be able to code in your algorithm that I am still waiting for!

What is experience, then? Thoughts? Just information processing. Thoughts relating to a stimulus? The same. Thoughts relating to themselves? Self-referential information processing.

So you believe there is an HPC problem?

Are you claiming that computers cannot understand context? References?

Do you mean understanding as if it meant anything to the machine? Of course not!

 

[Belz...]

Bollocks! If that was the case there would be no HPC argument and that thread woudl not exist!

There are HPC arguments but there is no HPC.

That does not prove anything about experience. My calculator can make operations it does not prove it knows the meaning of any of them. Complete delusion!

That's because you have already assigned a different value to HUMAN experience than you have assigned to experience in general, proving what I said earlier: you already have your conclusion.

Yeah! The problem is cybernetic has given too much imagination to certain people who believe they are zombies...

If you had followed the thread you'd know that P-zombies are incoherent concepts.

Do you mean understanding as if it meant anything to the machine? Of course not!

Of course so! If it didn't the machine wouldn't act on the data.

 

[Belz...]

Well, it is nice to see someone declare their duality from the get go.

It's refreshing, at least, after so much time spent with closet dualists.

 

[gargamel]

Depends.

Why do you feel like that?



Feelings aren't knowledge - they're assertions.



Show me that you feel.

You seem to be forgetting that humans are machines. I request an apology for the harsh words you used towards machines. I find it dehumanizing.

That would be a waste of time there is no syntax in machine language for the meaning of apology. But I will turn off my computer as gently as I can tonight just in case...

 

[Third Eye Open]

That would be a waste of time there is no syntax in machine language for the meaning of apology. But I will turn off my computer as gently as I can tonight just in case...

Do you really think that 'machine' is defined as 'personal computer'? Or are you just being obtuse?

 

[gargamel]

There are HPC arguments but there is no HPC.

And no qualia and no experience... Hurray we have just explained consciousness away!

That's because you have already assigned a different value to HUMAN experience than you have assigned to experience in general, proving what I said earlier: you already have your conclusion.

And you have yours in the sense that you assimilate awareness to a brain process, which I was given no proof about.

If you had followed the thread you'd know that P-zombies are incoherent concepts.

Believe me, they are all around us!

Of course so! If it didn't the machine wouldn't act on the data.

Act on the data! Spot on! See... no need for understanding the data!

 

[gargamel]

Depends.

Why do you feel like that?



Feelings aren't knowledge - they're assertions.



Show me that you feel.

Do you really think that 'machine' is defined as 'personal computer'? Or are you just being obtuse?

You are not into meat chauvinism are you?

 

[gargamel]

I know that I can stop awareness by turning off someone's brain -- we do it with general anesthesia all the time -- so neurons seem to be responsible. Theoretically we should be able to do the same in silicon.

It might just mean that they are interdependent. We do not have to assume they are the same.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It might just mean that they are interdependent. We do not have to assume they are the same.

One is a process of the other. There is no reason or evidence to the contrary. In such situations, I feel assumptions are valid.

 

[gargamel]

Depends.

Why do you feel like that?



Feelings aren't knowledge - they're assertions.



Show me that you feel.

One is a process of the other. There is no reason or evidence to the contrary. In such situations, I feel assumptions are valid.

HPC is reason to the contrary. That's why it is not a valid assumption. Isn't that why we are here?

 

[gargamel]

Depends.

Why do you feel like that?

The question would be rather: why do I feel at all?

Feelings aren't knowledge - they're assertions.

No they are not!

Show me that you feel.

Right now! I feel my keyboard under my fingertips. Try to prove I am lying!

 

[gargamel]

It's refreshing, at least, after so much time spent with closet dualists.

You don't know how hard it is to come out. But then again, I did not feel like I had many options... However, I would be pleased if this closet dualists could rejoin the thread and come out of it, I feel lonely. You guys must have been a bit prejudistic and scared them away... ts ts!

 

[quixotecoyote]

HPC is reason to the contrary. That's why it is not a valid assumption. Isn't that why we are here?

No, HPC is the (unjustified) assumption there is a reason. Not a reason itself.