I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

Nonpareil said:
If by "awareness" you mean awareness of something, that's just sensory input, and we know that the brain computes that.

If by "awareness" you mean something other than that, you need a better dictionary.



It isn't.

As for the rest, go read a physics textbook.
Click to expand...


The dictionaries and textbooks are still being written.
 
Dancing David said:
Funny, I guess he isn't a neurologist.
Click to expand...

Actually, he is. He is a leader in the field of neuroscience.

What is wrong here is the definition of "behavior" in use. Koch needs to look at the hardware because he proposes that consciousness is based on integrated information. By examining the system, he can determine whether or not it is integrated, and thus producing consciousness.

The interview is using the colloquial definition of "behavior": things that an entity does that we can see in a casual setting. In this context, "behavior" is things like talking, body language, and so on.

During this discussion, however, I have been speaking using the technical definition of "behavior" - that is, anything that an entity does, whether or not that is outwardly apparent. Neurochemical reactions in the brain are behaviors of the system, but would not be labeled "behaviors" in day-to-day conversation.

Koch is speaking about a need to examine the way the system behaves in detail - in the more technical sense of the word - than to examine the way it appears to operate in a casual setting. Which I have no argument with.
 
Nonpareil said:
And apparently it will be ignored every time.
Click to expand...
Its wrong.


No, it isn't. If it performs all the actions, it is conscious. That is what conscious means.
Click to expand...
You can say this all you like too. It's an assumption based on a semantic argument. It's flaw is that it ignores physical reality and goes off on some semantic journey whereby reality is dictated by a language definition.

Also it fails to address the case of a mimic that performs all the actions of a self-conscious person, while not being a biological animal(our control).

That is not what "speculating" means.



That is not what "assumption" means.



I'm shocked.
Click to expand...
You seem to be retreating up your own posterior. It's semantics all the way down now.


...No.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to realise that in a scientific experiment, especially one examining consciousness all language and psychological bias must be excluded and the problem be reduced to its physical parameters.


And you are wrong.
Click to expand...
In the experiment the definition of self-consciousness is not via language it is physical, it is the control, a human being. Nothing else is assumed and taken as understood.


You're wrong.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the black box contains computation alone and nothing else?
Again, we know - this is not speculation, or an assumption, or anything else - that humans are consciousness because of computation taking place in the brain. We do not know what specific computation results in this, but we know it is computation nonetheless.
Click to expand...
This is a school boy error. We know that humans are intelligent because of computation taking place in the brain. This is not the same thing as conscious experience.


Of course they are. But we can screen them out. What you actually want to do is to screen out the perfect mimics as well, which is nonsensical. The perfect mimics are conscious. They should not be screened out.
Click to expand...
You seem to have lost touch with your argument here. First you claim that mimics (imperfect) can be screened out, but not explained how. Secondly you have started talking about perfect mimics, you know that a perfect mimic by your definition of behaviour given in the last quote* in this post would be identical to a human down to every molecule in the brain(although it could still be in a jar). I have been discussing mimics in the realms of AI, not perfect biological replicas of the control.

Absolutely none of which is relevant (and the last of which is nonsensical).
Click to expand...
It is entirely relevant, due to ethical considerations scientists have not examined the brain in the ways that may be necessary for the experiment. They have as I said, observed patients with brain damage and which bits of the brain light up at different times. None of which answers the question of what in the brain brings about consciousness. All they have discovered that is applicable is that a brain which is not functioning correctly may not produce consciousness, or may result in various forms of impaired consciousness.

The last example I gave would be a good starting point. If a scientist can demonstrate consciousness in a (recently) dead brain by stimulating it with electrodes, then that would go a long way to showing that life is not required in the black box.
There is still no reason to believe that there is a non-computational factor in consciousness.
Click to expand...
Again, the black box contains nothing but computation?


Yes, punshhh, it is nonsense, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

If the thought experiment involved an object which reflected light at a wavelength of approximately 460nm, but wasn't blue, that would be nonsensical too. Because that's what blue means.
Click to expand...
So by your definition a perfect mimic, performing self-conscious behaviour*, would be an identical replica of a human being down to the molecular scale. Well yes that would be conscious(if it happened to be alive that is). A Pzombie is not a perfect replica, it has evolved slightly differently without developing full self-consciousness, it would of course have a rudimentary level of consciousness(by my definition).



Which is irrelevant. If the lyrebird can produce an identical sound to the chainsaw, then cutting wood is not necessary to produce that sound.
Click to expand...
And personal experience of being would not be necessary to produce self-conscious (not including bio-chemistry(meat)) behaviour.


This is completely nonsensical and has absolutely nothing to do with any argument that anyone, save yourself, has presented during this discussion..
Click to expand...
So if it is necessary to have a personal experience of being to produce self-conscious behaviour(absent meat), it is also necessary for a lyrebird to have a chainsaw in its throat.

Nonpareil said:
During this discussion, however, I have been speaking using the technical definition of "behavior" - that is, anything that an entity does, whether or not that is outwardly apparent. Neurochemical reactions in the brain are behaviors of the system, but would not be labeled "behaviors" in day-to-day conversation.
Click to expand...
Is it dictionary time again? Or semantics.

*By including neurochemical reactions in your definition of "behavior"" you have shot yourself in the foot in your computation argument. Any AI produced will now be required to perform the equivalent of all the biochemical reactions occuring in a human brain to be conscious.
Koch is speaking about a need to examine the way the system behaves in detail - in the more technical sense of the word - than to examine the way it appears to operate in a casual setting. Which I have no argument with.
Click to expand...
So what is in your black box now?
 
LarryS said:
Correct, we know the brain (almost assuredly) computes the contents of consciousness, contents such as thoughts, images, memories, emotions, etc; but not necessarily awareness itself.
Click to expand...

Don't just mention that: why do you think awareness is exempt ? We've already mentioned ways to alter it with drugs or physical manipulation.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I don't. In fact I have no reason to belive there is any difference between a successful mimic and a conscious being.
Click to expand...
Except a mimic is not what it appears to be, or sounds to be, in the case of the lyrebird.

No, that is not the usual definition. We do not hold, say, an algae to be conscious.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, however an amoeba, or an ant has an awareness of some sort of its environment and behaves in response to this. The ant is clearly not self-conscious, but does appear to have some kind of consciousness, I.e. it is a being, with a personal experience, or presence as an entity.


OK, but in most discussions of this type, that is assumed equal to conscience.
Click to expand...
Yes, so I use the phrase self-conscious when I refer to this definition.


'Alive' is not a property, it is a description. It is an arbitrary group of objects that we have made, trying to include only certain objects.

Hans
Click to expand...
Yes I agree that the group of life forms may have fuzzy edges. It is a distinct phenomena, resulting in distinct causal events. Especially in the case of the more complex lifeforms.
 
punshhh said:
We had conscious experience before we started thinking, in our evolution.
Click to expand...

Conscious experience may happen after computation, but this is not certain.

Human-level thinking happens wherever humans happen - all the way back as you unroll evolution, to a point where non-humans were also thinking and conscious.

So, no. I don't agree with you.
 
LarryS said:
The dictionaries and textbooks are still being written.
Click to expand...


Nonpareil said:
...No.

No, they aren't.
Click to expand...



More than 500 new words, phrases, and senses have entered the Oxford English Dictionary in December’s update.

…and that’s just December 2014:

http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/december-2014-update/

..600 in September 2014:

http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/september-2014-update/

…500 in June 2014:

http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2014-update/

…and 900 in March 2014:

http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/march-2014-update/

That’s just 2014…and that’s just a single dictionary of a single language.



As usual Nonpareil…not even wrong!
 
LarryS said:
maybe the Big Bang didn't happen after all
Click to expand...
Indeed. Maybe we're not even here, after all. Maybe the Internet is a mass illusion. It's a slim maybe, but it's like your maybe.

I guess I don't get the point of this "maybe" stuff. Annnnoid does it too. It's very strange. When there's a mountain of evidence and reasoned thought on one hand and a crumb of anecdote on the other, you try to make them balance by adding this "maybe" weight.

What's your aim?

I could be missing the obvious, sorry if I misread.
 
punshhh said:
You can say this all you like too. It's an assumption based on a semantic argument. It's flaw is that it ignores physical reality and goes off on some semantic journey whereby reality is dictated by a language definition.
Click to expand...

No. As usual, you have it precisely backwards. Reality is not dictated by language. Language is dictated by reality. This is what the words need to mean for them to be at all functional.

punshhh said:
Also it fails to address the case of a mimic that performs all the actions of a self-conscious person, while not being a biological animal(our control).
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant, since we don't care if it's biological or not. Just if it's conscious.

punshhh said:
You don't seem to realise that in a scientific experiment, especially one examining consciousness all language and psychological bias must be excluded and the problem be reduced to its physical parameters.
Click to expand...

"All language must be excluded"? What are you on about?

punshhh said:
So you are saying that the black box contains computation alone and nothing else?
Click to expand...

Yes.

punshhh said:
This is a school boy error. We know that humans are intelligent because of computation taking place in the brain. This is not the same thing as conscious experience.
Click to expand...

You really need to define your terms.

punshhh said:
You seem to have lost touch with your argument here. First you claim that mimics (imperfect) can be screened out, but not explained how.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a hypothetical situation in which we have a concrete definition. In this case, screening out imperfect mimics is trivial. You simply look at them and see that they do not meet the definition.

punshhh said:
Secondly you have started talking about perfect mimics, you know that a perfect mimic by your definition of behaviour given in the last quote* in this post would be identical to a human down to every molecule in the brain(although it could still be in a jar). I have been discussing mimics in the realms of AI, not perfect biological replicas of the control.
Click to expand...

So have I.

The hardware is irrelevant so long as it can run the same software.

punshhh said:
It is entirely relevant, due to ethical considerations scientists have not examined the brain in the ways that may be necessary for the experiment. They have as I said, observed patients with brain damage and which bits of the brain light up at different times. None of which answers the question of what in the brain brings about consciousness. All they have discovered that is applicable is that a brain which is not functioning correctly may not produce consciousness, or may result in various forms of impaired consciousness.

The last example I gave would be a good starting point. If a scientist can demonstrate consciousness in a (recently) dead brain by stimulating it with electrodes, then that would go a long way to showing that life is not required in the black box.
Click to expand...

You do realize that death is the point where this would necessarily no longer work, yes? The brain stops working at brain death. That's why it's called brain death. What you are demanding is not proof of the computational basis of consciousness, but an extremely convoluted means of proving that we can revive the dead given technology of an appropriate level.

We could, but that's entirely beside the point. We still know that the computational functions of the brain are what result in consciousness.

punshhh said:
So by your definition a perfect mimic, performing self-conscious behaviour*, would be an identical replica of a human being down to the molecular scale.
Click to expand...

No. I have never talked about perfect replicas of humans. I have made this very clear over multiple posts. Pay attention.

What I have talked about is perfect replicas of self-consciousness.

punshhh said:
And personal experience of being would not be necessary to produce self-conscious (not including bio-chemistry(meat)) behaviour.
Click to expand...

...Yes, it would.

punshhh said:
So if it is necessary to have a personal experience of being to produce self-conscious behaviour(absent meat), it is also necessary for a lyrebird to have a chainsaw in its throat.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

punshhh said:
*By including neurochemical reactions in your definition of "behavior"" you have shot yourself in the foot in your computation argument. Any AI produced will now be required to perform the equivalent of all the biochemical reactions occuring in a human brain to be conscious.
Click to expand...

Yes. Those biochemical reactions are what is being computed.

What is your point?

annnnoid said:
As usual Nonpareil…not even wrong!
Click to expand...

As usual, you completely fail to understand the point being made.

The point is not that new words cannot be added to the dictionary, or that new fundamental properties cannot be discovered. It is that this is entirely irrelevant, as we already know enough to answer Larry's question, so his entire diversion about dictionaries is a completely pointless time-waster.

LarryS said:
Even Koch suggests that being conscious is different than the neurons and etc from which it 'emerges'
Click to expand...

Yes. Google Chrome is separate from the computer on which I run it.

What's your point?
 
Nonpareil said:
Yes. Google Chrome is separate from the computer on which I run it.

What's your point?
Click to expand...


My point, and what I think Koch is getting at, is that consciousness can not be predicted from matter, unlike wetness which can be predicted from hydrogen and oxygen bonds.
 
LarryS said:
My point, and what I think Koch is getting at, is that consciousness can not be predicted from matter, unlike wetness which can be predicted from hydrogen and oxygen bonds.
Click to expand...

Wetness itself is also not so much an intrinsic property of water but of interaction between a fluid and its solid substrate.
 
Donn said:
Indeed. Maybe we're not even here, after all. Maybe the Internet is a mass illusion. It's a slim maybe, but it's like your maybe.

I guess I don't get the point of this "maybe" stuff. Annnnoid does it too. It's very strange. When there's a mountain of evidence and reasoned thought on one hand and a crumb of anecdote on the other, you try to make them balance by adding this "maybe" weight.

What's your aim?

I could be missing the obvious, sorry if I misread.
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't post at all.:eye-poppi

May(it not) be. By uttering this magic phrase any amount of contrary evidence can be vanished.
 
LarryS said:
My point, and what I think Koch is getting at, is that consciousness can not be predicted from matter, unlike wetness which can be predicted from hydrogen and oxygen bonds.
Click to expand...

Which is flatly wrong. Aside from the error pointed out in mijopaalmc's post above, you can predict any computation's result if you have sufficient knowledge of the system. And that is, in fact, Koch's point; he is a neuroscientist and information scientist, and determining whether or not consciousness exists by examining the system is exactly what he does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom