ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags physics

Reply
Old 20th February 2019, 11:53 AM   #161
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,580
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Which behavior(s) can't be done by non conscious entities?

For example, summarize its own experiences for the previous day in a few sentences.

Oops, wait, have I cheated? I said "experiences," and a non conscious entity (such as a posited p-zombie) by definition has no experiences.

Well, no, I haven't cheated, because whether the p-zombie has subjective experiences or not, being able to recall for instance things it perceived and things that happened to it and things it did and why it did them, and summarize those recollections in narrative form, is something that a conscious person can do, so it's something that a p-zombie should also be able to do as well. That is, the p-zombie must at least be able to fake recounting its (nonexistent) experiences.

My hypothesis is that the processing and remembering and recalling and summarizing it has to do in order to fake narrating its experiences, is indistinguishable from actually having experiences. By indistinguishable I don't mean we can't tell the difference (which is what we started out inherently assuming), I mean there is no difference. Which makes our posited p-zombie conscious, and therefore not a p-zombie.

Note that all that necessary processing etc. is integrating a lot of information, so other hypotheses that approach the question of consciousness more from the point of view of the nature of the processing itself are not necessarily incompatible with this view. I'm not looking at the hardware but at the software design specs: what does consciousness do, and why? The value of being able to summarize interactions with the world into high-level chunks, narratives of things and beings and the self taking actions for reasons, should be self-apparent. Memory, learning, thinking, planning, and the use of language are all either aided or made possible in the first place.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:04 PM   #162
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by baron View Post
That's the definition of begging the question.
I disagree. I am defining human consciousness as the thing that causes human conscious behavior. And i propose studying the physical causes of that behavior as a way of understanding the source of consciousness.

Consciousness has real measurable objective influences that can be studied scientifically. You claim that you are conscious and experience qualia. Your making that claim shows that your consciousness has an impact on your behavior. (I cannot see how anyone could believe that consciousness does not influence behavior. It would be an strange coincidence if having consciousness and behaving as if we have consciousness were two unrelated things.)

If technology ever advances to the point where we understand the human brain to the point where we can model it then the model will match human behavior, including claims of experiencing consciousness, or it will not. After a failure there, that would be the time to look for previously unknown factors, such as a consciousness field.

Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
See, I think you could program an AI/robot to perfectly emulate consciousness, but that wouldn't mean it was conscious at all. It would only indicate that robot programming had reached a advanced stage.
Sure it could be faked, but I believe that faking it really well would require something akin to consciousness anyway.

But leaving that aside, I am not talking about programming robots to act like us. I am talking about studying what is actually going on in the human brain that leads to the behaviors that we consider to be actual human consciousness.

------
After having caught up in the thread I want to add that I agree with everything Myriad has posted here.

Last edited by jrhowell; 20th February 2019 at 12:12 PM.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:08 PM   #163
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
See, I think you could program an AI/robot to perfectly emulate consciousness, but that wouldn't mean it was conscious at all. It would only indicate that robot programming had reached a advanced stage.
That's the p-zombie. That you can have all the appearance of being conscious but there are no qualia. In other words if I say to you "close your eyes and imagine a juicy red apple" you will have the qualia of the experience of a red apple. The robot would just say it is imagining the red apple but would have no qualia of the experience of a red apple, it would be lying, just as I've found out I have been doing all my life, I have no such qaulia. I cannot close my eyes and imagine a red apple, juicy or not. If qualia are a neccessary component of consciousness you have to conclude I am not conscious.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:10 PM   #164
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,378
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I cannot close my eyes and imagine a red apple, juicy or not. If qualia are a neccessary component of consciousness you have to conclude I am not conscious.
Thats explains a lot, actually.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:12 PM   #165
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
For example, summarize its own experiences for the previous day in a few sentences.

That sounds pretty lame to me. Since you just asserted that you don't think a non-conscious entity can't do this I'll just assert that one can. I have no idea why you think this is a good example.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:16 PM   #166
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's the problem of p-zombies, but as discussed at death on this forum in the past, the concept of p-zombies is incoherent.
Don't look now but someone in the thread is claiming to be one.

The arguments that lead to p-zombies being incoherent are about as impressive as the words games theists frequently show up with.

Can we start by talking about what you'll accept as evidence...
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 20th February 2019 at 12:20 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:17 PM   #167
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
In other words if I say to you "close your eyes and imagine a juicy red apple" you will have the qualia of the experience of a red apple. The robot would just say it is imagining the red apple but would have no qualia of the experience of a red apple, it would be lying...
But would the robot have to be lying? Couldn't it include a copy of some drawing software and use that to draw an apple on an internal virtual screen with no external output of that action? It seems to me that would be the robot equivalent to imagining it.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:22 PM   #168
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
But would the robot have to be lying? Couldn't it include a copy of some drawing software and use that to draw an apple on an internal virtual screen with no external output of that action? It seems to me that would be the robot equivalent to imagining it.

So when you put a Gimp session in to the background and make some other window visible, the computer is now imagining whatever you've used it to draw?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:25 PM   #169
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,378
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Don't look now but someone in the thread is claiming to be one.
...he's not literally claiming to be one. He's saying that he lacks the qualia that philosophical hard-problemers claims is fundamental to consciousness. Is he conscious or not?

Quote:
The arguments that lead to p-zombies being incoherent are about as impressive as the words games theists frequently show up with.
You think that's unimpressive that they are logically impossible? I think that's rather important.

Quote:
Can we start by talking about what you'll accept as evidence...
Of what?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:30 PM   #170
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
...he's not literally claiming to be one. He's saying that he lacks the qualia that philosophical hard-problemers claims is fundamental to consciousness. Is he conscious or not?
What definition of p-zombie do you that doesn't meet? He's conscious in the sense that he is awake.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You think that's unimpressive that they are logically impossible? I think that's rather important.
They aren't logically impossible. Certain philosophers, who would otherwise be laughed at on this merely by fact of being philosophers, use dubious premises to claim logical impossibility.

Quote:
Of what?
Of what we're talking about. I'm mocking philosophical arguments by comparing them to the lame theist arguments we hear all the time. The ones that first require the arguer trick in to agreeing to some weird definition of evidence.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 20th February 2019 at 12:32 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:34 PM   #171
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,378
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
What definition of p-zombie do you that doesn't meet? He's conscious in the sense that he is awake.
Is he conscious in the sense that he's conscious, then? Because if he is, he's not a p-zombie, by definition.

Quote:
They aren't logically impossible.
Contradictory things are impossible. That's the foundation of logic.

Quote:
Of what we're talking about.
You asked me a question absent of context. We've discussed quite a few things in this thread. Evidence of what?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:39 PM   #172
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
I disagree. I am defining human consciousness as the thing that causes human conscious behavior. And i propose studying the physical causes of that behavior as a way of understanding the source of consciousness.

Consciousness has real measurable objective influences that can be studied scientifically. You claim that you are conscious and experience qualia. Your making that claim shows that your consciousness has an impact on your behavior. (I cannot see how anyone could believe that consciousness does not influence behavior. It would be an strange coincidence if having consciousness and behaving as if we have consciousness were two unrelated things.)
According to the evidence, reported conscious experience does not influence human behaviour. The experiments are necessarily limited, however, and as such it's not appropriate to draw far reaching conclusions from them. Personally I think that consciousness can influence behaviour but most of what we say is conscious behaviour is actually not. I believe a person can go their whole life without consciousness influencing their actions. I'm with Gurdjieff and his crew on that one.

Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
If technology ever advances to the point where we understand the human brain to the point where we can model it then the model will match human behavior, including claims of experiencing consciousness, or it will not. After a failure there, that would be the time to look for previously unknown factors, such as a consciousness field.
You mean after a success. If the replicant didn't report conscious experience (a failure) you could conclude that consciousness was a direct product of the brain and you'd not need to look any further (in theory).
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:40 PM   #173
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Is he conscious in the sense that he's conscious, then? Because if he is, he's not a p-zombie, by definition.
Look up p-zombie for yourself at wikipedia. If you lack qualia you are a p-zombie. Perhaps you might think that only makes you a partial p-zombie. I don't think so, but there might be room to argue that.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Contradictory things are impossible. That's the foundation of logic.
Which is a non-sequitur since nothing has been demonstrated to be contradictory.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You asked me a question absent of context. We've discussed quite a few things in this thread. Evidence of what?
You should have this figured out by now.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:42 PM   #174
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
So when you put a Gimp session in to the background and make some other window visible, the computer is now imagining whatever you've used it to draw?
Of course not. The context was a robot that somehow already has experiences. Given that adding imagination seems a small step.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:44 PM   #175
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,378
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Look up p-zombie for yourself at wikipedia. If you lack qualia you are a p-zombie.
Not only do you refuse to clarify your question, but you refuse to answer mine? I asked you whether Darat is conscious.

Quote:
Which is a non-sequitur since nothing has been demonstrated to be contradictory.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Every time the concept is brought up it gets shot down again. And in this thread someone's even already made the argument. It's quite simple, really.

Quote:
You should have this figured out by now.
Come on, Yuppy. You asked me what evidence I would accept. Presumably you want an answer to that, so why don't you clarify so we can move on?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:50 PM   #176
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by baron View Post
According to the evidence, reported conscious experience does not influence human behaviour. The experiments are necessarily limited, however, and as such it's not appropriate to draw far reaching conclusions from them. Personally I think that consciousness can influence behaviour but most of what we say is conscious behaviour is actually not. I believe a person can go their whole life without consciousness influencing their actions. I'm with Gurdjieff and his crew on that one.
Do you believe that your own personal consciousness had any effect on the contents of your posts in this thread so far? It seems to me that it would have. If you do not believe so then I would like to understand why.

Originally Posted by baron View Post
You mean after a success. If the replicant didn't report conscious experience (a failure) you could conclude that consciousness was a direct product of the brain and you'd not need to look any further (in theory).
If the replicant did not report consciousness then it is missing something essential and we have failed to replicate conscious experience. If it does report success then whatever consciousness is, we will have captured it in our replication and that would imply that there are no unknown fields or other influences involved in producing consciousness.

Last edited by jrhowell; 20th February 2019 at 12:52 PM.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:53 PM   #177
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
so why don't you clarify so we can move

on?

I clarified, just move on.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:55 PM   #178
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That's the p-zombie. That you can have all the appearance of being conscious but there are no qualia. In other words if I say to you "close your eyes and imagine a juicy red apple" you will have the qualia of the experience of a red apple. The robot would just say it is imagining the red apple but would have no qualia of the experience of a red apple, it would be lying, just as I've found out I have been doing all my life, I have no such qaulia. I cannot close my eyes and imagine a red apple, juicy or not. If qualia are a neccessary component of consciousness you have to conclude I am not conscious.
You don't need to imagine anything to experience qualia. Look around the room, what you experience is qualia. The sensation of colour, space and form is qualia. Imagination is useful but it has nothing to do with consciousness (nothing diagnostic at any rate). Qualia is inner experience, forget the imagining.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:57 PM   #179
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
Do you believe that your own personal consciousness had any effect on the contents of your posts in this thread so far? It seems to me that it would have. If you do not believe so then I would like to understand why.
There are reports that conscious experience does not control our behavior but only becomes aware of it after it has occurred. I would suspect these reports might be behind an earlier claim that neuroscience has established that consciousness is an illusion.


Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
If the replicant did not report consciousness then it is missing something essential and we have failed to replicate conscious experience. If it does report success then whatever consciousness is, we will have captured it in our replication and that would imply that there are no unknown fields or other influences involved in producing consciousness.
Or it's just programmed to report success or to claim consciousness it doesn't actually have.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:57 PM   #180
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,378
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I clarified
I asked you "evidence for what?"

Consciousness? I already accept that it exists.
Qualia? They're not even defined properly, so I couldn't tell you.

What, exactly, are you asking me?
It seems to me like you don't know, yourself. You probably misspoke and are now unwilling to admit it, which explains why you're so damned unwilling to clarify your question.

Onto mine, then: is Darat conscious or not?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 12:59 PM   #181
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,378
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
There are reports that conscious experience does not control our behavior but only becomes aware of it after it has occurred.
The two aren't mutually-exclusive. After all we consider ourselves conscious, which seems to indicate some sort of feedback loop.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 01:03 PM   #182
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
Do you believe that your own personal consciousness had any effect on the contents of your posts in this thread so far? It seems to me that it would have. If you do not believe so then I would like to understand why.
My honest, and boring, answer is I really don't know. If it did then I suspect the interaction was minimal. Remember that I believe consciousness arises from distortions of the conscious field produced by information processing. The information processing occurs right here in this physical world we can see and measure. To what extent that 'concentration' of conscious works the other way to affect the information processing I don't know.

Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
If the replicant did not report consciousness then it is missing something essential and we have failed to replicate conscious experience.
Or it is not missing anything and consciousness is a pure product of the human brain.

Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
If it does report success then whatever consciousness is, we will have captured it in our replication and that would imply that there are no unknown fields or other influences involved in producing consciousness.
To me it would suggest there is a conscious field and that consciousness arises from information processing alone, regardless of the substrate in which this occurs.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 01:08 PM   #183
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The good old HPC, I used to joke I was a p-zombie as I couldn't understand this idea of "experience of red". Turns out I am actually a p-zombie, as I don't ever have an "experience of red" apart from when there are photons hitting my retina and the following cascade of measurable changes in the chemicals in my brain and other tissues as I have no "mind's eye".
You are saying that you cannot intentionally induce imaginary visual experiences. To me that is something very different from not experiencing anything at all. I assume that when you look at a table you can pick out an apple that is sitting on it and tell that it is red.

Is the issue only in voluntary visual imagination? Do your dreams contain images?

Is it only visual? Can you recall songs you have heard? How about smells?
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 01:14 PM   #184
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
You are saying that you cannot intentionally induce imaginary visual experiences. To me that is something very different from not experiencing anything at all. I assume that when you look at a table you can pick out an apple that is sitting on it and tell that it is red.



Is the issue only in voluntary visual imagination? Do your dreams contain images?



Is it only visual? Can you recall songs you have heard? How about smells?
None of the above. For instance if I am told to think about my mother's face nothing happens, I don't get any "image", I can't count sheep, and my dreams are not visual, not even my sleep paralysis ones.

I can not recall music or smells the idea you can have those sensations without direct environmental stimulus is alien to me.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 20th February 2019 at 01:16 PM.
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 01:15 PM   #185
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
There are reports that conscious experience does not control our behavior but only becomes aware of it after it has occurred. I would suspect these reports might be behind an earlier claim that neuroscience has established that consciousness is an illusion.
We appear to become aware of our own actions after actually taking them. That awareness can still influence future actions.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Or it's just programmed to report success or to claim consciousness it doesn't actually have.
The experiment being discussed is an attempted faithful reproduction of the actual functioning of a human brain. It would not be pre-programmed any more or less than you are.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 01:18 PM   #186
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
We appear to become aware of our own actions after actually taking them. That awareness can still influence future actions.
Can that be demonstrated? And even if that awareness does influence our future actions does it actually do so in a way that can be distinguished from non-aware influence?


Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
The experiment being discussed is an attempted faithful reproduction of the actual functioning of a human brain. It would not be pre-programmed any more or less than you are.
That doesn't really say much does it?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 01:52 PM   #187
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,378
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Can that be demonstrated?
Isn't "I am conscious" a kind of basic demonstration of that?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 01:56 PM   #188
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
We appear to become aware of our own actions after actually taking them. That awareness can still influence future actions.
When I first heard of the experiments of Libet and subsequent experimenters I concluded that conscious decision had no influence on the brain and therefore no influence on physical action. I believed that it showed consciousness to be purely an observer that takes credit for physical action and has no influence on the 'real' world.

I still believe consciousness takes credit for decisions it doesn't cause (indeed that has been proved beyond doubt in experiment) but I also think that it can affect the physical. In general terms I see consciousness as willpower, with willpower defined as doing something you neither want to do nor have to do.

So in Libet's experiments the subjects didn't meet this criteria. Not only did they feel they needed to make a decision, they also wanted to make a decision, and for that reason they operated unconsciously with actions for which their consciousness later took credit.

This is why I was equivocal with the amount of conscious action it takes me to write my posts. I don't have to do it, true, but in the main I want to do it, so the influence of willpower is minimal.

EDIT: To try and clarify, consciousness is ubiquitous but conscious action is very rare.

Last edited by baron; 20th February 2019 at 01:58 PM.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 02:48 PM   #189
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Sure, if the robot's programmed to simply ape consciousness, then, as you say, all it is is a mimic, even if an advanced model.

But I don't see why, given sufficient complexity, a robot cannot break through to 'true' consciousness.
I don't see why not, either, but I also feel like we know too little about what consciousness is and is caused by to guess about the probability either way.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:03 PM   #190
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,373
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I'm not aware of any neuroscientists who are into it...it's mostly (or entirely?) physicists, that I know of.
Koch, Tononi for example.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:03 PM   #191
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
You've read that correctly, my 'understanding' of "multiple personality disorder" does derive from fiction, and movies, and the odd article in newspapers or magazines or online. :--)

Still, although no doubt different about the details from movies, multiple personalities is still fact, right? I was wondering if this kind of pathology might not be evidence of sorts for diffused consciousness 'centers'.
No, it's very much in dispute.
https://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications...mber/piper.pdf
https://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications...ober/piper.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23197123
Quote:
The rise and fall of dissociative identity disorder.

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), once considered rare, was frequently diagnosed during the 1980s and 1990s, after which interest declined. This is the trajectory of a medical fad. DID was based on poorly conceived theories and used potentially damaging treatment methods. The problem continues, given that the DSM-5 includes DID and accords dissociative disorders a separate chapter in its manual.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:08 PM   #192
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I cannot readily quote (or even recall) my specific 'sources' for thinking this, but it was my understanding that neuroscience has already shown that free will and consciousness are no more than illusions. I agree, that is a discomfiting and disorienting idea, no less so than a theist first considering the implications of atheism.

You seem to disagree with this?

I was fairly sure this is a done thing, but I can't begin to 'defend' this impression of mine without digging around afresh for sources.
Neither have been proven. Personally, I'd say the evidence + logic strongly indicates that free will is probably an illusion, but that consciousness itself is mere illusion isn't really backed by any evidence at all. Some people just look at evidence showing how quirky and deceptive conscious experience is and use that to conclude (somehow) that the whole thing is just an illusion.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:19 PM   #193
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,580
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
That sounds pretty lame to me. Since you just asserted that you don't think a non-conscious entity can't [sic] do this I'll just assert that one can. I have no idea why you think this is a good example.

Show me the one that can.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 20th February 2019 at 03:20 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:21 PM   #194
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
My hypothesis is that the processing and remembering and recalling and summarizing it has to do in order to fake narrating its experiences, is indistinguishable from actually having experiences. By indistinguishable I don't mean we can't tell the difference (which is what we started out inherently assuming), I mean there is no difference. Which makes our posited p-zombie conscious, and therefore not a p-zombie.
When it comes to an AI version of a p-zombie, it could (and they probably will very soon) be programmed to fake having had real experiences to recount, based on real dialogues and events which have transpired.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:23 PM   #195
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,373
I have never understood the "consciousness is an illusion" claim. What does it even mean?

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:24 PM   #196
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That's the p-zombie. That you can have all the appearance of being conscious but there are no qualia. In other words if I say to you "close your eyes and imagine a juicy red apple" you will have the qualia of the experience of a red apple. The robot would just say it is imagining the red apple but would have no qualia of the experience of a red apple, it would be lying, just as I've found out I have been doing all my life, I have no such qaulia. I cannot close my eyes and imagine a red apple, juicy or not. If qualia are a neccessary component of consciousness you have to conclude I am not conscious.
Qualia is not just visual memory. Even people with extreme amnesia who can't remember 3 minutes ago have experiences and thus "have qualia".
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 03:34 PM   #197
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I have never understood the "consciousness is an illusion" claim. What does it even mean?

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
I've watched a lot of Daniel Dennett videos where he supposedly "explained" consciousness by "proving" it was an illusion, and I still don't get it, either.

A lot of other people find the arguments less than compelling, too.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 04:26 PM   #198
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,580
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
When it comes to an AI version of a p-zombie, it could (and they probably will very soon) be programmed to fake having had real experiences to recount, based on real dialogues and events which have transpired.

Any recording device can "fake having had experiences" by playing back the recording. Such faking is easily detected due to the lack of summarizing.

Imagine a video of a woman cooking in a kitchen, who needs an ingredient that's in a canister on a high shelf out of reach, stands on a chair to reach it, but unexpectedly the chair breaks, causing her to fall, knocking a soup pot over and spilling soup all over the floor.

Do you think there will soon be an AI that can examine that video file, and output "A woman cooking in a kitchen, who needs an ingredient that's in a canister on a high shelf out of reach, stands on a chair to reach it, but unexpectedly the chair breaks, causing her to fall, accidentally knocking a soup pot over and spilling soup all over the floor."?

I don't think so, although I don't think the task is inherently impossible. In the 50+ years since Marvin Minsky assigned visual object recognition as a summer project for some undergraduate students, that problem has been partially cracked; we probably wouldn't have too much trouble getting the AI to recognize the woman, chair, soup pot, and canister in the video frames and track their movements over time. But imagine the processing and real-world knowledge integration needed to recognize that the woman's actions represent an attempt to reach the canister, and that the reason she does so is because she is cooking and it contains a cooking ingredient; and the agent modeling needed to recognize the woman didn't expect the chair to break and that knocking the soup pot over was therefore unintentional. Imagine the sophistication of the module that decides that the parts of the video when the woman stirs the soup, and when she puts down a measuring cup before moving the chair into position to stand on, are less relevant to the main history and therefore should not be mentioned in a brief summary.

That's all just passive observing and analysis, but one can then imagine extending such an AI to include an agent model of itself (just as it already has for the people and animals and moving things it analyzes in videos) and to pursue goals of its own by participating in actual events. (Biological evolution, of course, would never produce a solely passive observer as that would never confer any adaptive advantage, so participating in events would coexist with the cognitive processing from the start.) At that point we'd almost surely have a conscious being, not merely an AI version of a p-zombie.

We might get (although we might have no way to recognize) rudimentary consciousness arising in self-driving vehicles, depending on what capabilities turn out to be needed to make them functional.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 20th February 2019 at 04:31 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 04:59 PM   #199
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Any recording device can "fake having had experiences" by playing back the recording. Such faking is easily detected due to the lack of summarizing.

Imagine a video of a woman cooking in a kitchen, who needs an ingredient that's in a canister on a high shelf out of reach, stands on a chair to reach it, but unexpectedly the chair breaks, causing her to fall, knocking a soup pot over and spilling soup all over the floor.

Do you think there will soon be an AI that can examine that video file, and output "A woman cooking in a kitchen, who needs an ingredient that's in a canister on a high shelf out of reach, stands on a chair to reach it, but unexpectedly the chair breaks, causing her to fall, accidentally knocking a soup pot over and spilling soup all over the floor."?

I don't think so, although I don't think the task is inherently impossible. In the 50+ years since Marvin Minsky assigned visual object recognition as a summer project for some undergraduate students, that problem has been partially cracked; we probably wouldn't have too much trouble getting the AI to recognize the woman, chair, soup pot, and canister in the video frames and track their movements over time. But imagine the processing and real-world knowledge integration needed to recognize that the woman's actions represent an attempt to reach the canister, and that the reason she does so is because she is cooking and it contains a cooking ingredient; and the agent modeling needed to recognize the woman didn't expect the chair to break and that knocking the soup pot over was therefore unintentional. Imagine the sophistication of the module that decides that the parts of the video when the woman stirs the soup, and when she puts down a measuring cup before moving the chair into position to stand on, are less relevant to the main history and therefore should not be mentioned in a brief summary.

That's all just passive observing and analysis, but one can then imagine extending such an AI to include an agent model of itself (just as it already has for the people and animals and moving things it analyzes in videos) and to pursue goals of its own by participating in actual events. (Biological evolution, of course, would never produce a solely passive observer as that would never confer any adaptive advantage, so participating in events would coexist with the cognitive processing from the start.) At that point we'd almost surely have a conscious being, not merely an AI version of a p-zombie.

We might get (although we might have no way to recognize) rudimentary consciousness arising in self-driving vehicles, depending on what capabilities turn out to be needed to make them functional.
It would be pretty easy to get AI to identify a human, chair, getting on chair, "retrieving something" (vs changing a lightbulb), etc. It could even be easily programmed to see "falling" in a kitchen and identify it as "accident" and as something like a 4 on a one to five scale of "accident severity/relevance".
Military drone AIs might already have reached about that level of analytical sophistication.

I'm not really sure how you'd program a robot to have an agent model of itself, or how to program it to pursue it's "own" goals. If you program a drone to fly forward 3 feet and then hover, is that it's "own" goal?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 05:27 PM   #200
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
At that point we'd almost surely have a conscious being, not merely an AI version of a p-zombie.

How does this follow from anything you said prior? Why would it be guaranteed to be conscious?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.