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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


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.
Reply
Old 31st October 2017, 02:08 AM   #81
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,226
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Whatever you do, whatever you get in return of that from any being having sense(may just be one--sense of touch) should justify consciousness. Magnitude of intelligence is a different issue can can vary.
Only if you define "consciousness" differently from everybody else.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot 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 31st October 2017, 02:25 AM   #82
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,893
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Only if you define "consciousness" differently from everybody else.
"Definition of consciousness

1 a :the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b :the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../consciousness

How my thought about consciousness is different from above defintions esp b one?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar 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 31st October 2017, 02:31 AM   #83
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,226
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
"Definition of consciousness

1 a :the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b :the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact"


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../consciousness

How my thought about consciousness is different from above defintions esp b one?
The fact that you think plants can have it.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot 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 31st October 2017, 04:38 PM   #84
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The fact that you think plants can have it.
Do you think machines can be conscious?
Fudbucker 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 31st October 2017, 04:54 PM   #85
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The fact that you think plants can have it.
Also, do you think plants process information? They would have to, at least to some extent, don't you think?
Fudbucker 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 31st October 2017, 05:00 PM   #86
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Do you think machines can be conscious?

Well that is the big question isn't it? I'm sure Kumar has a take on this because he is crediting plants with it. It's just a matter of behaving "with" the plant, machine, and even perhaps rock to get a feel for it.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 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 31st October 2017, 05:51 PM   #87
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,893
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The fact that you think plants can have it.
Can't say but definition b can some how suggest it.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar 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 1st November 2017, 09:12 AM   #88
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well that is the big question isn't it? I'm sure Kumar has a take on this because he is crediting plants with it. It's just a matter of behaving "with" the plant, machine, and even perhaps rock to get a feel for it.
There have been countless threads here on consciousness. Here's my take on it.

1. If materialism is true, then anything functionally equivalent to a working organic brain should be conscious.
2. Things that are functionally equivalent to a working organic brain aren't substrate dependent. That is to say, a functional equivalent to a brain can be made out of just about anything: ropes and pulleys, water and valves and pumps, transistors, etc.
3. It is absurd to think that a system of ropes and pulleys or water and pumps can be conscious. If such a system can be said to be conscious then anything can be conscious: water droplets in clouds, swarms of meteors, shifting sand dunes, etc. In other words, panpsychism would be the case.

Therefore, either organic brains are somehow special, panpsychism IS the case, or materialism isn't true.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 1st November 2017 at 09:13 AM.
Fudbucker 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 1st November 2017, 10:15 AM   #89
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,058
I'm going with "organic brains are somehow special".

I also think the (maybe) 19 physical fields (not quantum fields) science postulates the universe to be composed of, are somehow special. These fields theoretically span the universe, interact, and together manifest everything that exists, including brains.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown 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 1st November 2017, 10:24 AM   #90
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
There have been countless threads here on consciousness. Here's my take on it.

1. If materialism is true, then anything functionally equivalent to a working organic brain should be conscious.
2. Things that are functionally equivalent to a working organic brain aren't substrate dependent. That is to say, a functional equivalent to a brain can be made out of just about anything: ropes and pulleys, water and valves and pumps, transistors, etc.
3. It is absurd to think that a system of ropes and pulleys or water and pumps can be conscious. If such a system can be said to be conscious then anything can be conscious: water droplets in clouds, swarms of meteors, shifting sand dunes, etc. In other words, panpsychism would be the case.

Therefore, either organic brains are somehow special, panpsychism IS the case, or materialism isn't true.
Proof by mockery? Fail in step three.
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 1st November 2017, 11:49 AM   #91
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
Proof by mockery? Fail in step three.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Fudbucker 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 1st November 2017, 11:55 AM   #92
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I'm going with "organic brains are somehow special".

I also think the (maybe) 19 physical fields (not quantum fields) science postulates the universe to be composed of, are somehow special. These fields theoretically span the universe, interact, and together manifest everything that exists, including brains.
What, exactly, is special about organic brains?
Fudbucker 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 1st November 2017, 12:39 PM   #93
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It may seem absurd to you, but it doesn’t to me.

You might just as well have written that it is absurd that consciousness could arise from a collection or neurons or an assembly of atoms. It is a rejection of materialism by saying it is a ridiculous explanation for consciousness.

Last edited by jrhowell; 1st November 2017 at 12:42 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 1st November 2017, 01:11 PM   #94
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
It may seem absurd to you, but it doesn’t to me.

You might just as well have written that it is absurd that consciousness could arise from a collection or neurons or an assembly of atoms. It is a rejection of materialism by saying it is a ridiculous explanation for consciousness.
We're at rock bottom principles here. If you think a system of ropes and pulleys can be conscious, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe that, instead of materialism, idealism might be more your cup of tea?
Fudbucker 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 1st November 2017, 01:28 PM   #95
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
We're at rock bottom principles here. If you think a system of ropes and pulleys can be conscious, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe that, instead of materialism, idealism might be more your cup of tea?
I do not know how to build a conscious machine, but I do believe that the process of evolution has hit on a workable design that could be copied and instantiated in other media than the human brain.

It is absurdly impractical to try to build a concious system from ropes and pulleys, much in the same way trying to build the equivalent of a modern PC out of the same components would result in something too large, slow and failure-prone to be of practical use. But that is different from saying that in principle it couldn't be done with those components.

A human brain is vastly more complex than a modern PC and so there probably isn't enough room on the Earth to build the equivalent from ropes and pulleys. Even so, for your argument to be accepted (by me) you would need to state what precisely would be missing in such a device that would prevent consciousness from occurring.

Last edited by jrhowell; 1st November 2017 at 01:30 PM. Reason: typos
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 1st November 2017, 02:01 PM   #96
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
I do not know how to build a conscious machine, but I do believe that the process of evolution has hit on a workable design that could be copied and instantiated in other media than the human brain.

It is absurdly impractical to try to build a concious system from ropes and pulleys, much in the same way trying to build the equivalent of a modern PC out of the same components would result in something too large, slow and failure-prone to be of practical use. But that is different from saying that in principle it couldn't be done with those components.

A human brain is vastly more complex than a modern PC and so there probably isn't enough room on the Earth to build the equivalent from ropes and pulleys. Even so, for your argument to be accepted (by me) you would need to state what precisely would be missing in such a device that would prevent consciousness from occurring.
If it's functionally equivalent to a brain there would be nothing missing. That's why I'm not a materialist. Consciousness arising from shuttling electrons between synaptic gaps is just as absurd as consciousness arising from flowing water or moving ropes around. Eventually you get to conscious storms, sand dunes, comet swarms and, ultimately, a simulation of a universe of conscious beings arising from moving rocks around in some "special" way:https://www.google.com/search?safe=s....0.gu0NswV0b8k

And there are some people here who actually think what I linked is possible. I don't know if they post here anymore.

The chain of logic going from conscious organic brains to "rock consciousness" (as I call the comic) is pretty solid, yet the end result is clearly an absurdity. Do you believe that somewhere someone might be simulating you by moving rocks around on an endless desert? You might as well believe you exist as an idea in some god's mind.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 1st November 2017 at 02:02 PM.
Fudbucker 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 1st November 2017, 02:53 PM   #97
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,674
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
If it's functionally equivalent to a brain there would be nothing missing. That's why I'm not a materialist.
One can definitions of conscious around to fit whatever; but it looks like you're saying that nothing can be a brain, not even a brain.

Seems weird. What are you saying?

Quote:
Consciousness arising from shuttling electrons between synaptic gaps is just as absurd as consciousness arising from flowing water or moving ropes around.
The biochemistry of brains is solid evidence—for appropriate definitions of consciousness.

Any other devices have not shown the same capacity; so it is absurd to moot them seriously. This does not negate brains being conscious.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is online now   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 1st November 2017, 02:57 PM   #98
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,941
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
I do not know how to build a conscious machine, but I do believe that the process of evolution has hit on a workable design that could be copied and instantiated in other media than the human brain.

It is absurdly impractical to try to build a concious system from ropes and pulleys, much in the same way trying to build the equivalent of a modern PC out of the same components would result in something too large, slow and failure-prone to be of practical use. But that is different from saying that in principle it couldn't be done with those components.

A human brain is vastly more complex than a modern PC and so there probably isn't enough room on the Earth to build the equivalent from ropes and pulleys. Even so, for your argument to be accepted (by me) you would need to state what precisely would be missing in such a device that would prevent consciousness from occurring.

Yes well said.

Given that scientists have described consciousness as an enigma, the nature of which is not understood, it is surprising that some will give their knowledgable take on the subject.

To make a claim you cannot create a conscious entity from things material, and to assume from this that consciousness has an immaterial source, flies in the face of what we can observe when the material brain is modified or drugged.

Smells a bit like the God did it copout.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 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 1st November 2017, 03:10 PM   #99
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes well said.

Given that scientists have described consciousness as an enigma, the nature of which is not understood, it is surprising that some will give their knowledgable take on the subject.

To make a claim you cannot create a conscious entity from things material, and to assume from this that consciousness has an immaterial source, flies in the face of what we can observe when the material brain is modified or drugged.

Smells a bit like the God did it copout.
You're assuming there's a material brain to be modified, but that's what's being questioned. It's circular reasoning: Is consciousness being produced by a material brain, or some other kind of brain? A material brain, because when you mess with a material brain, consciousness is affected. But how do you know it's a material brain you're messing with, and on and on.

The observations we've made studying brains are equally consistent with materialism, idealism, simulation theory, etc., so suspend for a moment what you think brains actually are.

Consciousness arising from a material brain seems to lead to an absurdity. Either we're wrong about being conscious (highly unlikely) or what we're observing aren't material brains. If idealism is true, and all that exist are minds and ideas, then we don't have to worry about absurdities like consciousness arising from rope-brains or moving rocks around in some way. I should point out these absurdities aren't absurd in and of themselves. I have no problem with a bunch of ropes and pulleys being conscious in a non-materilaistic reality (e.g., idealism). It's when you combine the possibility of consciousness arising from moving rocks/ropes around AND materialism the house of cards collapses.

Of course, idealism begs some interesting questions...

Last edited by Fudbucker; 1st November 2017 at 03:17 PM.
Fudbucker 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 1st November 2017, 03:54 PM   #100
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You're assuming there's a material brain to be modified, but that's what's being questioned. It's circular reasoning: Is consciousness being produced by a material brain, or some other kind of brain? A material brain, because when you mess with a material brain, consciousness is affected. But how do you know it's a material brain you're messing with, and on and on.

The observations we've made studying brains are equally consistent with materialism, idealism, simulation theory, etc., so suspend for a moment what you think brains actually are.

Consciousness arising from a material brain seems to lead to an absurdity. Either we're wrong about being conscious (highly unlikely) or what we're observing aren't material brains...
Your reasoning also seems circular to me: Conciousness can't be produced by a material brain because that would mean that material objects other than a brain might be constructed to also be concious and that is absurd because only brains can be conscious.

Mentioning use of ropes and rocks to accomplish this is just attempting to poison the well.

To me your argument is equivalent to saying: A machine that can fly can never be built because it lacks some immaterial property that can only be found in natural bird feathers. To think that a metal object might fly like a bird is just absurd!

There is a difference between something being absurd (contradicting reality) and a lack of imagination as to what is possible within the bounds of materialism.

Last edited by jrhowell; 1st November 2017 at 04:00 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 1st November 2017, 05:12 PM   #101
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
Your reasoning also seems circular to me: Conciousness can't be produced by a material brain because that would mean that material objects other than a brain might be constructed to also be concious and that is absurd because only brains can be conscious.
I'll ask you again:

Do you believe that somewhere someone might be simulating you by moving rocks around on an endless desert?

Quote:
Mentioning use of ropes and rocks to accomplish this is just attempting to poison the well.
Poisoning the well is an attack on a person. I have not attacked anyone https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...oning-the-Well

Quote:
To me your argument is equivalent to saying: A machine that can fly can never be built because it lacks some immaterial property that can only be found in natural bird feathers. To think that a metal object might fly like a bird is just absurd!
So you think a system of ropes and pulleys can be conscious? What configuration does it have to be in? How many ropes and pulleys do you need? What's the causal factor? Can a shifting sand dune be conscious? What about a breaking wave?

Can moving rocks around in some way simulate a universe of conscious beings? Can a rock be conscious? A star?

Let me know how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

Quote:
There is a difference between something being absurd (contradicting reality) and a lack of imagination as to what is possible within the bounds of materialism.
Speaking of contradicting reality, do you have any knowledge of anything capable of being conscious other than organic brains? And if there are no constraints on the possibilities, then how is what you're talking about any different than theism? Of course it's possible a system of pumps, valves and water can be conscious. It's also possible there's an invisible pink unicorn in my room. Which do you think is more probable? Why?

Last edited by Fudbucker; 1st November 2017 at 05:16 PM.
Fudbucker 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 1st November 2017, 07:13 PM   #102
jrhowell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Do you believe that somewhere someone might be simulating you by moving rocks around on an endless desert?
I believe that the ultimate substrate upon which our universe is based is currently unknown and may be unknowable from our vantage point. There are many possibilities that are consistent with physical reality as we know it.

One is that our universe is being simulated within a larger universe. If that is true, the possibility that the simulation is being performed by moving rocks on a vast beach is so unlikely as to not be worth consideration as a real possibility. Technology far beyond our current level seems far more likely to me.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Poisoning the well is an attack on a person. I have not attacked anyone https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...oning-the-Well
I agree that I wasn't using the term correctly. Perhaps an appeal to ridicule is a better name for what I meant.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
So you think a system of ropes and pulleys can be conscious? What configuration does it have to be in? How many ropes and pulleys do you need? What's the causal factor? Can a shifting sand dune be conscious? What about a breaking wave? ... Let me know how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.
Pretty far, but not in the direction you are pointing.

I believe that consciousness is a set of complex behaviors evolved for survival. It is a very complex process, not a physical thing. It is knowable, but beyond our current knowledge. I believe that one day the details of the brain's construction that embody this process will be worked out.

I believe that once this process is understood in sufficient detail it can be expressed as an algorithm. That in turn would allow it to be realized in many possible ways.

The logical equivalence of any device that can implement an algorithm is a thought experiment that intentionally ignores practical constraints such as space, power and speed of operation. In the real world we could not actually implement anything as complex as consciousness using ropes and pulleys for practical reasons.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Speaking of contradicting reality, do you have any knowledge of anything capable of being conscious other than organic brains? And if there are no constraints on the possibilities, then how is what you're talking about any different than theism? Of course it's possible a system of pumps, valves and water can be conscious. It's also possible there's an invisible pink unicorn in my room. Which do you think is more probable? Why?
I believe that material reality sets firm constraints on what is possible and practical. It all hinges on whether or not an algorithm for consciousness can be discovered or developed. If so then the brain will not be the only way to realize 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 1st November 2017, 07:52 PM   #103
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,058
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
What, exactly, is special about organic brains?
Do you want that in the form of a thesis?

In the hope that you'll settle for something less than a full thesis, here is my organic brain's short answer:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Just kidding. That was actually the Beatles' organic brains doing the talking. The original cut.

I'm sure we can agree that the universe begins to look pretty strange when we begin to examine it's fundamental substrate. The question that seems to be dividing us is whether the physical universe is strange enough to account for sentience.

Well. It seems strange enough to me. We don't even understand what we think we know about it. I don't see how adding another dose of immaterial strangeness helps us account for sentience, when you can't explain how the added dose of immaterial strangeness leads to that Eureka Moment of understanding sentience.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 1st November 2017 at 07:54 PM.
Toontown 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 1st November 2017, 08:12 PM   #104
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
I believe that the ultimate substrate upon which our universe is based is currently unknown and may be unknowable from our vantage point. There are many possibilities that are consistent with physical reality as we know it.
You're assuming it's a physical reality, but I agree with the gist here. There is sense-data and there are our ideas about what causes that sensory information. There's a huge epistemological gulf in between the two. There hasn't been much progress made on that since the Allegory of the Cave. It's probably ultimately unknowable. Of course that doesn't mean odds can't be laid on models of reality. I doubt very much the Christian god is real and I'm doomed to hell for being an unbeliever.

Likewise, materialism's inability to explain consciousness hasn't been encouraging. The lurch towards panpsychism has been particularly interesting. IIT gets talked about a lot, which prompted my participation in the thread: do plants integrate information? If so, are they conscious?

Quote:
One is that our universe is being simulated within a larger universe. If that is true, the possibility that the simulation is being performed by moving rocks on a vast beach is so unlikely as to not be worth consideration as a real possibility. Technology far beyond our current level seems far more likely to me.
The idea that a universe of conscious beings could be simulated by moving rocks around is an absurdity. Of course it's possible, by virtue of not being logically contradictory, but the same could be said for Scientology. I think the odds of either one being true are about the same: as close to zero as you can get.

If materialism is forced to accede to the real possibility that reality is a product of rocks being moved around, I don't see how that's not a fatal flaw to the theory.

Quote:
I agree that I wasn't using the term correctly. Perhaps an appeal to ridicule is a better name for what I meant.
I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I claim that my consciousness is not a result of rocks being moved around. If that's not absurd, then nothing is. I can go into why it's absurd, but I don't think I need to.

Quote:
Pretty far [down the rabbit hole], but not in the direction you are pointing.

I believe that consciousness is a set of complex behaviors evolved for survival. It is a very complex process, not a physical thing. It is knowable, but beyond our current knowledge. I believe that one day the details of the brain's construction that embody this process will be worked out.
If consciousness "is a set of complex behaviors evolved for survival", doesn't that rule out conscious inanimate objects? So, no conscious computers, for example?

Quote:
I believe that once this process is understood in sufficient detail it can be expressed as an algorithm. That in turn would allow it to be realized in many possible ways.
That doesn't square with the preceding claim that consciousness came about as a survival benefit. And what would a "conscious algorithm" even be like? Do you think your consciousness experience could be expressed in an algorithm? How would that work? If a machine ran the algorithm, would it have your conscious experience?

Quote:
The logical equivalence of any device that can implement an algorithm is a thought experiment that intentionally ignores practical constraints such as space, power and speed of operation. In the real world we could not actually implement anything as complex as consciousness using ropes and pulleys for practical reasons.
Even as a thought experiment, it's absurd. It's the materialist equivalent of "god did it": you get enough ropes and pulleys together, move it around in a certain way, it becomes conscious. Somehow.


Quote:
I believe that material reality sets firm constraints on what is possible and practical. It all hinges on whether or not an algorithm for consciousness can be discovered or developed. If so then the brain will not be the only way to realize it.
And what if there is no algorithm?

Last edited by Fudbucker; 1st November 2017 at 08:15 PM.
Fudbucker 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 1st November 2017, 09:36 PM   #105
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Do you want that in the form of a thesis?

In the hope that you'll settle for something less than a full thesis, here is my organic brain's short answer:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Just kidding. That was actually the Beatles' organic brains doing the talking. The original cut.

I'm sure we can agree that the universe begins to look pretty strange when we begin to examine it's fundamental substrate. The question that seems to be dividing us is whether the physical universe is strange enough to account for sentience.

Well. It seems strange enough to me. We don't even understand what we think we know about it. I don't see how adding another dose of immaterial strangeness helps us account for sentience, when you can't explain how the added dose of immaterial strangeness leads to that Eureka Moment of understanding sentience.
Idealism avoids the absurdity that materialism falls prey to. At least wrt consciousness.
Fudbucker 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 2nd November 2017, 06:26 AM   #106
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,026
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Do we limit consciousness to apparent brain only or can there be any other mechanism which can express consciousness without apparent brain?
That's a lot of the problem with the discussion, isn't it? We try to understand what AI/artificial self-awareness would entail based on our current understanding about what it is in the organic state and what we know about machine learning. But artificial self-awareness may operate in a way not currently understood, is that what you are saying?
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.
Thermal 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 2nd November 2017, 02:20 PM   #107
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,226
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Can't say but definition b can some how suggest it.
Definition b is circular. Consciousness is defined as the state of being conscious. Define "conscious" and that definition might be useful for something.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot 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 2nd November 2017, 02:24 PM   #108
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,226
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Do you think machines can be conscious?
That's an extremely badly-formed question. Do I think machines could be conscious? Perhaps, given a sufficiently-complex machine, though it is far from clear whether such machines are even technologically feasible. Do I think any machine today is conscious? No, we have no sufficiently-complex machines today. Do I think that machines might become conscious in the future? Perhaps, depending on the technologies involved. Do I think machines should become conscious? No, I don't think there's any need for that.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot 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 2nd November 2017, 02:56 PM   #109
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,674
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
.. do plants integrate information? If so, are they conscious?
Depends where one chooses to start on a scale. Point at a number and conscious is from there up. Point lower and plants can be included—so what?

It's all about very specific, evolved biochemistry and the term "conscious" is fuzzy. We humans like to dub ourselves so; it's a vibrant part of our experience.

I watched a tiny bug on the wall tonight; thing's small as a pinhead. It has all it needs to navigate, survive and reproduce. In many ways it has the same toolkit as me. I don't have a problem imagining that it has little thoughts about its world as it lives its life.

The scale keeps going up and has a cut-off too. At some point, the participants in the reactions and machinations become too gross, too massive, too.. too. Stuff does not work the same anymore.

Quote:
If materialism is forced to accede to the real possibility that reality is a product of rocks being moved around, I don't see how that's not a fatal flaw to the theory.
No, I don't think "materialism" holds what you claim it does. It's nuanced. There are limits.

Quote:
I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I claim that my consciousness is not a result of rocks being moved around. If that's not absurd, then nothing is.
Your reaction to this figment of absurdity, which does not exist, seems to be what rebounds you into idealism. Whatever that is.

Quote:
If consciousness "is a set of complex behaviors evolved for survival", doesn't that rule out conscious inanimate objects? So, no conscious computers, for example?
None as known; yet. Get the conditions, scale, timings, speeds, cooling, frictions, interactions and all that right and .. it becomes a new thing we must acknowledge. Right now it's a story.

Quote:
And what would a "conscious algorithm" even be like? Do you think your consciousness experience could be expressed in an algorithm? How would that work? If a machine ran the algorithm, would it have your conscious experience?
Algorithm is short for "all the stuff that makes it work like an organic human brain." That's a tall order. Once you can reflect it all into electronics or software, it must then act as does its reflection— and be conscious.

Of course, this might not happen.

Quote:
Even as a thought experiment, it's absurd. It's the materialist equivalent of "god did it": you get enough ropes and pulleys together, move it around in a certain way, it becomes conscious. Somehow.
Personally, I am finding this more and more straw-like. You say it a lot.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is online now   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 2nd November 2017, 03:02 PM   #110
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,170
Consciousness is what brains do. Brains, plus peripheral nervous systems, for the qualia kick.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes 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 2nd November 2017, 04:29 PM   #111
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
Depends where one chooses to start on a scale. Point at a number and conscious is from there up. Point lower and plants can be included—so what?

It's all about very specific, evolved biochemistry and the term "conscious" is fuzzy. We humans like to dub ourselves so; it's a vibrant part of our experience.

I watched a tiny bug on the wall tonight; thing's small as a pinhead. It has all it needs to navigate, survive and reproduce. In many ways it has the same toolkit as me. I don't have a problem imagining that it has little thoughts about its world as it lives its life.

The scale keeps going up and has a cut-off too. At some point, the participants in the reactions and machinations become too gross, too massive, too.. too. Stuff does not work the same anymore.



No, I don't think "materialism" holds what you claim it does. It's nuanced. There are limits.



Your reaction to this figment of absurdity, which does not exist, seems to be what rebounds you into idealism. Whatever that is.



None as known; yet. Get the conditions, scale, timings, speeds, cooling, frictions, interactions and all that right and .. it becomes a new thing we must acknowledge. Right now it's a story.



Algorithm is short for "all the stuff that makes it work like an organic human brain." That's a tall order. Once you can reflect it all into electronics or software, it must then act as does its reflection— and be conscious.

Of course, this might not happen.



Personally, I am finding this more and more straw-like. You say it a lot.
You've been around here a long time, Donn. You don't remember PixyMisa and all the rope-brain/rock-consciousness threads? There were a lot of people here who swore by that stuff.
Fudbucker 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 3rd November 2017, 09:56 AM   #112
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,674
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You've been around here a long time, Donn. You don't remember PixyMisa and all the rope-brain/rock-consciousness threads? There were a lot of people here who swore by that stuff.
Sure, I know what you are speaking about, I just don't think it's science in any hard way. The rope/rock stuff is really about stretching the limits and challenging the prevailing inverse: supernatural gods etc.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is online now   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 3rd November 2017, 05:43 PM   #113
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
Sure, I know what you are speaking about, I just don't think it's science in any hard way. The rope/rock stuff is really about stretching the limits and challenging the prevailing inverse: supernatural gods etc.
But there are a lot of materialists who DO think that why, so to accuse me of "strawmanning" completely misses the mark. My god, there were materialists here who were convinced thermostats and washing machines were conscious.

And I'll tell you why they claimed that: they knew it's not much of a leap from claiming collections of switches (computers) can be conscious to conscious rope brains and simulating universes vis-a-vis moving rocks around.

But let me ask you: is it possible that a computer can be conscious?

Last edited by Fudbucker; 3rd November 2017 at 05:45 PM.
Fudbucker 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 4th November 2017, 01:15 AM   #114
StackOverflow
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 76
Ask the computer you are using right now
StackOverflow 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 4th November 2017, 02:43 AM   #115
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,893
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That's a lot of the problem with the discussion, isn't it? We try to understand what AI/artificial self-awareness would entail based on our current understanding about what it is in the organic state and what we know about machine learning. But artificial self-awareness may operate in a way not currently understood, is that what you are saying?
No, I am just saying consciousness should be just awareness, from whatever mechanism not limited to brain. This dict. definition justify it
"b :the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact" "

Suppose a plant "touch me not" close it leaves on touch, it should mean he has consciousness. So on.

Magnitude of Intelligence is different angle.

I feel, it should belong to capable of sensing or "not dead"?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar 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 4th November 2017, 02:47 AM   #116
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,893
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Definition b is circular. Consciousness is defined as the state of being conscious. Define "conscious" and that definition might be useful for something.
"b :the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact"

Should it not just suggest "not dead" or capable of sensing to any external object"? May be any being with sense or by any physiological mechanism.

Magnitude of Intelligence is different angle.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar 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 4th November 2017, 02:53 AM   #117
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,674
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
But there are a lot of materialists who DO think that why, so to accuse me of "strawmanning" completely misses the mark. My god, there were materialists here who were convinced thermostats and washing machines were conscious.
Well, I react to your approach. My bad. This forum is narrowing somewhat to fewer posters with wider gulfs.

What one names "conscious" is really the issue. That little beetle on my wall (who now has far too many pals...) has, imo, a consciousness. I think the degrees of its freedoms of movement and decision are scaled-down, but equal to my own.

I can also twiddle the dials on the definition and reserve consciousness for people only. I am less comfortable with this nowadays. It's a word that can fit a range, which makes it fuel for Internet fights.

Quote:
And I'll tell you why they claimed that: they knew it's not much of a leap from claiming collections of switches (computers) can be conscious to conscious rope brains and simulating universes vis-a-vis moving rocks around.

But let me ask you: is it possible that a computer can be conscious?
I would say no. Not now.

Possible things are nascent; they might become mundane; they might actually be impossible.

The raw materials of consciousness seem to be all around; with increasing tech, the course seems set: a human-made something (other than babies) will wake and agree that it exists.

Maybe. If the problem is not too intractable. Babies happen, after all.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is online now   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 4th November 2017, 10:30 AM   #118
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
That's an extremely badly-formed question. Do I think machines could be conscious? Perhaps, given a sufficiently-complex machine, though it is far from clear whether such machines are even technologically feasible. Do I think any machine today is conscious? No, we have no sufficiently-complex machines today. Do I think that machines might become conscious in the future? Perhaps, depending on the technologies involved. Do I think machines should become conscious? No, I don't think there's any need for that.
How could a collection of electronic switches or qubits or whatever become conscious?
Fudbucker 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 4th November 2017, 10:45 AM   #119
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,841
The same way a collection of neurons and synapses can become conscious, presumably.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 4th November 2017, 10:53 AM   #120
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,500
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The same way a collection of neurons and synapses can become conscious, presumably.
And that way is?
Fudbucker 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 » Religion and Philosophy

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 06:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.