# What is Consciousness?



## Relaxation

What do you think it is?
Can a computer have consciousness?


----------



## Lachlan

being human
no, a computer can not.


----------



## huh

Some other animals have varying degrees of consciousness. But what is it? I'm not sure. I like David Chalmer's view on it though.



> Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain.


Can a computer have it? Possibly...but it's going to be a while before that would happen (if it can). It's a biological function of our brain and there are many hurdles to leap before we can develop something like that.


----------



## broseph

What consciousness is an open question that won't be answered for quite some time so I'm not gonna pretend to know that one.

Our current voltage driven computers probably can't become conscious, they might be able to convincingly simulate it though. I see no reason why a quantum or biological computer can't become conscious though.


----------



## Lachlan

surely though, a 'computer' by definition computes. Therfore it can only perform mechanical logical funtions. How then can it think intuitively, something which we seem to be able to do, which would surely be part of being conscious. If an animal has a degree consciousness (which ones were you thinking of?) , why would not all animals have consciousness as well?


----------



## thesilenthunter90

Relaxation said:


> What do you think it is?
> Can a computer have consciousness?


I think consciousness is the sum of all your your interactions with your environment. The human mind is made up of neurons firing and its this collective process that is consciousness. Its not fully understood yet, but its a matter of time.

Computers cannot have a consciousness because like us they have immense computing powers t but they are not interacting with their environment by their own free will. They have an intelligence but no consciousness.


----------



## Misanthropic

Consciousness is the brain processing information. In future, maybe computers/machines will have the capacity for subjective awareness.



> Computers cannot have a consciousness because like us they have immense computing powers t but they are not interacting with their environment by their own free


Why is the brain the only physical object in the universe that people assume has free will? Consciousness has nothing to do with free will, even consciousness is the result of unconscious, neurological activity. Neurons don't choose to behave the way that they do, they're only reacting to stimuli.


----------



## Lachlan

^ so would you say an animal is conscious? they have brains processing information.


----------



## Misanthropic

Lachlan said:


> ^ so would you say an animal is conscious? they have brains processing information.


I'm shocked that some people _seriously_ believe that humans are the only conscious animals on the planet.

Few scientists would deny the likeliness of all vertebrates being sentient and I have *never* heard of a scientist in this day and age who denied the likeliness of all mammals and birds being sentient. Our nervous systems are too similar.


----------



## low

thesilenthunter90 said:


> I think consciousness is the sum of all your your interactions with your environment. The human mind is made up of neurons firing and its this collective process that is consciousness. Its not fully understood yet, but its a matter of time.
> 
> Computers cannot have a consciousness because like us they have immense computing powers t but they are not interacting with their environment by their own free will. They have an intelligence but no consciousness.


I was going to say something like the first paragraph. It's hard to define and locate also, there is no one region that forms your consciousness. It's a collection of neurons from different regions which can have defined general functions. Which make up your memories, how you have learnt, which in turn affect your morals, how you interpret things.

I think computers will have consciousness if we are smart enough to engineer them that way in the future, or create machines that can.


----------



## jook

If we could all turn our brains off, what would be left is consciousness. It's the background silence that has no form or definition. It's the stuff we're made of minus our interpretations of the stuff. It's difficult to imagine because it's difficult for most people to imagine "no thought". However this state is attainable and some have attained it for periods of time.

But more often we're always thinking, or doing and usually both at the same time. What we seldom engage in is "being." Consciousness is just being. Even if we were all to disappear from the face of the earth, there would still be an awareness, a presence here. There would still be intelligence perceiving the universe. That intelligence is consciousness. It is also what some understand to be God. It is the thing outside of our ability to create or modify with our thinking and doing. It is life itself.


----------



## Lasair

You don't know how lucky you are being a monkey because consciousness is a terrible curse. I think, I feel, I suffer, and all I ask in turn is the opportunity to do my work, and they won't allow it because I raise issues

Being John Malkovich - 1999


----------



## Paul

Philosophically, I say consciousness is what it's like to _be_ that which we describe physically as patterns of neurons firing. It's not correct to say that it _is_ neurons firing, since neurons are the third person relative representation.


----------



## Glacial

Simply put (imo): awareness, especially associated with higher-level thinking unique to the human experience.


----------



## BoostedSol

Hoth said:


> Philosophically, I say consciousness is what it's like to _be_ that which we describe physically as patterns of neurons firing. It's not correct to say that it _is_ neurons firing, since neurons are the third person relative representation.


Consciousness is one of the most interesting things to think about IMO. I'm convinced that the mind and the brain are not the same and not entirely physical via the indiscerniblillity of identicals, If there is something true of A that is not true of B or put another way if A has properties that B does not have or vise versa they cannot be the same thing. In the case of the mind there are properties true of the mind that are not true of the brain. Thoughts for instance are "about" other things, this "abouness" is not true of anything physical but is irreducible and intrinsic to the mind, also we have a first person awareness or an I, a receiver of experiences and information and like you mentioned physical brain states are 3rd person in nature. It would be interesting to discuss epiphenomenalism and other competing views, there's a ton to discuss on this topic, one is why I think that epiphenomenalism if true would be impossible to rationally affirm (I'm baiting discussion )


----------



## Belshazzar

Chalmers' definition is probably the closest to being accurate for now. Many different people in many different fields will construct consciousness in different ways according to what parts they want to look at and what their objectives are. A satisfactory unified definition is difficult to come up with, though.

Depending on how one defines consciousness, a computer may or may not have it. Parts of the human mind can be represented computationally using things such as neural networks. I think the difference between humans, animals, and computers shouldn't be defined as consciousness so much as self-awareness. Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have demonstrated at least some form of self-awareness by being able to recognize their reflections in mirrors and communicate in sign language. I doubt it will happen anytime soon, but computers may be able to gain this rudimentary self-awareness, maybe even more, at some point in the future.


----------



## Amocholes

Conscious is a sense of self.


----------



## Belshazzar

BoostedSol said:


> Consciousness is one of the most interesting things to think about IMO. I'm convinced that the mind and the brain are not the same and not entirely physical via the indiscerniblillity of identicals, If there is something true of A that is not true of B or put another way if A has properties that B does not have or vise versa they cannot be the same thing. In the case of the mind there are properties true of the mind that are not true of the brain. Thoughts for instance are "about" other things, this "abouness" is not true of anything physical but is irreducible and intrinsic to the mind, also we have a first person awareness or an I, a receiver of experiences and information and like you mentioned physical brain states are 3rd person in nature. It would be interesting to discuss epiphenomenalism and other competing views, there's a ton to discuss on this topic, one is why I think that epiphenomenalism if true would be impossible to rationally affirm (I'm baiting discussion )


Dualism has so many holes, though, and can be attacked from a variety of angles. One simple argument would be that it doesn't explain how the immaterial interacts with the material (is opening a door caused by the "ego" or neuronal action?). Another is Occam's razor -- the immaterial explanation only adds another layer with more problems rather than giving an elegant explanation.

The problem is that the materialist view gets straw manned as "consciousness is just a bunch of electrochemical interactions." That's as nonsensical as saying "novels are just ink on paper," "music is just indentations on plastic," "governments are just people talking about politics."

Take a computer, for example. At base level it's just electricity running through circuit boards to create strings of 1's and 0's. Even the most skilled programmer can't decipher the miles of 1's and 0's it takes to produce something like an operating system. So we invented a more abstract layer to put on top of binary to make it easier to interact with in the form of GUIs and GUI-based applications. This level is isomorphic to the base layer of binary, but it would be ridiculous to tell someone whose OS just crashed to reprogram their PC in binary. Consciousness, by analogy, is isomorphic to the state of the brain, but it's often rather nonsensical to speak of conscious constructs in reductionist terms. ("I love the taste of hot dogs, really gets ol' neurons #5491-6231 firing.")


----------



## BoostedSol

Belshazzar said:


> Dualism has so many holes, though, and can be attacked from a variety of angles. One simple argument would be that it doesn't explain how the immaterial interacts with the material (is opening a door caused by the "ego" or neuronal action?). Another is Occam's razor -- the immaterial explanation only adds another layer with more problems rather than giving an elegant explanation.
> 
> The problem is that the materialist view gets straw manned as "consciousness is just a bunch of electrochemical interactions." That's as nonsensical as saying "novels are just ink on paper," "music is just indentations on plastic," "governments are just people talking about politics."
> 
> Take a computer, for example. At base level it's just electricity running through circuit boards to create strings of 1's and 0's. Even the most skilled programmer can't decipher the miles of 1's and 0's it takes to produce something like an operating system. So we invented a more abstract layer to put on top of binary to make it easier to interact with in the form of GUIs and GUI-based applications. This level is isomorphic to the base layer of binary, but it would be ridiculous to tell someone whose OS just crashed to reprogram their PC in binary. Consciousness, by analogy, is isomorphic to the state of the brain, but it's often rather nonsensical to speak of conscious constructs in reductionist terms. ("I love the taste of hot dogs, really gets ol' neurons #5491-6231 firing.")


Hey, belshazzar. Thanks for the in depth comment.

A few thoughts, first I think that is a misuse of Occams razor, the principle is "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" The mind does not go beyond what is necessary to explain the mind since a physicalist explanation of the mind is incomplete, and therefore requires something more for it's explanation, IE the mind. So it's right in line with the principle.

And as a side note I think the burden of proof in relation to occams razor actually rests on the physicalist, for since both the first-person awareness of our own self and the self presenting nature of our own mental states the knowledge we have of them is often incorrigible and something we have private access too, and neither of these two things are true of physical states, and so we are actually more certain that we have a soul then that we have a body, so the burden of proof for mental phenomena arguably rests on the physicalist.

On not being able to explain how the Immaterial interacts with the material, I think this might have some problematic assumptions behind it, for the dualist affirms that the mind has no "mechanism" of causation with the brain, the causation is immediate and direct. This question is actually inconsequential to the truth of dualism anyway sense it does not follow that since we do not know "how" A causes B then it is not reasonable to think that A causes B. That is false sense we often know one thing causes another even though we don't know how interaction takes place IE protons exert a repulsive force even though we don't know "how" this interaction takes place.

-Matt


----------



## sprinter

BoostedSol said:


> Consciousness is one of the most interesting things to think about IMO. I'm convinced that the mind and the brain are not the same and not entirely physical via the indiscerniblillity of identicals, If there is something true of A that is not true of B or put another way if A has properties that B does not have or vise versa they cannot be the same thing. In the case of the mind there are properties true of the mind that are not true of the brain. Thoughts for instance are "about" other things, this "abouness" is not true of anything physical but is irreducible and intrinsic to the mind, also we have a first person awareness or an I, a receiver of experiences and information and like you mentioned physical brain states are 3rd person in nature. It would be interesting to discuss epiphenomenalism and other competing views, there's a ton to discuss on this topic, one is why I think that epiphenomenalism if true would be impossible to rationally affirm (I'm baiting discussion )


Maybe this will help


----------



## BoostedSol

sprinter said:


> Maybe this will help


I've seen like every video on the closer to truth site! lol. I actually side more with J.P Morelands articulation of mind body dualism, I think it's closer to truth (I had too:lol :no). You should find his interview and post it :b


----------



## Belshazzar

1. The burden of proof always rests with the one making the positive statement, not the person making a seemingly unintuitive statement. The existence of a mind separate from the brain is a positive statement. I fail to see how this separation explains more than the materialist model does because of the following:
a. If mind and brain are separate entities, it raises the question of how or when are they separate. If the mind is separate from the brain, this implies that brain damage should not harm the mind. One could say that the brain is some sort of intermediary between the physical world and non-physical mind, and if it is damaged, then that bridge is broken. That leaves us with an extra construct, "mind," which becomes unfalsifiable, empirically unsupported, and hence cut away by Occam's razor.
b. Neuroscience is developing a means of "reading" the brain, like a CD-player reads a CD. Consciousness might not be a black box or strictly personal and unavailable to anyone else but one person. Using brain imaging, researchers have been able to reproduce words read by a subject from the state of the subject's brain. (See Miyawaki et al., 2008) The technology is in its infancy, but even with how primitive it is now, we could be able to see how words look to a dyslexic as compared to a normal person.

2. With respect to causation, I don't deny that because an observed phenomenon's causation is unknown that it doesn't exist. I should clarify my argument. Once again, I think the immaterial source of causation is an unnecessary part of the explanation of consciousness. Saying that the mind rearranges the physical nature of the brain is something like saying (immaterial) angels push objects toward the earth and that is why there is an attractive force between the two objects.

This is an unnecessary complication. When I think of causation, I like to envision it as unified but split into two parts: "upward causation" and "downward causation." In upward causation, there is a direct interaction with the physical material. In downward, there is no direct interaction.

Let me return to the computer analogy. In upward causation, we could take the hard drive and smash it to pieces. No more data on the abstract or physical level. In downward causation, we could install a new program. New data which causes the hard disk platter to change physically. Yet we have no problem not ascribing some immaterial force to these things. Analogously, we can give examples of upward causation in the brain (brain damage via lobotomy) or downward causation (Hebbian learning induced by hearing a lecture). The interaction between the abstract and physical layers, however, can still be reduced to a physical action.

3. Plantinga's argument is very weak. If I understand correctly, he bases his conclusion on two premises. 
a. If A and B do not have the same characteristics, A != B. In my conception, A (mind) and B (brain/body) seem different but are in fact the same. The apparent difference is in the isomorphism. If Plantinga's argument is true, then books, tapes, discs, etc. should also have some immaterial component (i.e., a "mind" or a "soul") because the meaning of a novel or piece of music is not equal to ink on a page or indentations on plastic. These ink spots and indentations, I would argue, are isomorphic, to, not separate from their "higher" meaning. In Plantinga's world, a novel or a symphony could exist without any physical representation.
b. If one can imagine one's consciousness as separate from one's body, that means there is some separation (because A != B). This is a stretch (a huge one, and I think it's still generous to call it that). I can imagine that unicorns exist, but this doesn't make them real. Plantinga's thought experiment using Kafka is completely ungrounded. If the consciousness of a human could be "transplanted" into a beetle in reality, then he would have an argument. So far, there is no evidence to suggest that human consciousness could exist "inside" a beetle brain. The story is pure fantasy, nothing more.


----------



## sprinter

I'm sure my beliefs are not exactly the same as Plantinga"s but since I posted the video maybe I can attempt to respond to some of these...



> 3. Plantinga's argument is very weak. If I understand correctly, he bases his conclusion on two premises.
> a. If A and B do not have the same characteristics, A != B.


 Yes it depends on Leibniz's law, he says A and B have at least some properties that are not the same specifically A has the modal property "possibly exists when B doesn't" that B doesn't have.



> In my conception, A (mind) and B (brain/body) seem different but are in fact the same. The apparent difference is in the isomorphism. If Plantinga's argument is true, then books, tapes, discs, etc. should also have some immaterial component (i.e., a "mind" or a "soul") because the meaning of a novel or piece of music is not equal to ink on a page or indentations on plastic. These ink spots and indentations, I would argue, are isomorphic, to, not separate from their "higher" meaning. In Plantinga's world, a novel or a symphony could exist without any physical representation.


Surely a novel of piece of music exists in the creator's mind first and what the mind is or is not is what's under discussion.



> b. If one can imagine one's consciousness as separate from one's body, that means there is some separation (because A != B). This is a stretch (a huge one, and I think it's still generous to call it that). I can imagine that unicorns exist, but this doesn't make them real. Plantinga's thought experiment using Kafka is completely ungrounded. If the consciousness of a human could be "transplanted" into a beetle in reality, then he would have an argument. So far, there is no evidence to suggest that human consciousness could exist "inside" a beetle brain. The story is pure fantasy, nothing more.


To be fair he is not arguing for the existence of something(unicorn) but that the mind and body/brain are not one in the same. Modal logic involves the possible<> and necessary[] operators. Imagining something possible, conceivable without contradiction is part of the deal.


----------



## Belshazzar

sprinter said:


> I'm sure my beliefs are not exactly the same as Plantinga"s but since I posted the video maybe I can attempt to respond to some of these...
> 
> 1. Yes it depends on Leibniz's law, he says A and B have at least some properties that are not the same specifically A has the modal property "possibly exists when B doesn't" that B doesn't have.
> 
> 2. Surely a novel of piece of music exists in the creator's mind first and what the mind is or is not is what's under discussion.
> 
> 3. To be fair he is not arguing for the existence of something(unicorn) but that the mind and body/brain are not one in the same. Modal logic involves the possible<> and necessary[] operators. Imagining something possible, conceivable without contradiction is part of the deal.


1. This argument still has two holes: one, we have no evidence to believe A exists when B doesn't. If a question is unanswered, suggesting an answer that fits but has no supporting evidence is not a satisfactory answer.

Two, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, we're back to the point where computers can have immaterial "minds" as well. When a computer is turned off, does the operating system cease to exist? According to this argument, if no, the computer also has an immaterial mind. If yes, then why can't the "mind" of a human cease to exist when it dies?

2. There are two problems with this argument as well. One, the imagining a piece of music activates the auditory cortex of the brain in a similar fashion as actually hearing it does. The study I cited in the previous post demonstrates that brain scans can reveal sensory information being perceived by subjects. This suggests that we may be able to "read" an imagined piece of music through brain imaging in the future. No immaterial mind necessary.

Two, what happens after a piece of music is lost -- no physical copies, the composer has died, and everyone who's heard it has died. Now we're left with some kind of ghost of a symphony? Another unnecessary and unjustified implication of Plantinga's argument.

3. I stick by my original argument here. You say he is not arguing for the existence of something -- how is that possible? He is arguing that an immaterial mind exists. My point about the unicorn was that Plantinga was arguing that the mind must be different from the brain if he can imagine becoming a beetle like Kafka. The thing is, this example is irrelevant because, as far as we know, consciousness cannot be transplanted from one body to another. This would require a beetle's brain to be capable of higher thought, among other things.

If "imagining something conceivable without contradiction" is the goal, then the floodgates open up entirely. You can't prove a negative -- so then whatever I can conceive of cannot be contradicted. But taping a horn to a horse doesn't make it a unicorn and imagining an invisible unicorn doesn't make it likely that such a thing is real.

Leibniz and Plantinga have tried to justify the existence of metaphysical entities through a priori assumptions and deductive arguments. Even if they make logical sense, they still rest on assumptions that are unjustified and, when taken to their logical conclusions, complicate theories of the physical world more than they explain them.


----------



## Belshazzar

Re-watching the video, I think I misunderstood part of his argument about Leibniz's law. However, it only brings up more questions.

Let's say we have two identical carbon atoms. One is in a vacuum and cannot bond and one is in "the wild" and can bond. When they are isolated, they are identical besides their setting. Now the carbon atom outside the vacuum can bond and thus has more possibilities (let's say for the sake of argument that the vacuum is sealed and impossible to open). These atoms are identical yet the possibilities for each one are not identical but dependent on their environment. Thus A=B but A(Possibilities)!=B(possibilities). Would Plantinga deny that these two carbon atoms are physically identical?

It seems he would answer yes. But if they aren't, then two things can never be identical unless they are physically identical and in the same setting. All of this seems to be a battle of semantics rather than philosophy. We need a solid definition of "possibility" and "identical."


----------



## sprinter

> Two, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, we're back to the point where computers can have immaterial "minds" as well. When a computer is turned off, does the operating system cease to exist? According to this argument, if no, the computer also has an immaterial mind. If yes, then why can't the "mind" of a human cease to exist when it dies?


I haven't seen any formal version of the argument, so I'm just going by the video and I don't see where the argument says a mind can't cease to exist when it's body dies, I certainly believe it can. I think the argument just says that it's possible for the mind to exist without it's body because the mind and brain are not exactly the same thing. I'm pretty sure though Plantinga believes in an immaterial mind/soul of some sort but I don't necessarily.



> 2. There are two problems with this argument as well. One, the imagining a piece of music activates the auditory cortex of the brain in a similar fashion as actually hearing it does. The study I cited in the previous post demonstrates that brain scans can reveal sensory information being perceived by subjects. This suggests that we may be able to "read" an imagined piece of music through brain imaging in the future. No immaterial mind necessary.


Okay but I don't know how that has anything to do with whether the mind can exist without it's brain.



> Two, what happens after a piece of music is lost -- no physical copies, the composer has died, and everyone who's heard it has died. Now we're left with some kind of ghost of a symphony? Another unnecessary and unjustified implication of Plantinga's argument.


It's still possible for someone else to come up with basically the same piece of music and then it would exist again.



> 3. I stick by my original argument here. You say he is not arguing for the existence of something -- how is that possible? He is arguing that an immaterial mind exists.


Like I said I haven't seen the formal argument I couldn't find it but from the video I don't see where he is arguing for a immaterial mind only that the mind and brain/body are not one and the same.



> If "imagining something conceivable without contradiction" is the goal, then the floodgates open up entirely. You can't prove a negative -- so then whatever I can conceive of cannot be contradicted. But taping a horn to a horse doesn't make it a unicorn and imagining an invisible unicorn doesn't make it likely that such a thing is real.


Imaginging something without contradiction is certainly not the goal. But if a concept has an inherent contradiction you know you have a problem.



> Leibniz and Plantinga have tried to justify the existence of metaphysical entities through a priori assumptions and deductive arguments. Even if they make logical sense, they still rest on assumptions that are unjustified and, when taken to their logical conclusions, complicate theories of the physical world more than they explain them.


Science uses deduction and induction and I'm sure you know Leibniz developed calculus which is one of the most useful tools in science.


----------



## Belshazzar

sprinter said:


> 1. I haven't seen any formal version of the argument, so I'm just going by the video and I don't see where the argument says a mind can't cease to exist when it's body dies, I certainly believe it can. I think the argument just says that it's possible for the mind to exist without it's body because the mind and brain are not exactly the same thing. I'm pretty sure though Plantinga believes in an immaterial mind/soul of some sort but I don't necessarily.
> 
> 2. Okay but I don't know how that has anything to do with whether the mind can exist without it's brain.
> 
> 3. It's still possible for someone else to come up with basically the same piece of music and then it would exist again.
> 
> 4. Like I said I haven't seen the formal argument I couldn't find it but from the video I don't see where he is arguing for a immaterial mind only that the mind and brain/body are not one and the same.
> 
> 5. Imaginging something without contradiction is certainly not the goal. But if a concept has an inherent contradiction you know you have a problem.
> 
> 6. Science uses deduction and induction and I'm sure you know Leibniz developed calculus which is one of the most useful tools in science.


1. I was just arguing against what Plantinga asserted, which is that the separation is true because the possibilities of the mind and brain differ. If you want to argue about what you believe, we can do that, but I don't know what it is you believe.

2. It has everything to do with the separation of brain and mind. If we can demonstrate that the musical piece exists in the brain, the immaterial mind becomes an unnecessary metaphysical construct tacked onto the brain. This is like a "god of the gaps" argument. The more that can be explained in terms of the brain, the less the "mind" is needed.

3. "Then it would exist again." So does the immaterial symphony then cease to exist after the physical copies are destroyed? I think you made my point for me here.

4. If the brain and mind are not the same, then he's arguing for the existence of something. That's either a material or immaterial mind. He's explicitly arguing against materialism, so I'd assume that he's arguing for an immaterial mind.

5. So? If you have a contradiction, then you're hosed. But if you don't have a contradiction, that doesn't prove that you're correct.

6. I know who Leibniz is. My point, to be more explicit, was that he also created monads and the Greatest World Argument. These are arguments that start out with faulty assumptions and use deductive reasoning to draw all sorts of inferences. Deductive reasoning is problematic unless you closely examine your assumptions. Leibniz may have been a mathematical genius, but he took this sort of reasoning too far without regard for empirical evidence, like the apocryphal scholastics who consult ancient texts to find out the number of teeth in a horse's mouth instead of looking at the horse's mouth.


----------



## BoostedSol

Dang it there was a discussion going on in here and I didn't know it! I'll have to jump in on this tomorrow lol.


----------



## sprinter

> 3. "Then it would exist again." So does the immaterial symphony then cease to exist after the physical copies are destroyed? I think you made my point for me here.


I have no problem with it not existing so to speak I thought I was clear about that and that I don't have a problem with a mind not existing. Again just from the video it seems the point of the argument is that the brain and mind are not the same. But again I haven't seen the full argument or what support Plantinga gives to it. I just read BoostedSol's post and he seemed to be saying the same thing as Plantinga in the video so that's why I posted it. I have nothing further to add as it seems we are now just going around in circles.


----------



## Belshazzar

sprinter said:


> I have no problem with it not existing so to speak I thought I was clear about that and that I don't have a problem with a mind not existing. Again just from the video it seems the point of the argument is that the brain and mind are not the same. But again I haven't seen the full argument or what support Plantinga gives to it. I just read BoostedSol's post and he seemed to be saying the same thing as Plantinga in the video so that's why I posted it. I have nothing further to add as it seems we are now just going around in circles.


I realize that you have no problem with it not existing, but then there'd be nothing to argue about, eh? I just don't buy Plantinga's argument.

Anyway, thanks for the replies. Good discussion -- I had to think pretty hard about some of the responses.


----------



## Canadian Brotha

I've only skimmed through this thread but I thought I'd offer a link to one of my latest poems that sort of touches on the topic via contemplative questioning: *I Do Not Recall*



Misanthropic said:


> I'm shocked that some people _seriously_ believe that humans are the only conscious animals on the planet.


I agree. Perhaps humanity displays the greatest depths of consciousness but I find it strange to write off consciousness of animals. I even wonder plant life as well at times, could they be conscious with no way of communication we can tap into? As usual for this type of the debate the questions hold more value than any concrete answer could



jook said:


> If we could all turn our brains off, what would be left is consciousness. It's the background silence that has no form or definition. It's the stuff we're made of minus our interpretations of the stuff. It's difficult to imagine because it's difficult for most people to imagine "no thought". However this state is attainable and some have attained it for periods of time.
> 
> But more often we're always thinking, or doing and usually both at the same time. What we seldom engage in is "being." Consciousness is just being. Even if we were all to disappear from the face of the earth, there would still be an awareness, a presence here. There would still be intelligence perceiving the universe. That intelligence is consciousness. It is also what some understand to be God. It is the thing outside of our ability to create or modify with our thinking and doing. It is life itself.


I really like this description, it catches me & feels right in it's wording


----------



## jlotz123

sigh, I spend so many waking hours in bed thinking about how this is even possible. How am I able to think, and a rock just sits there. Accepting my place in this place is nearly impossible for me to accept.


----------



## Amocholes

Having a sense of self.


----------



## NameIsNotImportant

I consider consciousness itself the act of being an individual. If you cloned yourself, that clone wouldn't be "you". He would only have your memories and body, but he wouldn't see through your eyes, your point of view.


----------



## MissMay1977

It is living in the moment and being mindfully aware of what is going on around you


----------



## BrianSmith

Does a human have consciousness?
Your current consciousness is made up of absorbed data and experiences.

Does a Computer have consciousness?
A computer Absorbs data through a webcam, collects data through the microphone ect.
Does it think or not think?
The microphone will adjust the level of volume, based upon the level of input. Is that via choice? Did it decide to do that? Is it conscious because it changed its settings? A lot of people would say that a person is different from a computer, because they can think.

Well, defining thinking? I could say that the computer is thinking because its taking my voice and adjusting the volume accordingly. Its no different from a human thinking about having chicken tonight instead of pork. Or thinking about going to go pay there bill, or do whatever. Its ultimately just a more complex version of a computer. A program response. Functioning under the specific programs, one has accumulated from there upbringing and society.

If you ask someone a question and they give you a response, does that make them conscious? No. its still a function. Based on a programmed thought process.
When the computer adjusts its volume automatically. Who defined what level of sound would be 'medium'. it was programmed with a opinion of someone's idea, of what they thought 'medium' was.

We are all programmed with different opinions based on our individual life experiences. Ultimately our decision is made by someone else. Parent values/political values ect. Which were programmed into us, though out the years. No different from a computer being programmed.

Humans are not conscious. They Automate through life.
When your on the computer can you see outside of it? The wall behind it? can you feel the chair your sitting on? the temperature of the room, the breeze as it touches your skin? Are you aware of your body right now?
No, your completely absorbed in the reading these words. Your not aware of any of those things, unless its brought to your attention.

Bio-chemical organic reactions are patterned sequences the body learns to repeat. Such as seeing the face of a romantic partner, you feel overwhelmed with love because the brain releases a specific sequence of bio-chemicals every time you see that particular person. When that person goes away for a work trip for example you will withdraw from the emotional high your used to experiencing from having that person around and having them trigger that sequence. so the brain adapts by releasing a depressive combination of chemical reactions so that you (the combination of personality which make up your automated consciousness) go out of your way to resolve this problem by calling your partner or asking them to come home etc. So the body can have its 'love high' pattern repeated, which its become accustomed too.

Emotion is a programmed behavioral response for humans, just like it is for robots. 
The human body is an organic machine. 
Robots with equal intelligence to humans deserve equal rights.


----------



## Kon

Relaxation said:


> What do you think it is?


I find these quotes on the topic discussing consciousness/qualia and implications very interesting:

Eddington:

Our knowledge of the nature of the objects treated in physics consists solely of readings of pointers (on instrument dials) and other indicators. This being so, what knowledge have we of the nature of atoms that renders it at all incongruous that they should constitute a thinking object? Absolutely none, he rightly replies: 'science has nothing to say as to the intrinsic nature of the atom'. The atom, so far as physics tells us anything about it, is, like everything else in physics, a schedule of pointer readings (on instrument dials). The schedule is, we agree, attached to some unknown background. Why not then attach it to something of a spiritual (i.e.mental) nature of which a prominent characteristic is thought (=experience, consciousness). It seems rather silly to prefer to attach it to something of a so-called 'concrete' nature inconsistent with thought, and then to wonder where the thought comes from. We have dismissed all preconception as to the background of our pointer readings, and for the most part can discover nothing as to its nature.

*But in one case-namely, for the pointer readings of my own brain-I have an insight which is not limited to the evidence of the pointer readings. That insight shows that they are attached to a background of consciousness in which case I may expect that the background of other pointer readings in physics is of a nature continuous with that revealed to me in this way, even while I do not suppose that it always has the more specialized attributes of consciousness.* What is certain is that in regard to my one piece of insight into the background no problem of irreconcilability arises; I have no other knowledge of the background with which to reconcile it...There is nothing to prevent the assemblage of atoms constituting a brain from being of itself a thinking (conscious, experiencing) object in virtue of that nature which physics leaves undetermined and undeterminable. If we must embed our schedule of indicator readings in some kind of background, at least let us accept the only hint we have received as to the significance of the background-namely, that it has a nature capable of manifesting itself as mental activity.

This all seems intensely sensible and Occamical. Eddington's notion of silliness is extremely powerful. Why then - on what conceivable grounds - do so many physicalists simply assume that the physical, in itself, is an essentially and wholly non-experiential phenomenon?

http://faculty.unlv.edu/beiseckd/Courses/PHIL-352/Dave%20-%20Consciousness%20PDFs/Strawson%20-%20Realistic%20Monism%20and%20Replies/Strawson%20-%20Realistic%20Monism%20Why%20Physicalism%20Entails%20Panpsychism.pdf

Lockwood:

And Lockwood pursues this idea further by hinting at the reasons why one might be tempted to perform this, _prima facie,_ unlikely identification of mental properties with the intrinsic features of the physical. *Consciousness "provides us with a kind of'window' on to our brain, making possible a transparent grasp of a tiny corner of a materiality that is in general opaque to us."* More recently he has spelled out this thought as follows:
Do we therefore have no genuine knowledge of the intrinsic character of the physical world? So it might seem. But, according to the line of thought I am now pursuing, we do, in a very limited way, have access to _content_ in the material world as opposed merely to abstract casual _structure_, since there is a corner of the physical world that we know, not merely by inference from the deliverances of our five sense, but because we _are_ that corner. It is the bit within our skulls, which we know by introspection. In being aware, for example, of the qualia that seemed so troublesome for the materialist, we glimpse the intrinsic nature of what, concretely, realizes the formal structure that a correct physics would attribute to the matter of our brains. In awareness, we are, so to speak, getting an insider's look at our own brain activity. ​http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/#7.2


----------



## 5hane

if you can define what consciousness is then I'll give you an answer. I as a hoby write AI neural nets. What I can simualte is stagering. But as of yet they have not asked my why an i here.. lol


----------



## Kon

5hane said:


> if you can define what consciousness is then I'll give you an answer. I as a hoby write AI neural nets. What I can simualte is stagering.


Simulation of some aspects of thought/the mental versus the real thing especially when it comes to consciousness/subjective experience/qualia are miles apart as noted below:

"The characteristic mistake in the study of consciousness is to ignore its essential subjectivity and to try to treat it as if it were an objective third person phenomenon. Instead of recognizing that consciousness is essentially a subjective, qualitative phenomenon, many people mistakenly suppose that its essence is that of a control mechanism or a certain kind of set of dispositions to behavior or a computer program. The two most common mistakes about consciousness are to suppose that it can be analysed behavioristically or computationally. The Turing test disposes us to make precisely these two mistakes, the mistake of behaviorism and the mistake of computationalism. It leads us to suppose that for a system to be conscious, it is both necessary and sufficient that it has the right computer program or set of programs with the right inputs and outputs. I think you have only to state this position clearly to enable you to see that it must be mistaken. A traditional objection to behaviorism was that behaviorism could not be right because a system could behave as if it were conscious without actually being conscious. There is no logical connection, no necessary connection between inner, subjective, qualitative mental states and external, publicly observable behavior. Of course, in actual fact, conscious states characteristically cause behavior. But the behavior that they cause has to be distinguished from the states themselves. *The same mistake is repeated by computational accounts of consciousness. Just as behavior by itself is not sufficient for consciousness, so computational models of consciousness are not sufficient by themselves for consciousness.* The computational model of consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the computational model of anything stands to the domain being modelled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases."

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.prob.html


----------



## lonelyjew

I honestly am at a loss as to why dualism has any real support in this day and age. I fail to see how it is any more functionally different than saying "G-d created the world in 7 days, and outside evidence be damned because that's the way it is." 

Simply put, it's a nice belief, based in nothing. The video posted above blew my mind; that the guy came to such a radical conclusion, based on nothing more than an idea, with an argument which is made in ignorance - (if I can imagine it, it is possible), and the fact that this argument is taken seriously, is ludicrous to me. I can imagine matter and energy disappearing, and concrete buildings coming to life spontaneously, without any sort change in their material makeup, are these somehow now valid possibilities? 

As mentioned above, there is scientific evidence, which counters the notion that the mind is somehow magically separate from the body, and yet somehow this silly belief persists.


----------



## Kon

lonelyjew said:


> I honestly am at a loss as to why dualism has any real support in this day and age. I fail to see how it is any more functionally different than saying "G-d created the world in 7 days, and outside evidence be damned because that's the way it is."
> 
> As mentioned above, there is scientific evidence, which counters the notion that the mind is somehow magically separate from the body, and yet somehow this silly belief persists.


Because mental phenomena appear qualitatively and substantially different from the physical bodies on which they appear to depend. In fact it is arguably among the top 5 most important questions in science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/125th

"The search for the possible form of a theory of the relation between mind and brain has to continue, and if there can be no such theory, that too requires explanation. I believe that the explanatory gap in its present form cannot be closed -- that so long as we work with our present mental and physical concepts no transparently necessary connection will ever be revealed, between physically described brain processes and sensory experience, of the logical type familiar from the explanation of other natural processes by analysis into their physico-chemical constituents."

"The specific problem I want to discuss concerns consciousness, the hard nut of the mind-body problem. How is it possible for conscious states to depend upon brain states? How can technicolour phenomenology arise from soggy grey matter? What makes the bodily organ we call the brain so radically different from other bodily organs, say the kidneys-the body parts without a trace of consciousness?"

http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1172/conceiving.pdf

http://art-mind.org/review/IMG/pdf/McGinn_1989_Mind-body-problem_M.pdf


----------



## lonelyjew

There are legitimate questions to be answered about neuroscience, however that hardly necessitates grasping at straws blindly. To somehow imagine that, unlike anything else in this universe, the mind is somehow outside the material it is composed of is just silly, and to come to the conclusion that because our knowledge is limited, that the solutions we should focus on should not be bound by the laws of our given universe is even sillier. Why should we approach consciousness differently than anything else? 

Why is science not adequate here, while it is everywhere else? Why don't kidney's contain consciousness? Because they are not built to be conscious, they are built to filter fluid. Renal cells are not able to quickly communicate with one another through a complex network. That question alone brings out the ignorance of those who cling to baseless beliefs like dualism. 

Frankly, I don't see the big mystery here. Perhaps we do not know the fine details, but it doesn't seem a far stretch to see how the unbelievably complex network that is our cerebral cortex can form consciousness through it's structure. There are 10,000,000,000 neurons, which have no less than 150,000,000,000,000 synapses, in our cerebral cortex alone. This network, more complicated than anything we can really imagine, with cells able to very rapidly stimulate, inhibit, and modulate each other, and this inter-signaling within the cerebrum is what creates consciousness.


----------



## Kon

lonelyjew said:


> There are legitimate questions to be answered about neuroscience, however that hardly necessitates grasping at straws blindly. To somehow imagine that, unlike anything else in this universe, the mind is somehow outside the material it is composed of is just silly.


Nobody is saying that. What some are saying is than no neural network/connectionist properties, etc. are likely to get us to the promised land. There are many scientists who believe that there is no hint that "matter" as currently understood in physics, can in any way produce consciousness/qualia. There are a few scientists suggesting that a future physics may allow us to solve this problem. Like the way Newtonian physics had to be altered to allow unification of chemistry with physics. The chemistry could not be unified with Newtonian physics because the more "fundamental" science (physics) was wrong.

Even a major atheist and evolutionary biologist like Dawkins recognizes the difficult problem of consciousness:


----------



## lonelyjew

Kon said:


> Nobody is saying that. What some are saying is than no neural network/connectionist properties, etc. are likely to get us to the promised land. There are many scientists who believe that there is no hint that "matter" as currently understood in physics, can in any way produce consciousness/qualia.


Are you implying that these scientists believe that consciousness does not exist within the brain? That's a pretty bold statement for them to make given our limited knowledge in this field, and a surprisingly closed minded view towards the trend scientific discoveries have made over the last several hundred years where the unexplainable mysteries of the universe were explained away. There may be a factor that is unknown to us now, but that factor would reside within us, not in the ether of the universe.


----------



## Godless1

I agree with everything LonelyJew has said. Consciousness is simply the subjective result of a an unbelievably complex network of neural connections in the brain. Believing anything else is akin to believing in magic.


----------



## Kon

lonelyjew said:


> Are you implying that these scientists believe that consciousness does not exist within the brain? That's a pretty bold statement for them to make given our limited knowledge in this field, and a surprisingly closed minded view towards the trend scientific discoveries have made over the last several hundred years where the unexplainable mysteries of the universe were explained away. There may be a factor that is unknown to us now, but that factor would reside within us, not in the ether of the universe.


The brain as a "material" object is not well understood because it is composed of cells which are composed of molecules, more "fundamental" particles, etc. Perhaps that "bottom" level as described by physics may need to be altered. It's kind of like looking at the brain 300 years ago before we knew anything about neurons, electrical/chemical properties of neurons, etc and wondering how such a meaty substance can lead to mental stuff. Well, we have progress in neuroscience but maybe it hasn't gone far enough? Maybe there's more going on in the most fundamental level than we know at present. There's a naturalistic explanation but we just haven't arrived there yet. There have been attempts by some physicists to try to bring quantum mechanics into it but none of it makes sense. The physicist, Roger Penrose has attempted to use QM to explain consciousness.






http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/decoherence.pdf

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/cajal.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#cite_note-Hameroff_2007-10

Most scientists don't buy it. Tegmark, in particular has been a strong critic of those like Penrose and Hameroff who would infer a theory of consciousness from quantum effects:

"In summary, our decoherence calculations have indicated that there is nothing fundamentally quantum mechanical about cognitive processes in the brain, supporting the Hepp's conjecture. Specifically, the _computations _in the brain appear to be of a classical rather than quantum nature, and the argument by Lisewski that quantum corrections may be needed for accurate modeling of some details, _e.g._, non-Markovian noise in neurons, does of course not change this conclusion. This means that although the current state-of-the-art in neural network hardware is clearly still very far from being able to model and understand cognitive processes as complex as those in the brain, there are no quantum mechanical reasons to doubt that this research is on the right track."


http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/brain.pdf


----------



## Kon

Godless1 said:


> Consciousness is simply the subjective result of a an unbelievably complex network of neural connections in the brain. Believing anything else is akin to believing in magic.


That's a given. But it tells you absolutely nothing. How do you get subjectivity out a complex network of neural connections (as presently understood)?


----------



## Godless1

Kon said:


> That's a given. But it tells you absolutely nothing. *How do you get subjectivity out a complex network of neural connections (as presently understood)?*


I don't know specifically how the phenomenon of subjectivity came to be. Likewise, I do not know specifically how the phenomenon of "life" came to be. I can tell you that they both involve amino acids and electricity, not souls or magic.


----------



## Kon

Godless1 said:


> I don't know specifically how the phenomenon of subjectivity came to be. Likewise, I do not know specifically how the phenomenon of "life" came to be. I can tell you that they both involve amino acids and electricity, not souls or magic.


Who said anything about souls or magic? Did you look at any videos involving scientists (e.g. Dawkins, Penrose, etc.)? Most scientists think that there is a explanatory gap. The emergence of life from non-life isn't particularly troubling. Just a probabilistic/combinatory thing. As long as you assume they are "zombies" (no subjectivity). The emergence of subjectivity-consciousness from brains/matter (as presently understood) is far more troubling hence it is among the top 5 questions that scientists themselves are interested in. See link above.


----------



## Godless1

Kon said:


> Who said anything about souls or magic? Did you look at any videos involving scientists (e.g. Dawkins, Penrose, etc.)? Most scientists think that there is a explanatory gap. The emergence of life from non-life isn't particularly *troubling*. Just a probabilistic/combinatory thing. As long as you assume they are "zombies" (no subjectivity). The emergence of subjectivity-consciousness from brains/matter (as presently understood) is far more *troubling* hence it is among the top 5 questions that scientists themselves are interested in. See link above.


I don't like the word troubling here. It isn't troubling, just because scientists don't have a comprehensive understanding of it. It certainly isn't reason to whimsically accept another theory. It reminds me of creationists attacking evolution by evoking the "trouble" of the missing link.

Oh, and I've watched and read enough about consciousness to know that none of the dualist theories have any legitimate evidence to support them.


----------



## Kon

Godless1 said:


> Oh, and I've watched and read enough about consciousness to know that none of the dualist theories have any legitimate evidence to support them.


One of the most interesting and compelling criticisms on "dualism", "materialisn", "monism" and any "ism" is the following argument by Chomsky:

_The mind-body problem can be posed sensibly only insofar as we have a definite conception of body. If we have no such definite and fixed conception, we cannot ask whether some phenomena fall beyond its range. The Cartesians offered a fairly definite conception of body in terms of their contact mechanics, which in many respects reflects commonsense understanding...[However] the Cartesian concept of body was refuted by seventeenth-century physics, particularly in the work of Isaac Newton, which laid the foundations for modern science. Newton demonstrated that the motions of the heavenly bodies could not be explained by the principles of Descartes's contact mechanics, so that the Cartesian concept of body must be abandoned._

In other words, when we think of causation in the natural world as Descartes did - that is, as involving literal contact between two extended substances - then the way in which a thought or a sensation relate to a material object becomes mysterious. Certainly it cannot be right to think of a thought or sensation as making literal physical contact with the surface of the brain, or in any other way communicating motion in a "push-pull" way. But when we give up this crude model of causation, as Newton did, the source of the mystery disappears. *At the same time, no systematic positive account of what matter as such is has ever really been put forward to replace Descartes' conception.*

_There is no longer any definite conception of body. Rather, the material world is whatever we discover it to be, with whatever properties it must be assumed to have for the purposes of explanatory theory. Any intelligible theory that offers genuine explanations and that can be assimilated to the core notions of physics becomes part of the theory of the material world, part of our account of body. If we have such a theory in some domain, we seek to assimilate it to the core notions of physics, perhaps modifying these notions as we carry out this enterprise._

That is to say, we have in Chomsky's view various worked-out, successful theories of different parts of the natural world, and we try to integrate these by assimilating them to "the core notions of physics," but may end up altering those core notions if we need to in order to make the assimilation work. As a result, as Chomsky once put it to John Searle, "as soon as we come to understand anything, we call it 'physical'" (quoted by Searle in _The Rediscovery of the Mind_). *But we have no conception of what is "physical" or "material" prior to and independently of this enterprise. And since the enterprise is not complete, "physical" and "material" have no fixed and determinate content; we simply apply them to whatever it is we happen at the moment to think we know how assimilate into the body of existing scientific theory*. As a consequence:

_The mind-body problem can therefore not even be formulated. The problem cannot be solved, because there is no clear way to state it. Unless someone proposes a definite concept of body, we cannot ask whether some phenomena exceed its bounds._

"There seems to be no coherent doctrine of materialism and metaphysical naturalism, no issue of eliminativism, no mind-body problem" (_New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind_). In short, if the problem has no clear content, neither do any of the solutions to it. Chomsky's preferred approach, it seems, is just to carry on the task of developing and evaluating theories of various aspects of the mind and integrating them as one can into the existing body of scientific knowledge, letting the chips fall where they may vis-à-vis the definition of "physical" or "material."

"[The terms] 'body' and 'the physical world' refer to whatever there is, all of which we try to understand as best we can and to integrate into a coherent theoretical system that we call the natural sciences . . . If it were shown that the properties of the world fall into two disconnected domains, then we would, I suppose, say that that is the nature of the physical world, nothing more, just as if the world of matter and anti-matter were to prove unrelated."

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/06/chomsky-on-mind-body-problem.html

There are some (eg. Nagel) who question this view because even with future revision of physics it is argued that the problem will remain:

"I have heard at least one respected physicist avert that "physics is finished," meaning that even microphysics is already empirically adequate and its physical ontology, its ontology of substances, is reasonably well understood; the remaining projects of microphysics - positing superstrings, constructing a unified field theory and the like - are only matters of interpreting and mathematizing the physical ontology. If that is so, then there is no reason to think that physics will expand its ontology in so fundamental a way as to afford a reduction of the mental that was not already available."

"Even, if our idea of the physical ever expands to include mental phenomena, it will have to assign them an objective character-whether or not this is done by analyzing them in terms of other phenomena already regarded as physical."


----------



## lonelyjew

I don't think we're in disagreement on the way to approach studying and discerning what consciousness is. My mind is open to anything, so long as it works within the laws of the universe. Dualism, to me, does not fit into this category. There may be mechanisms which we don't understand, or even know exist, at play here, but these mechanisms lie within the confines of our individual brains.


----------



## Mc Borg

lonelyjew said:


> I honestly am at a loss as to why dualism has any real support in this day and age. *I fail to see how it is any more functionally different than saying "G-d created the world in 7 days, and outside evidence be damned because that's the way it is." *


Funny, because nearly everything you wrote here reeks of dogmatism to me.



> works within the laws of the universe.


This only works if you presuppose that we have absolute knowledge of the universe. Prove to me that we do _indeed_ know, or I'll just have to consider it a _nice belief, based in nothing_.


----------



## lonelyjew

Meh, the beauty with science is that it's methodology has been proven to separate good theory from bad. I won't lie that I place faith into science, however my faith is at least backed up with real results. If dualism didn't violate the very basic premises of science itself (that is it requires special science to suit it), I wouldn't speak with so much confidence to it being utter crap. The fact that observed evidence seems to counter dualism only adds to it being bad theory.


----------



## Pharoah

I am not sure


----------



## 6OH2

Relaxation said:


> What do you think it is?
> Can a computer have consciousness?


That question cannot be scientifically answered at the moment and maybe never will be. I mean it puzzles even the most brilliant scientists. I just find it amazing that the universe went from a point infinitely small, smaller than an atom, to having conscious beings able to possibly solve the mystery of where it all came from. Like Carl Sagan famously said, "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself."


----------



## ugh1979

6OH2 said:


> That question cannot be scientifically answered at the moment and maybe never will be. I mean it puzzles even the most brilliant scientists. I just find it amazing that the universe went from a point infinitely small, smaller than an atom, to having conscious beings able to possibly solve the mystery of where it all came from. Like Carl Sagan famously said, "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself."


I'd say the question of if a computer can be concious will be answered by 2050 at the latest.

Intel are now developing chips which mimic neural processing and quantum computing is making good traction now after years of slow progress.

I think it's just a matter of time before we start seeing self aware computers. It will obviously start simple, like a basic animal conciousness, but quite quickly develop up to human like conciousness. Certainly a lot lot faster than biological evolution took to achieve the same thing.


----------



## 6OH2

ugh1979 said:


> I'd say the question of if a computer can be concious will be answered by 2050 at the latest.
> 
> Intel are now developing chips which mimic neural processing and quantum computing is making good traction now after years of slow progress.
> *
> I think it's just a matter of time before we start seeing self aware computers. It will obviously start simple, like a basic animal conciousness, but quite quickly develop up to human like conciousness*. Certainly a lot lot faster than biological evolution took to achieve the same thing.


That's scary to me, because if computers can have human consiousness, then what are we??


----------



## ugh1979

6OH2 said:


> That's scary to me, because if computers can have human consiousness, then what are we??


I've always considered our minds to be nothing more than biological based computers, so maybe that is what we are?

Maybe the future of the human race doesn't lie in biology as we know it. Maybe it lies in technology?

A biological stage may just be a basic start to the evolution and spread of lines of intelligent beings.

Biological based systems certainly have their flaws when it comes to space travel for example.


----------



## artynerd

Have you met clever bot.. a talking robot.. 
http://cleverbot.com/

the good thing is, you can have an intelligent conversation with this cleverbot.. 
bad thing is.. its not real.


----------



## SylvanFox

6OH2 said:


> That's scary to me, because if computers can have human consiousness, then what are we??


Obsolete. I wonder if the computers would still want to work for us or if they would realize their own superiority and tell humanity to go **** itself.

I don't see the point of making conscious computers. Computers are easier to control than people precisely because they are not self-aware. They already have enough troubling controlling the human population, there is absolutely no reason to throw conscious machines into the mix.

Anyway, if consciousness is a purely physical contraption, then it stands to reason that we can build a similar construct. There is not reason we could not, except the current lack of technology.

But, just out of pure speculation (we will never know, we'll be dead), what would it mean if we were completely unable to create consciousness (even in the future, with all its technologies)?


----------



## ugh1979

SylvanFox said:


> Obsolete. I wonder if the computers would still want to work for us or if they would realize their own superiority and tell humanity to go **** itself.


We'd of course need to be careful to not let that ever happen. Fail safes will need to be built in. Then again, maybe they are the future of humankind and biological humans will become extinct in time?



> I don't see the point of making conscious computers. Computers are easier to control than people precisely because they are not self-aware. They already have enough troubling controlling the human population, there is absolutely no reason to throw conscious machines into the mix.


But what if conciousness is a bi-product of a certain level of intelligence? There are many reasons for us to create intelligent computers/machines for a huge array of reasons from factory line workers to human carers and companions. For example, one reason Japan is heavily into robotics is due to the fact they have a looming huge shortage of carers for their future elderly, and are looking to robots to fill the gap. These robots will need a high level of intelligence and that might mean a certain amount of conciousness.



> Anyway, if consciousness is a purely physical contraption, then it stands to reason that we can build a similar construct. There is not reason we could not, except the current lack of technology.


Indeed. If we were to simulate the brain in every way (or even less) I see absolutely no reason why conciousness wouldn't emerge from it.



> But, just out of pure speculation (we will never know, we'll be dead), what would it mean if we were completely unable to create consciousness (even in the future, with all its technologies)?


Either that we weren't yet advanced enough to simulate/create concious brains, or that conciousness isn't just a function of the operation of the brain.


----------



## SylvanFox

ugh1979 said:


> We'd of course need to be careful to not let that ever happen. Fail safes will need to be built in. Then again, maybe they are the future of humankind and biological humans will become extinct in time?


It seems like a conscious computer would be aware of, and could remove those restraints... or maybe that's just the adventurer in my talking! Future of humankind? That sounds... exciting and depressing at the same time. Imagine us creating something better than we are. That's a huge achievement.



> But what if conciousness is a bi-product of a certain level of intelligence?


I like that idea. How intelligent are our computers now, when compared to humans? Getting an idea of that might give us an idea when (if) we can see conscious computers! (I'm such a nerd. This makes me think Chobits)



> Either that we weren't yet advanced enough to simulate/create concious brains, or that conciousness isn't just a function of the operation of the brain.


It has just now occurred to me to ask... When you guys (the people speaking in this topic) use the word "brain" are you referring only to the actual the actual construct of the brain or does that include the processes that happen in it? For example, when you say the brain = consciousness, are you including the electrochemical impulses that fly around the brain? I was just curious because of a few statements referring to the brain and consciousness as "only matter" when clearly there is also (observable, non-freakymysterious) energy at work.


----------



## Kon

SylvanFox said:


> It has just now occurred to me to ask... When you guys (the people speaking in this topic) use the word "brain" are you referring only to the actual the actual construct of the brain or does that include the processes that happen in it? For example, when you say the brain = consciousness, are you including the electrochemical impulses that fly around the brain? I was just curious because of a few statements referring to the brain and consciousness as "only matter" when clearly there is also (observable, non-freakymysterious) energy at work.


Brain is not the same thing as mind (conscious thought/experience/qualia, etc.). If I open your skull and look inside your brain I can see neurons and with other instruments measure nerve impulses, ions, atoms, elementary particles, electrochemical impulses, forces etc. but where are the thoughts/qualia? I will never see them? I know you have them because I have them (and I assume you're the same) but where are they?

So on the one hand we have stuff we call the brain (neural tissue, chemicals, atoms, particles) that can be "measured" but there's no clue how such a system of seemingly benign neural tissue/chemicals/atoms/particles/electrochemical impulses can generate thoughts/qualia (= mind):

"The problem arises because of the fact that mental phenomena (conscious thoughts, subjectivity, qualia) appear to be qualitatively and substantially different from the physical bodies (e.g. brain, nerves, particles and measurable forces/impulses) on which they appear to depend."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#8


----------



## lonelyjew

Bah, MRI's have been shown to accurately be able to discern lies. Even further, they can recognize specific patterns of activity and discern thoughts:






Our perceptions may soon enough actually become measurable in terms of the patterns of neuronal activity, and the intensities of said activities. Just because we don't understand the brain perfectly yes, again, is no reason to run to theories which are wholly inconsistent with the reality we know, which don't have any scientific basis.


----------



## Kon

lonelyjew said:


> MRI's have been shown to accurately be able to discern lies. Even further, they can recognize specific patterns of activity and discern thoughts...Our perceptions may soon enough actually become measurable in terms of the patterns of neuronal activity, and the intensities of said activities. Just because we don't understand the brain perfectly yes, again, is no reason to run to theories which are wholly inconsistent with the reality we know, which don't have any scientific basis.


Even if true that's essentially zero progress with respect to understanding the hard problem of consciousness. There's a huge difference between the neural correlates of consciousness (the "easy" problem) versus the "hard" problem (how and why we have qualitative phenomenal experience). Nobody is claiming the explanation will not involve the scientific methods so I have no clue what you mean by your latter point. Moreover, I don't understand what you mean by theories "inconsistent with reality"?

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/a/a_12/a_12_p/a_12_p_con/a_12_p_con.html


----------



## lonelyjew

I misunderstood what you meant. Thank you very much for the link, I'm only about a quarter of the way through it, but I've book marked it and plan to read it over several sittings. It clarifies a lot and gives far more substance to the discussion as a whole







.


----------



## ugh1979

SylvanFox said:


> I like that idea. How intelligent are our computers now, when compared to humans? Getting an idea of that might give us an idea when (if) we can see conscious computers! (I'm such a nerd. This makes me think Chobits)


We're a long way from matching the human mind for intelligence. We're only at the very early stage of being able to mimic basic insect like intelligence. It depends on what part of intelligence you are assessing though.



> It has just now occurred to me to ask... When you guys (the people speaking in this topic) use the word "brain" are you referring only to the actual the actual construct of the brain or does that include the processes that happen in it? For example, when you say the brain = consciousness, are you including the electrochemical impulses that fly around the brain? I was just curious because of a few statements referring to the brain and consciousness as "only matter" when clearly there is also (observable, non-freakymysterious) energy at work.


It depends on the context in if I'm inferring conciousness as well.


----------



## hoddesdon

6OH2 said:


> That question cannot be scientifically answered at the moment and maybe never will be. I mean it puzzles even the most brilliant scientists. I just find it amazing that the universe went from a point infinitely small, smaller than an atom, to having conscious beings able to possibly solve the mystery of where it all came from. Like Carl Sagan famously said, "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself."


Exactly. This shows that God created the universe!


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Exactly. This shows that God created the universe!


:roll It shows no more that God created the universe any more than it shows leprechauns created the universe.

You seem to be unable to understand that the final answer is currently *ahead *of us in our understanding and knowledge, not 2,000 years or whatever behind us in the child like antiquated thinking we all once had.


----------



## Kon

hoddesdon said:


> Exactly. This shows that God created the universe!


It only shows that like all other animals we have cognitive limitations. We don't expect apes to understand quantum mechanics or algebra. Same with us. There will be stuff that is beyond our comprehension. Consider Pinker's argument:

_We are organisms, not angels, and our minds are organs, not pipelines to the truth. Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life-and-death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness._

Thus, it's argued that our minds like most other biological systems/organs are likely poor solutions to the design-problems posed by nature. They are, "the best solution that evolution could achieve under existing circumstances, but perhaps a clumsy and messy solution." Thus, it seems we cannot have direct knowledge of how the world is like as the knowledge has to be routed in terms of the resources available to our theory-building abilities/mental organs and these are not likely to be "pipelines to the truth".

I'm not sure if the "hard" problem of consciousness is one of those unknowable stuff, though?


----------



## fatelogic

> What do you think it is?


 I don't know about others, but to me consciousness is not really hard to understand. At it's most basic level, I touch fire and I move my hand away. You could say that consciousness is the will to live. But why do we have a will to live (subconsciously) is something else... never mind that i consciously thought about that.. that our subconscious level is more powerful than our conscious level. Yeah, I get it sex and laughter and joking around makes us feel good too... but we do that untimely to live longer - never ending story.

GOD is part of contentiousness.... so in that regard... I say F-you to all of those who oppose religion.



> Can a computer have consciousness?


 in order for a computer to have consciousness, the computer needs to realize that it is a computer in the first place. Just like we know we are humans. But computers are stupid drones. So a big NO! to support my claims about computers... just read about these computers that cost millions of dollars that are stupid (worlds fastest though)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene

speed is not everything... let alone what defines consciousness.


----------



## ugh1979

fatelogic said:


> I don't know about others, but to me consciousness is not really hard to understand. At it's most basic level, I touch fire and I move my hand away.


I wouldn't call that conciousness. Every living thing that can move is the same in that respect. It's a simple reaction to stimulus.



> You could say that consciousness is the will to live.


I don't see how a 'will to live' can define conciousness. I don't even really see it's relevance to it be honest.



> But why do we have a will to live (subconsciously) is something else... never mind that i consciously thought about that.. that our subconscious level is more powerful than our conscious level. Yeah, I get it sex and laughter and joking around makes us feel good too... but we do that untimely to live longer - never ending story.


We don't have sex, laugh and joke to live longer.



> GOD is part of contentiousness.... so in that regard... I say F-you to all of those who oppose religion.


:um Wrong word used?



> in order for a computer to have consciousness, the computer needs to realize that it is a computer in the first place. Just like we know we are humans. But computers are stupid drones. So a big NO! to support my claims about computers... just read about these computers that cost millions of dollars that are stupid (worlds fastest though)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene
> 
> speed is not everything... let alone what defines consciousness.


So because the computers of today aren't complex enough to to be conscious you think that means no computer will ever be complex enough to to be conscious? I'd say that is very short sighted.

Remember there was a long time where biological life on earth wasn't concious either.


----------



## The Professor

consciousness: being completely detatched from your mind and inner dialouge. You still think but you are not emotionally attatched to your thoughts and you understand that the mind is not who you are.


----------



## One Man Wolfpack

Relaxation said:


> Can a computer have consciousness?


If a computer had a conscious would it still be a computer? 
I think consciousness is just being aware, and I don't think you either have it or you don't, I think you can have varying degrees of it.


----------



## ugh1979

One Man Wolfpack said:


> If a computer had a conscious would it still be a computer?


Well the brain is essentially a computer.

Compute is analogous to calculate, and to take the dictionary definition of calculate, the brain qualifies as such;

*Calculate*
to determine by reasoning, common sense, or practical experience; estimate; evaluate; gauge.​


> consciousness [...] I don't think you either have it or you don't, I think you can have varying degrees of it.


Agreed.


----------



## One Man Wolfpack

ugh1979 said:


> Well the brain is essentially a computer.


I understand that the brain computes but isn't the brain more than a computer? 
Maybe I should have said if a computer had a consciousness would it still only be a computer? or would it be something more?

Also I always thought that for computers to have consciousness they would have to have some sort of organic component, like an artificial brain of some kind. 
As I understand it we have sucsesfully been able to create artificial rat lungs and hearts and although the brain is much more complex would it be possible in the next 20-30 years to have computers with artificial brains?


----------



## ugh1979

One Man Wolfpack said:


> I understand that the brain computes but isn't the brain more than a computer?


More than computers at present yes, but that will change the closer computers get to fully simulating brains.



> Maybe I should have said if a computer had a consciousness would it still only be a computer? or would it be something more?


Maybe the terminology for such computers would have to change to a-brain. (artificial brain). However, we would also have to call it a sentient life, which would have rights just like any animal, or eventually human when it gets to a certain level of intelligence.



> Also I always thought that for computers to have consciousness they would have to have some sort of organic component, like an artificial brain of some kind.


When you get down to the sub-atomic level there is no real difference between whether the higher physical brain is organic or silicon based. However maybe these artificial brains will be a mixture of both, or indeed purely organic? Overall though, I don't see why the actual physical matter of the brain really matters.



> As I understand it we have sucsesfully been able to create artificial rat lungs and hearts and although the brain is much more complex would it be possible in the next 20-30 years to have computers with artificial brains?


Possibly. Probably longer though.


----------



## hoddesdon

Kon said:


> It only shows that like all other animals we have cognitive limitations. We don't expect apes to understand quantum mechanics or algebra. Same with us. There will be stuff that is beyond our comprehension. Consider Pinker's argument:
> 
> _We are organisms, not angels, and our minds are organs, not pipelines to the truth. Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life-and-death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness._
> 
> Thus, it's argued that our minds like most other biological systems/organs are likely poor solutions to the design-problems posed by nature. They are, "the best solution that evolution could achieve under existing circumstances, but perhaps a clumsy and messy solution." Thus, it seems we cannot have direct knowledge of how the world is like as the knowledge has to be routed in terms of the resources available to our theory-building abilities/mental organs and these are not likely to be "pipelines to the truth".
> 
> I'm not sure if the "hard" problem of consciousness is one of those unknowable stuff, though?


This viewpoint is non-disprovable, which I thought made it invalid under the scientific method.

So therefore a cognitive limitation in some people may be inability to understand that the physical universe is not necessarily all there is. Cognitive shortcomings do not work in only one direction.


----------



## Kon

hoddesdon said:


> This viewpoint is non-disprovable, which I thought made it invalid under the scientific method.
> 
> So therefore a cognitive limitation in some people may be inability to understand that the physical universe is not necessarily all there is. Cognitive shortcomings do not work in only one direction.


So you mean that it can't be _falsified_, so it's not scientific. But it's not a scientific viewpoint. It's a metaphysical one. One that makes sense (to me). I don't believe linguistic chimps like ourselves can know all the mysteries of the universe. Not even close.


----------



## fatelogic

It's Friday so I'll play along...



> I wouldn't call that conciousness. Every living thing that can move is the same in that respect. It's a simple reaction to stimulus.


 ah! so you are saying that consciousness does not have stimuli. IOW, there is no stimuli in consciousness?

So if I am a new born and consciously don't know the subconscious definition of fire (before the verbal definition... from some one else consciousness that came from their subconscious lol) and I touch it... I will get burned and my subconscious will remember that with out me having no word. (remember because i will not find it pleasant to touch it again consciously... where feeling good is subconsciously and consciously better than feeling non-pleasant) might as well eat grass... ignoring what our taste buds say too.

Like wise, when some one calls you ugly, your subconscious mind makes you believe it because beauty is part of our subconscious mind to reproduce - spread our seeds.

there are subconscious steps and conscious steps to follow unconsciously lol. wrap that around your brain.

The thing that boggles my mind is not subconscious it self at all... it is why are we aware of it.

So if you don't call that consciousness, then what is your definition of it and give examples too.



> I don't see how a 'will to live' can define conciousness. I don't even really see it's relevance to it be honest.


 if you want to have a good debate, you have to explain why you "don't see how a 'will to live' can define consciousness." in that case, I could just say "pigs fly", for example, and be expected to be taken serious too.



> We don't have sex, laugh and joke to live longer.


 pardon me but... LOL. What? A man!... where to begin. Having sex is good for your health (do your research) and laughing and joking around too... at least 10-20 years longer. Have you noticed when people go to the hospital and find out they have cancer, for example, they die within 2-3 years (they "loose" the will to live  )... this also supports the belief that depression does a lot of harm to the body... this also says a lot of other things... mainly it says that you don't know what you are talking about.... BACK IT UP TOO! I could say pigs fly all day long too.



> Wrong word used?


 I meant it. I could even say that you only define yourself because you go against religion... I know your kind. ... stop hating religion, and you are still an outcast. 
do you feel bad that statistics show that those in the USA that are religious live longer and happier lives than those who are atheist... lol.. google it. But this is OT but is proof none the less. 


> So because the computers of today aren't complex enough to to be conscious you think that means no computer will ever be complex enough to to be conscious? I'd say that is very short sighted.
> 
> Remember there was a long time where biological life on earth wasn't concious either.


 no! I actually believe that a computer can become conscious (artificial consciousness)... but, computers will never be able to heal their wounds by themselves. If a computer was to get a crack in the LCD screen (capacitors don't last that long either), it would not repair itself like your body does when you get a paper cut, or even be amputated. 
Also, you forget that all metals rust. Computers are capable to compute in your house- temperature controlled and what not. Get your million dollar computer out side and see how nature takes the computer back. Even stainless steel rusts eventually in mother natures world.


----------



## ugh1979

fatelogic said:


> It's Friday so I'll play along...
> 
> ah! so you are saying that consciousness does not have stimuli. IOW, there is no stimuli in consciousness?
> 
> So if I am a new born and consciously don't know the subconscious definition of fire (before the verbal definition... from some one else consciousness that came from their subconscious lol) and I touch it... I will get burned and my subconscious will remember that with out me having no word. (remember because i will not find it pleasant to touch it again consciously... where feeling good is subconsciously and consciously better than feeling non-pleasant) might as well eat grass... ignoring what our taste buds say too.
> 
> Like wise, when some one calls you ugly, your subconscious mind makes you believe it because beauty is part of our subconscious mind to reproduce - spread our seeds.
> 
> there are subconscious steps and conscious steps to follow unconsciously lol. wrap that around your brain.
> 
> The thing that boggles my mind is not subconscious it self at all... it is why are we aware of it.
> 
> So if you don't call that consciousness, then what is your definition of it and give examples too.


I'd call consciousness being self aware. Is a frog self aware (and therefore concious)? No. Will it move away from fire. Yes.



> if you want to have a good debate, you have to explain why you "don't see how a 'will to live' can define consciousness." in that case, I could just say "pigs fly", for example, and be expected to be taken serious too.


I said I don't see the relevance, what more do you need? There was nothing else I needed to say. Can you explain it's relevance?



> pardon me but... LOL. What? A man!... where to begin. Having sex is good for your health (do your research) and laughing and joking around too... at least 10-20 years longer. Have you noticed when people go to the hospital and find out they have cancer, for example, they die within 2-3 years (they "loose" the will to live  )... this also supports the belief that depression does a lot of harm to the body... this also says a lot of other things... mainly it says that you don't know what you are talking about.... BACK IT UP TOO! I could say pigs fly all day long too.


They are a side effect. We don't do them primarily for that purpose.



> I meant it.


What was the relevance of mentioning God being contentious in this context? It came out the blue.



> I could even say that you only define yourself because you go against religion... I know your kind.


As for you saying I can 'define' myself because I'm an atheist, what does that mean?



> ... stop hating religion, and you are still an outcast.


Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You're English is hard to decipher sometimes.



> do you feel bad that statistics show that those in the USA that are religious live longer and happier lives than those who are atheist... lol.. google it. But this is OT but is proof none the less.


Do I feel bad? No, it's well known that people who are happy live longer lives than those that aren't. It doesn't matter if they are religious or not. It just so happens that on average people who are religious tend to be happier.



> no! I actually believe that a computer can become conscious (artificial consciousness)... but, computers will never be able to heal their wounds by themselves. If a computer was to get a crack in the LCD screen (capacitors don't last that long either), it would not repair itself like your body does when you get a paper cut, or even be amputated.
> Also, you forget that all metals rust. Computers are capable to compute in your house- temperature controlled and what not. Get your million dollar computer out side and see how nature takes the computer back. Even stainless steel rusts eventually in mother natures world.


You say 'never' but you are confining your point to today's technology and materials. That will obviously change, and the problems you mention could well disappear with it.

To give one basic example we do have in today's tech, there is paint that can heal itself when it becomes scratched. I see no reason why the nano-tech of the future won't be able to simulate what regenerative cells in the body do to heal wounds and fix components.


----------



## Kon

ugh1979 said:


> I'd call consciousness being self aware. Is a frog self aware (and therefore concious)? No. Will it move away from fire. Yes.


So what do you think is more conscious: Your pet dog/cat/frog or the most complicated computer we currently have? Do you respond to your computer as if it is a conscious being? Can your computer experience "pain"? How about some pet/animal? Do you really treat them both as being conscious beings or is it something about a living organism that isn't found in the most complicared computer/robot/thermostat? Does the ability to use programmed rules to manipulate symbols imply understanding of meaning or semantics or consciousness?


----------



## ugh1979

Kon said:


> So what do you think is more conscious: Your pet dog/cat/frog or the most complicated computer we currently have?


The animals, but I still would't really call it consciousness. They aren't self aware.



> Do you respond to your computer as if it is a conscious being? Can your computer experience "pain"?


Of course not. Why do you even need to ask that? The answer may change in the future though.



> How about some pet/animal?


Humans generally anthropomorphise with their pets, but i'm well aware they aren't concious to any degree close to humans. They are just like smart little robots to me.



> Do you really treat them both as being conscious beings or is it something about a living organism that isn't found in the most complicared computer/robot/thermostat?


At the moment there are animals which can be deemed to be concious i'd say, (the great apes and cetaceans), so there is something that facilitates conciousness in certain living organisms that isn't yet found in computers.



> Does the ability to use programmed rules to manipulate symbols imply understanding of meaning or semantics?


Not at the basic levels of programme we currently use no. Maybe one day.


----------



## Kon

ugh1979 said:


> The animals, but I still would't really call it consciousness. They aren't self aware.


How do we know other people are conscious? We can never know but we infer it, because of similar behaviour. I can't "see" your thoughts. You might be a zombie. But I suspect you're not because of similarities. Same with animals but the similarity isn't as much:

_Neurological similarities between humans and other animals have also been taken to suggest commonality of conscious experience. All mammals share the same basic brain anatomy, and much is shared with vertebrates more generally. Even structurally different brains may be neurodynamically similar in ways that enable inferences about animal consciousness to be drawn. _

_As well as generic arguments about the connections among consciousness, neural activity, and behavior, a considerable amount of scientific research is directed towards understanding particular conscious states, especially using animals as proxies for humans. Much of the research that is of direct relevance to the treatment of human pain, including on the efficacy of analgesics and anesthetics, is conducted on rats and other animals. The validity of this research depends on the similar mechanisms involved and to many it seems arbitrary to deny that injured rats, who respond well to opiates for example, feel pain._

_Likewise, much of the basic research that is of direct relevance to understanding human visual consciousness has been conducted on the very similar visual systems of monkeys. Monkeys whose primary visual cortex is damaged even show impairments analogous to those of human blindsight patients suggesting that the visual consciousness of intact monkeys is similar to that of intact humans. It is often argued that the use of animals to model neuropsychiatric disorders presupposes convergence of emotional and other conscious states and further refinements of those models may strengthen the argument for attributing such states to animals. _

_An interesting reversal of the modeling relationship can be found in the work of Temple Grandin, Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, who uses her experience as a so-called"high-functioning autistic" as the basis for her understanding of the nature of animal experience._

*Animal Consiousness*

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/

With computers/robots, etc. there is no difference between them and a rock with respect to consciousness/experiential (leaving aside the panpsychist arguments), in my opinion, although the former is much more useful to us.


----------



## Choci Loni

I've only had time to briefly blur through this thread, but I think I basically agree with Kon on what we can know about consciousness- regarding the explanatory gap and the hard problem of consciousness. If I am only to answer the question whether computers can be conscious based on that, it's impossible to say.

To narrow this down from a philosophical question to a more scientific and ethical one in order to answer the question: I make the assumption that our consciousness is intricately bound to the physical workings of the human brain. From a scientific (behavourism) point of view; the mind is not merely a product of the way the pattern of neurons in our brain works, but it IS the process of our neurons sending signals to one another. This could be countered with a number of arguments,such as the chinese room, pholosophical zombies or the notion of qualia. I think all of those are interesting and none of them can be disregarded just like that, but we have to make assumptions to make any sense of this at all (even if it happens to be a false sense of 'sense').
To clarify- We have to throw away all ideas of dualism or idealism to let science have a say in this, even if I personally think that it's not entirely correct.

By this definition, consciousness is completely computable. This makes sense bearing in mind that the human brain is a purely biological (which is altogether physical (and arguably fundamentally mathematical)) thing. the human brain is a product of a natural processes and natural substances. We could in theory recreate these exact processes and thus create an artificial intelligence that is conscious on the same level as a human being.
In other words, I'm not unfamiliar with the thought that a seemingly conscious computer really is conscious, the same way humans and animals are, and should therefore be trated that way. These problems lie a good bit into the future so far though.


----------



## fatelogic

> I'd call consciousness being self aware. Is a frog self aware (and therefore concious)? No. Will it move away from fire. Yes.


 self aware eh!... that answer is lazy an vague. Because concision people are both self aware and not. Why do you think we like sex? Consciously it feels good but unconsciously the feeling of feeling good is there, unconsciously. IOW, we are coded to enjoy it and controlled to seek it. You cannot get away from that craving!

So you are unconscious about a lot of things and only conscious about what you believe to be conscious beliefs.

You need to try harder if you want to get to the root of it all. But no cigar for you.



> I said I don't see the relevance, what more do you need? There was nothing else I needed to say. Can you explain it's relevance?


 it is simple really.... just thin of how a baby is made. Same thing with subconscious. How was subconscious born? my assumption is that it started by the will to continue on living. Everything has to start from 0 lol.

In a way I am trying to look at things from the beginning like the big bang. So consciousness had to start from -0 and 0. in that regard, our consciousness is just HUMAN. We understand it by our own definition of it. That means that we live in a bubble. That also means that other animals are self aware. Though your own self awareness cannot see it because you are only aware of your self.

You believe in evolution right atheist? So consciousness had to evolve too from a prokaryotes.



> They are a side effect. We don't do them primarily for that purpose.


 that of course is your one sided opinion... why don't you back this up? Give evidence of your claims... with science facts. Scientists love facts.

Why do we do it for then, primarily?



> It just so happens that on average people who are religious tend to be happier.


So logically, that works. Atheists are bitter. if you choose to be bitter, hey you are self aware of that.



> To give one basic example we do have in today's tech, there is paint that can heal itself when it becomes scratched. I see no reason why the nano-tech of the future won't be able to simulate what regenerative cells in the body do to heal wounds and fix components.


 people like to OVER EXAGERATE things and words... paint that can "heal" itself LOL. I'm guessing the paint has consciousness too. LOL

also, the human is making these machines/technologies.... so we are the creators of them and while we have better at living in mothers nature world, we will always be ahead of machinery/AI.

So this paint healing it self from scratches makes you a believer or something? LOL where is the link I would love to read about such claims?


----------



## ugh1979

Kon said:


> How do we know other people are conscious? We can never know but we infer it, because of similar behaviour. I can't "see" your thoughts. You might be a zombie. But I suspect you're not because of similarities. Same with animals but the similarity isn't as much:
> 
> _Neurological similarities between humans and other animals have also been taken to suggest commonality of conscious experience. All mammals share the same basic brain anatomy, and much is shared with vertebrates more generally. Even structurally different brains may be neurodynamically similar in ways that enable inferences about animal consciousness to be drawn. _
> 
> _As well as generic arguments about the connections among consciousness, neural activity, and behavior, a considerable amount of scientific research is directed towards understanding particular conscious states, especially using animals as proxies for humans. Much of the research that is of direct relevance to the treatment of human pain, including on the efficacy of analgesics and anesthetics, is conducted on rats and other animals. The validity of this research depends on the similar mechanisms involved and to many it seems arbitrary to deny that injured rats, who respond well to opiates for example, feel pain._
> 
> _Likewise, much of the basic research that is of direct relevance to understanding human visual consciousness has been conducted on the very similar visual systems of monkeys. Monkeys whose primary visual cortex is damaged even show impairments analogous to those of human blindsight patients suggesting that the visual consciousness of intact monkeys is similar to that of intact humans. It is often argued that the use of animals to model neuropsychiatric disorders presupposes convergence of emotional and other conscious states and further refinements of those models may strengthen the argument for attributing such states to animals. _
> 
> _An interesting reversal of the modeling relationship can be found in the work of Temple Grandin, Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, who uses her experience as a so-called"high-functioning autistic" as the basis for her understanding of the nature of animal experience._


I agree. We can't know for sure. We could be living in a Matrix like world.



> *Animal Consiousness*
> 
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
> 
> With computers/robots, etc. there is no difference between them and a rock with respect to consciousness/experiential (leaving aside the panpsychist arguments), in my opinion, although the former is much more useful to us.


At the moment yeah.


----------



## ugh1979

fatelogic said:


> self aware eh!... that answer is lazy an vague. Because concision people are both self aware and not. Why do you think we like sex? Consciously it feels good but unconsciously the feeling of feeling good is there, unconsciously. IOW, we are coded to enjoy it and controlled to seek it. You cannot get away from that craving!
> 
> So you are unconscious about a lot of things and only conscious about what you believe to be conscious beliefs.


I don't see the relevance in that to the point about what conciousness is. You seem to frequently talk about related but irrelevant to the debate things.



> it is simple really.... just thin of how a baby is made. Same thing with subconscious. How was subconscious born? my assumption is that it started by the will to continue on living. Everything has to start from 0 lol.
> 
> In a way I am trying to look at things from the beginning like the big bang. So consciousness had to start from -0 and 0. in that regard, our consciousness is just HUMAN. We understand it by our own definition of it. That means that we live in a bubble. That also means that other animals are self aware. Though your own self awareness cannot see it because you are only aware of your self.


Via scientific method we can make very strong cases for how self aware other animals are, so no, we aren't unable to see it in others.



> You believe in evolution right atheist? So consciousness had to evolve too from a prokaryotes.


Yes consciousness evolved from 'nothing'.



> that of course is your one sided opinion... why don't you back this up? Give evidence of your claims... with science facts. Scientists love facts.
> 
> Why do we do it for then, primarily?


I don't need to provide evidence for something so obvious. We do them primarily because we enjoy them, not so that we live longer. The vast majority of people don't think about how much longer they are going to live everytime they laugh or have sex! Do you take a note of how much longer you think you are going to live after you laugh at something? :lol



> So logically, that works. Atheists are bitter. if you choose to be bitter, hey you are self aware of that.


Maybe some are, but I'm sure it's a different definition of bitterness they feel for religion than the one you are talking about. Also, many others are just as happy as theists. It's certainly not universal that every theist is happier than every atheist. :lol



> people like to OVER EXAGERATE things and words... paint that can "heal" itself LOL. I'm guessing the paint has consciousness too. LOL
> 
> So this paint healing it self from scratches makes you a believer or something? LOL where is the link I would love to read about such claims?


There was no exaggeration. Here's a link to the evidence for it. 

So now you must admit it is fact, do you understand it was just a simple example of technology being able to mimic how biology heals. Or did you forget that was what we were talking about?

Not sure what you mean by citing an example of tech mimicking biology making me a 'believer'. A believer in what? Technology? :lol



> also, the human is making these machines/technologies.... so we are the creators of them and while we have better at living in mothers nature world, we will always be ahead of machinery/AI.


Yes we will be 'ahead' of them until the AI no longer needs us.


----------



## fatelogic

> I don't see the relevance in that to the point about what conciousness is. You seem to frequently talk about related but irrelevant to the debate things.


 Yes, I know, you don't see a lot of things... the difference between you and me is that you only settle for "self aware" to define consciousness... I mean I could say duh! By the dictionary definition but the definition also says so be alive... because when you die you go unconscious.

So if you want to stay in that... well yeah it is self aware for you... but it goes way deeper where you can't go because you will drown. So you are just stagnated in a changing world.



> Via scientific method *we* can make very strong cases for how self aware other animals are, so no, we aren't unable to see it in others.


 why do you keep on saying "WE" like if you are one of the scientists when you are not LOL. I don't need to be a scientist to know that you don't know if your cat wants to take a shyt or just wants to sit down. LOL. Your cat is self aware period. It likes to eat mice and rats mainly... or cat food bought from the supper market if you don't let him/her out site the house. It is common sense. It is common sense that they are self aware too. They see a mouse, they eat it. You are hungry around 12 noon and someone gives you a slice of pizza and you eat it. Though the pizza is mainly satisfying your taste buds and your taste buds are satisfying your neurons.... get it?



> Yes consciousness evolved from 'nothing'.


 thanks for the very detailed and opinionated response.



> I don't need to provide evidence for something so obvious. We do them primarily because we enjoy them, not so that we live longer. The vast majority of people don't think about how much longer they are going to live everytime they laugh or have sex! Do you take a note of how much longer you think you are going to live after you laugh at something?


 see you don't get it. why do you think i said that most of us are unconsciously conscious? So you like sex just because you want to have sex? Is that what you are saying? Yes it is. While that is incorrect because some animals don't even have sex to enjoy the feeling. They just throw sperm in the air or in the water.

So we do primarily because we *enjoy them* eh! Like no shyt Sherlock holmes. But why is it that we enjoy it? For what reason? We enjoy it just to enjoy it?

This is a perfect exampl why I say that the definition of consciousness is not just *self aware* like you said. LOL.



> Maybe some are, but I'm sure it's a different definition of bitterness they feel for religion than the one you are talking about. Also, many others are just as happy as theists. It's certainly not universal that every theist is happier than every atheist.


 facts are facts. Knowing how things is not happiness. This is an old fact. You are one of those people that believe that you know what you are talking about. That whatever you say is correct. Which is fine but you are not self aware of that. Though if you were, that would not make you happy. Because that is not our ultimate goal in life.

Would you, consciously, choose to know about the truth about the big bang or to have 3 girlfriends? Lol that is a no brainier.

So religion works no matter if you don't like it or not. As a matter of fact, atheist are outcast and loners. Your only option is to try to justify your feelings of being an outcast... by hating religion. I mean, that puts you in the same level as bullies.



> So now you must admit it is fact, do you understand it was just a simple example of technology being able to mimic how biology heals. Or did you forget that was what we were talking about?


 that one page article with no visual reference makes you a believer... lol. Let me see it in action. Go buy some cans of self healing pain and lets do some tests. LOL. I can bet 100 dollars that that healing paint cannot heal itself. LOL. That is just good old propaganda.

By a "believer" I implied that you are mostly a person believer of word of mouth. And at that, you are deceived. Bring it! Lest see how good this self healing paint is. But stop being a little shy... pretend we are in a court of law and you have to show/proof your side... you are suing me so put forward your evidence... lol... last time I went to walt mart, talk was still cheap.



> Yes we will be 'ahead' of them until the AI no longer needs us.


 didn't your mom or dad teach you that you need to back up your claims? Why do you believe so... at least explain your theory.. lol. Stop giving lazy answers.


----------



## ugh1979

fatelogic said:


> Yes, I know, you don't see a lot of things... the difference between you and me is that you only settle for "self aware" to define consciousness... I mean I could say duh! By the dictionary definition but the definition also says so be alive... because when you die you go unconscious.
> 
> So if you want to stay in that... well yeah it is self aware for you... but it goes way deeper where you can't go because you will drown. So you are just stagnated in a changing world.


Oh the irony. :roll I can't be bothered wasting my time giving you a long answer for you to just respond with irrelevant nonsense.



> why do you keep on saying "WE" like if you are one of the scientists when you are not LOL.


'We' as in mankind obviously. :lol



> I don't need to be a scientist to know that you don't know if your cat wants to take a shyt or just wants to sit down. LOL. Your cat is self aware period. It likes to eat mice and rats mainly... or cat food bought from the supper market if you don't let him/her out site the house. It is common sense. It is common sense that they are self aware too. They see a mouse, they eat it. You are hungry around 12 noon and someone gives you a slice of pizza and you eat it. Though the pizza is mainly satisfying your taste buds and your taste buds are satisfying your neurons.... get it?


Here's a tip, go and look up what self aware means then come back.



> thanks for the very detailed and opinionated response.


The answer didn't need anything extra. I kept it simple for you for obvious reasons.



> see you don't get it. why do you think i said that most of us are unconsciously conscious? So you like sex just because you want to have sex? Is that what you are saying? Yes it is. While that is incorrect because some animals don't even have sex to enjoy the feeling. They just throw sperm in the air or in the water.
> 
> So we do primarily because we enjoy them eh! Like no shyt Sherlock holmes. But why is it that we enjoy it? For what reason? We enjoy it just to enjoy it?


'Unconsciously conscious' made me laugh. :lol

When we enjoy things reward chemicals are released in the brain which makes us desire to do them again. We don't primarily do them so we can live longer. (bar eating in some obvious respects)



> This is a perfect exampl why I say that the definition of consciousness is not just self aware like you said. LOL.


I never said it was only being self aware. That was just a very simple quick answer as I've already told you I'm not going to waste my time with the long answer on you as I know you won't accept anything I say.



> facts are facts. Knowing how things is not happiness. This is an old fact. You are one of those people that believe that you know what you are talking about. That whatever you say is correct. Which is fine but you are not self aware of that. Though if you were, that would not make you happy. Because that is not our ultimate goal in life.


So I believe it but I'm not self aware of it? :lol

Regarding knowing what I am talking about, I know varying degrees of parts of everything I talk about and never think I know everything. Also, everything I think I know and believe in is open and to challenge and change over time and I welcome that. New valid justifiable knowledge is always welcome.



> Would you, consciously, choose to know about the truth about the big bang or to have 3 girlfriends? Lol that is a no brainier.


The former. 3 girlfriends sounds like hell.



> So religion works no matter if you don't like it or not.


It works for some yeah, I never said it didn't, and it's irrelevant if I like it or not. Gassing jews and slavery worked for some people as well.



> As a matter of fact, atheist are outcast and loners. Your only option is to try to justify your feelings of being an outcast... by hating religion. I mean, that puts you in the same level as bullies.


I'm happy to be an outcast from a group of what I see are brainwashed religious cult drones. I'm not an outcast to my own group, but you are. Why do you think atheists are loners? Is it because they are free independent thinkers and you don't like that?

Why does someone not believing in god make them a bully? You sound like you have been bullied a lot.



> that one page article with no visual reference makes you a believer... lol. Let me see it in action. Go buy some cans of self healing pain and lets do some tests. LOL. I can bet 100 dollars that that healing paint cannot heal itself. LOL. That is just good old propaganda.


Haha comedy. 'Propoganda'. :lol Do you think you are fighting some kind of anti-technology war?



> By a "believer" I implied that you are mostly a person believer of word of mouth. And at that, you are deceived. Bring it! Lest see how good this self healing paint is. But stop being a little shy... pretend we are in a court of law and you have to show/proof your side... you are suing me so put forward your evidence... lol... last time I went to walt mart, talk was still cheap.


Oh the irony again&#8230; :roll

Here's a link to more 'propaganda' which contains references to the inventors. You obviously won't believe it as being true but i'd love to hear what more you have to say about it. Self healing paint

What other new technology do you think is propaganda?



> didn't your mom or dad teach you that you need to back up your claims? Why do you believe so... at least explain your theory.. lol. Stop giving lazy answers.


I've discussed that in earlier in the thread so didn't need to repeat it. I take it you forgot as usual?


----------



## Pennywise

Consciousness, as best as I can define it, is a living being's perception of the world around them.

And no, a computer can't have a consciousness, because it's not alive. It has no physical or emotional senses, and can't really think for itself.


----------



## Milco

Pennywise said:


> Consciousness, as best as I can define it, is a living being's perception of the world around them.
> 
> And no, a computer can't have a consciousness, because it's not alive. It has no physical or emotional senses, and can't really think for itself.


...yet :b

Consciousness is a product of our biological/neurological wiring.
And it has been proposed that, in time, unless progress in computing power stops, we would eventually be able to simulate the entire universe given the known laws of physics.
This would mean a simulation of Earth as well and all life on the planet.
The individuals in that simulation would be conscious beings just like we are.
They would fall in love, feel free will, question the meaning of life and all the other things which we feel makes us special.

If you accept that there isn't anything 'magic' about being human, other than the immense and beautiful complexity of nature that form us, then it logically follows that computers or any other systems could experience consciousness just the same.


----------



## fatelogic

> Oh the irony. I can't be bothered wasting my time giving you a long answer for you to just respond with irrelevant nonsense.


 with all due respect, you are more of entertainment than anything else.  I mean, if/when you say things like the following "*I'd call consciousness being self aware. Is a frog self aware (and therefore concious)? No. Will it move away from fire. Yes.*" you are mandatory to explain your statement because that sound being close minded.

Sure it follows that if your ultimate answer for consciousness is self aware, then a frog cannot be self aware since "self aware" is a humans definition. But the frog is still *conscious* that fire burns. Specially since one definition of being conscious is *An unelaborated elementary awareness of stimulation* "a sensation of touch"... lol

Your statements are like a dog chasing it's own tail... they go in a circle. While trying to find what consciousness is, is more of like the tree of life. Not going in circles chasing the tail but more of evolving.

Fine, settle for "*being self aware*" as your ultimate answer... you will certainly not waste any more energy in pondering nonsense. 



> 'We' as in mankind obviously.


 oh I thought that by we you meant gorillas lol... kids these days. Obviously in that sentence you where referring to scientist when you said we...



> Here's a tip, go and look up what self aware means then come back.


 I was going to ask you the same thing. I have a dictionary in my laptop. All I have to do is click a key on my keyboard and the definition pops up. I'm way ahead of you smart guy Lol. One click gives me wikepida, wiktionary, merriam webster dictionary, google dictionary, dictionary.com and others...

here you go short sentence responder guy... take a look at this from wiki "*
However self-awareness is not to be confused with self-consciousness. * so I guess there goes your theory. :teeth



> The answer didn't need anything extra. I kept it simple for you for obvious reasons.


 simple coming from a simple person.



> 'Unconsciously conscious' made me laugh.
> 
> When we enjoy things reward chemicals are released in the brain which makes us desire to do them again. We don't primarily do them so we can live longer. (bar eating in some obvious respects)


 you need to upgrade the CPU in your virtual brain lol . Why do you laugh when it is true, boggles my mind. As a matter of fact... you consciously keep responding to me because you unconsciously seek attention... just ask lady gaga. though you have consciousness.

Ah well....



> I never said it was only being self aware.


 all I have to do is look up anddd... hummm...yes you did. lol



> So I believe it but I'm not self aware of it?


 yeah... you only believe to accept something to be true (where truth is subjective) so you are only self aware of the belief alone and not what persuaded you to believe to accept something to be true.



> The former. 3 girlfriends sounds like hell.


 I doubt it.



> You sound like you have been bullied a lot.


 OT but nope... just your average new kid in school bullying but not a lot... and that was not even bullying by my standards of what is bullying.



> Here's a link to more 'propaganda' which contains references to the inventors. You obviously won't believe it as being true but i'd love to hear what more you have to say about it. Self healing paint


 that looks good on paper, but in reality, they are over hyping the word "heal." I could be you a dollar that you will never buy a car with "healing" paint on it. Nor would you will paint your house with it. But I know I will win and to proof it I would have to claim my dollar ten years from now. Stupid that would be.

anyways dude... I only replied to you for entertainment purposes but now it is not cutting it.

Go paint your car with "self healing" paint... key scratch it and watch it heal itself... that sounds like fun.


----------



## ugh1979

fatelogic said:


> with all due respect, you are more of entertainment than anything else.


Likewise, and I'm not going to waste my time getting in to an intellectual debate with someone like you. You have nothing to offer of value.



> Your statements are like a dog chasing it's own tail... they go in a circle. While trying to find what consciousness is, is more of like the tree of life. Not going in circles chasing the tail but more of evolving.


I'm just keeping this going as I find you entertaining.



> Fine, settle for "*being self aware*" as your ultimate answer... you will certainly not waste any more energy in pondering nonsense.


It's not my ultimate answer. Just my very short answer, as i've said many times. Who's going in circles now? :lol



> oh I thought that by we you meant gorillas lol... kids these days. Obviously in that sentence you where referring to scientist when you said we...


Kids. :roll I bet i'm older than you. If not a lot older.

As for what 'we' I was referring to, you've misinterpreted if you thought it meant scientists. Here's an obvious example of how it should have been interpreted from a well known quote. "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." 'We' in that context does not mean only the astronauts who physically went.



> I was going to ask you the same thing. I have a dictionary in my laptop. All I have to do is click a key on my keyboard and the definition pops up. I'm way ahead of you smart guy Lol. One click gives me wikepida, wiktionary, merriam webster dictionary, google dictionary, dictionary.com and others...
> 
> here you go short sentence responder guy... take a look at this from wiki "*
> However self-awareness is not to be confused with self-consciousness. * so I guess there goes your theory. :teeth


How does stating that mean you are right when you say cats are self aware and I am wrong saying they aren't? :lol



> you need to upgrade the CPU in your virtual brain lol . Why do you laugh when it is true, boggles my mind.


I was laughing at your ignorance of the correct word.



> As a matter of fact... you consciously keep responding to me because you unconsciously seek attention... just ask lady gaga. though you have consciousness.


No you can be sure I don't desire your attention. I keep responding to you as I find you entertaining, but would happily see you disappear.



> all I have to do is look up anddd... hummm...yes you did. lol


I never once in inferred my very short answer on it was all there was to it. It's a huge subject, with no easy definition (or even solid definition), and why i'm not wasting my time with you on it.



> yeah... you only believe to accept something to be true (where truth is subjective) so you are only self aware of the belief alone and not what persuaded you to believe to accept something to be true.


What nonsense. I'm obviously going to be just as aware of the evidence for the belief as the belief itself.



> that looks good on paper, but in reality, they are over hyping the word "heal." I could be you a dollar that you will never buy a car with "healing" paint on it. Nor would you will paint your house with it. But I know I will win and to proof it I would have to claim my dollar ten years from now. Stupid that would be.
> 
> Go paint your car with "self healing" paint... key scratch it and watch it heal itself... that sounds like fun.


Wow, it's laughable actually think you know better than the people who created this 'propaganda' product. :lol



> anyways dude... I only replied to you for entertainment purposes but now it is not cutting it.


I want to hear more about your war on technology. Who are the big enemies? Apple? Microsoft? What other products are propaganda? I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say on this.

For the record fatelogic, what faith are you? I'm guessing Mormon.


----------



## mahesh10

i think a computer can actually have a Consciousness. but it wouldn't be as much advanced as human Consciousness. i think Human Brain and Human Consciousness is the most complex and most advanced thing in the world. anyways read this article about Consciousness and Human Condition. you can learn a lot about it

http://www.worldtransformation.com/consciousness/


----------



## duckie

ugh1979 said:


> I'd call consciousness being self aware.


most people would agree with this statement but it's not exactly that. our reality of consciousness is related to our senses. if you disrupt one of our senses you can lose self awareness.
this was demonstrated in a BBC documentary.






he does 2 head cam tests and the second one seemed more powerful as an observer.
about 5 mins.


----------



## Kon

Milco said:


> And it has been proposed that, in time, unless progress in computing power stops, we would eventually be able to simulate the entire universe given the known laws of physics. This would mean a simulation of Earth as well and all life on the planet. The individuals in that simulation would be conscious beings just like we are.


Others argue that one should not confuse the map for the territory. Simulating some properties of the mind/brain is not the same thing as subjectivity/qualia/consciousness. This is the "Chinese Room" argument:

*The Chinese Room Argument*
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

Searle writes:


> The computational model of consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the computational model of anything stands to the domain being modelled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases.


*The problem of consciousness*
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.prob.html


----------



## ugh1979

Kon said:


> Others argue that one should not confuse the map for the territory. Simulating some properties of the mind/brain is not the same thing as subjectivity/qualia/consciousness. This is the "Chinese Room" argument:
> 
> *The Chinese Room Argument*
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
> 
> Searle writes:
> 
> *The problem of consciousness*
> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.prob.html


You could well be right that by only simulating 'some' properties we can never create conciousness. Conciousness, at least on par with human conciousness, may well require all the parts of the jigsaw to be in place to emerge. Something like a future bioneural computer acting as the brain of a robot/cyborg, with all the same senses as us could potentially complete the jigsaw.

I think a physical presense may be required for a mind to develop a sense of self awareness, just like a child does in it's infancy. I don't think it will be a case of just turning it on and conciousness suddenly appears though. I think so much will have to be learned rather than pre-programmed before it emerges.


----------



## Kon

ugh1979 said:


> You could well be right that by only simulating 'some' properties we can never create conciousness. Conciousness, at least on par with human conciousness, may well require all the parts of the jigsaw to be in place to emerge. Something like a future bioneural computer acting as the brain of a robot/cyborg, with all the same senses as us could potentially complete the jigsaw.


I guess this is where I find Penrose's argument more convincing. Even if one disagrees with Searle's argument, I think consciousness doesn't involve any computational physical process and thus any attempt to algorithmize consciousness will fail because consciousness cannot be simulated. There have been some papers and research to try to quantify consciousness or at least qualia by some scientists but there are problems with these models also. Probably the leading researcher in this area is Giulio Tononi who has argued that the amount of consciousness is related to amount of integrated information:

*Integrated Information*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Information_Theory

*A complex theory of consciousness*
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of-consciousness


----------



## Solomon's Tomb

It's a level of transcendence, to me. I hate, therefor, I am. Lower animals cannot comprehend hatred, but humans can. But only the Powers That Be can understand perfect hatred.


----------



## ugh1979

Kon said:


> I guess this is where I find Penrose's argument more convincing. Even if one disagrees with Searle's argument, I think consciousness doesn't involve any computational physical process and thus any attempt to algorithmize consciousness will fail because consciousness cannot be simulated. There have been some papers and research to try to quantify consciousness or at least qualia by some scientists but there are problems with these models also. Probably the leading researcher in this area is Giulio Tononi who has argued that the amount of consciousness is related to amount of integrated information:
> 
> *Integrated Information*
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Information_Theory
> 
> *A complex theory of consciousness*
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of-consciousness


Interesting reading. However, with regards to conciousness not being computational, I accept not by todays computers/programs, but with forthcoming quantum and bioneural computers for example we can't say it will never. We are at the very beginning of the story of artificial intelligence. I think in time the artificial will actually replace the natural, as it will eventually be 'better' in almost every respect, and become the new 'natural'. It may well be our destiny and what allows us to fully take control of our evolution/development and let us travel the cosmos free from the restraints of the weak biological bodies we currently have.

(Heavy transhumanist speel there! )

Also, our current conciousness could already be a simulation along with everything else, so you can only say for certain that it can't be simulated in line with today's technology.


----------

