Upisoft said:They are not deterministic processes of the brain. The brain is a system that interacts with the environment. If you analyze any such system you may find that they are not deterministic. The combination environment + system is deterministic, but the parts are not.
Then you have to embrace every religion as a true religion. After all you will hear a lot of people claiming observations that support their religion.
Maui said:Decision? How is a decision registered on a machine? Or did they just register brain activity that they interpreted to be a decision?
You are stuffing a quadrant through a round hole and because it will obviously not go in, you are ready to dismiss the existence of the hole(there is no hole, there is no problem).
Could it be that their neurons are just out of order and firing a non-sensical sequence? After all, there is no reason why neurons should fire in logical order and produce meaning or knowledge.
You have over-stayed and over-bought at the "Humans could explain everything" counter.
A computer has nothing to do with conscious experience or self-awareness.
There is "virtual reality" inside the brain. "Mirror image" suggest that the internal image of the outside world is perfect and full, which is not the case. You sometimes happen to touch hot objects. If you knew they are hot (= environment is "inside") you would not do it. Your brain made wrong decision to emulate the object as being not hot. So, no. Your idea of "mirror image" is wrong.Maui said:But there is a mirror image inside the brain and the environment is also actually "inside" the brain. So you are wrong.
Are they? Tell me, what do I observe when I see red? Is it the same as yours?Maui said:My observations are the same as yours. They are of an external world observed through conscious experience(which seems to be real to the highest standards that humans could envisage).
Upisoft said:You said "there is a BIG fundamental behavioral difference between a conscious person and an unconscious one" and I showed that there is the same big fundamental difference between a turned on computer and a turned off computer. If you still insist there is something mystical in the consciousness then the same conclusion is inescapable for the computer.
Maui said:A computer has never been shown to be conscious, that's the difference. I am done dispelling this nonsense.
This discussion keeps going on, because our qualia about consciousness differ. We are trying to find way to express that difference, but all attempts were futile I guess. I believe we will not be able to find a language that will be able to express qualia, just because of its natural uniqueness. But if you think that we will be able to express qualia in a language form, then why object our attempts to find that language?SW VandeCarr said:I've been saying all along that all aspects of brain function must either be physical or supernatural. I'm not a dualist because I believe all phenomenon are physical (= natural) including qualia. However we may not be able to describe qualia in physical terms at our current state of evolution. When we have a language where we can describe the sensation of a color without referring to other colors, we may have solved the problem of qualia in "physical" terms. However there are many limitations that physics already imposes on us. We certainly don't have a language that describes exactly what happens to matter when it falls into a black hole. Infinities still plague physics the way qualia plague neuroscience (although I don't think neuroscientists worry too much about qualia).
I frankly don't see why this discussion keeps on going, but if you're having fun, have at it.
Upisoft said:But if you think that we will be able to express qualia in a language form, then why object our attempts to find that language?
SW VandeCarr said:Because it will probably require some form of electromagnetic telepathy that is beyond any capability we currently have.
Upisoft said:I have to object. I don't see how the media relates to the capabilities of a language. You can express something with words (acoustical waves) as well as with electromagnetic waives. The only difference could be the speed of transmission and the distance.
Upisoft said:It does not matter that the computer is not conscious. Your conclusion is based on the big fundamental difference, which is present in both cases.
I don't see how more expressive can we be with the example most used here. We already can communicate with EM, so if you ask me what is "red" I can show it to you by showing object that emits red light or using a device that can emit red light. Now this is not possible for things like "fear" or "joy", but for the simple case of "red" we have the proper "language". This language, of course, will not explain your quale about "red". You will have to send information about some parts of your brain that are analyzing the visual information, but we are unequipped with any organ that can simulate second brain. Maybe if we double the capacity of our brain and use one half of it to emulate someone's else brain... But it is not longer a question of language, but a question of capabilities.SW VandeCarr said:No It would involve the expressive power of language. Our languages are based on phonemes and would no doubt be considered primitive by a much more evolved intelligence. We are limited to sounds and symbols representing sounds for the most part. An advanced intelligence could possibly communicate colors directly to each other in a common telepathic language just as unique brains can communicate now in a more limited way using a common language based on phonemes.
I don't understand what is the problem. People usually do whatever they think is the best for them. If for that guy the honor was more important than his life then he did what every other person does.Maui said:What would be the non-dualistic explanation of an honor suicide(e.g. a Japanese CEO that has led a corporation to a bankrupcy)?
Ah, you turned on your computer after all. Did you notice the big behavioral difference? My computer usually behaves no better than a brick when it is turned off. But when I turn it on I can do many things with it. Much more than when its turned off. That is a big behavioral difference. Do you agree? Yes or no.Maui said:I said there is a big behavioral difference between a conscious and an unconscious person. Your computer example is completely irrelvant, because it's not a conscious entity and there is nothing unexplicable about computer behavior(whether it's on or off). Here is what "conscious" means:
Upisoft said:I don't understand what is the problem. People usually do whatever they think is the best for them. If for that guy the honor was more important than his life then he did what every other person does.
Ah, you turned on your computer after all. Did you notice the big behavioral difference? My computer usually behaves no better than a brick when it is turned off. But when I turn it on I can do many things with it. Much more than when its turned off. That is a big behavioral difference. Do you agree? Yes or no.
I was asking a question about a computer. The question with simple answer. "Yes" or "No". If you have made any connection to our discussion about the consciousness it was your doing. It was not my intention.Maui said:So here you say people are conscious and are responsible for their deeds. Hold on and see how you are saying the opposite below...
Ah, you turned on your computer after all. Did you notice the big behavioral difference? My computer usually behaves no better than a brick when it is turned off. But when I turn it on I can do many things with it. Much more than when its turned off. That is a big behavioral difference. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Upisoft said:I was asking a question about a computer. The question with simple answer. "Yes" or "No". If you have made any connection to our discussion about the consciousness it was your doing. It was not my intention.
What I said was:
Do you see anything about consciousness? I'm talking about my computer, it's behavior when it is turned on and off and about the difference between the two states. Sorry, if you somehow see "consciousness" in anything of this.
Maui said:The topic is actually about consciousness and whether it exists(is real) or illusory(not real). If you were not alluding to consciousness with the computer example, what was your point exactly? Spamming?
Ummm, which of those do you think computers don't do? I always find this argument against artificial intelligence rather poor, since it always winds up resorting to choosing narrow definitions that are more or less specifically designed to exclude computers.Maui said:–adjective
1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. fully aware of or sensitive to something (often fol. by of ): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3. having the mental faculties fully active: He was conscious during the operation.
4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.
5. aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar.
6. aware of oneself; self-conscious.
If you have a computer that shows any of the above, it might be advisible to contact CNN, NBC or NASA.
Hurkyl said:Ummm, which of those do you think computers don't do? I always find this argument against artificial intelligence rather poor, since it always winds up resorting to choosing narrow definitions that are more or less specifically designed to exclude computers.
Maui said:I read 2 essays that those authors wrote and they are hopeful that consciousness(the Self) will be revealed to be a certain configuration of neurons. They cite cases of mental disorders as evidence but don't mention any word of cognition, thinking, comprehension or self-awareness. While they don't specifically say in those essay that they are illusions, their collegues(the ones I've read) all held this opinion. Again, i have nothing against the idea that neurons in the brain influence the thought process, but i dismiss the idea that qualia, thinking and awareness are JUST deterministic, physical processes inside the brain.
A unconscious person will register brain activity on a EEG machine. A conscious person will as well, but their physical behavior is not even similar while one of them is unconscious.
It doesn't disagree because it shies away from the topic of awareness, thinking and free-will. When it does, it usually revolves around atatements like - "conscious experience and self are illusory", "free-will is an illusion", etc.
Great, this stuff is fascinating and I love reading about it. But there is no physical reason in my brain why i disagree with its conclusions. Instead, the reason lies in logic. A theory has 2 basic requirements:
1. It has to make sense
2. It must match observations
The theory that consciousness(self-awareness) is a deterministic physical process fails on both points. If the world of conscious experience is truly illusory, it is because of an entirely different set of reasons that have little to do with brains.
Pythagorean said:Then you can see why dualism isn't a theory? If some principle of dualism was to somehow make valid predictions that were repeatable... it would no longer be dualism.
So you read two essays and then made conclusions about their colleagues. You're not exactly setting the bar for an objective view point here. I am not relying on any argument saying that consciousness is an illusion. Freewill is another topic.
This is a fallacious argument. Sure, unconscious people and conscious people both show activity on an EEG machine. That's irrelevant. The reading are going to be different for a conscious person than they are for an unconscious person. This is how we know, for instance, that the thalamus plays an important role in consciousness.
but it hasn't stated anything about consciousness itself being an illusion.
Really? Where can I learn this dualism? It would seriously help with my cooking if I could use it to predict whether my food would be tasty!Maui said:Through dualism people predict if a food will be tasty,
Upisoft said:I had an interesting event in my life. I had to undergo a surgery and after they bring me back to the room, people in the room said that I attempted to stand up an go. I have told them: "I want to go home. I don't like being here any more."
I don't remember anything at all, but it looks I acted as if I was fully awake. Now my questions are:
1. Was I conscious when I did those things?
2. If I was conscious, then what is conscience if it depends so much on our memory?
3. If i was not conscious why did I express things like will (to go home) and emotion (didn't like being in the hospital), who was "I" in this context?
Edit: It is obvious that I was aware where I am. i.e. self-awareness was present.
Edit: The experience resembles the zombie-like behavior described by the OP, at least from my current point of view
DaveC426913 said:I have often wondered about this. It seems to me that it is just as possible that you were indeed mostly* conscious but that the path to your memory was short-circuited. You have no recollection of the event, so it seems, in retrospect, you weren't conscious at all.*you could not have been fully conscious and in possession of your faculties. The behaviour you exhibited (trying to get up and leave) was clearly irrational. You were definitely in some sort of compromised state.
Upisoft said:Well, some people take such decisions while being fully conscious. Say, they refuse blood transfusion even it is required to save their life. It is irrational from our PoV, but not from their PoV. So, I don't think that my irrational behavior necessary indicate lack of full conscience.
DaveC426913 said:Are you telling me, in the fully-conscious state you are in right now, that, upon reflection it was a good idea to get up immediately after that operation and try to go home? Did you even have pants on?
Or would you say right now, that that was not the best thing for you to do then?
Upisoft said:I don't know. I don't remember anything, so I can't justify my action as rational, because I cannot repeat the thought process (or whatever process made me do what I did).
DaveC426913 said:You don't need to remember the thought process. I'm not asking you what you were thinking; I'm asking you if, right now, you think a patient who has just come back from surgery is in any fit state to go home.
Maui said:Dualism has been making many billions of predictions per hours so far. Through dualism people predict if a food will be tasty, an idea good, a picture beautiful, a theory wrong, etc.
Denying the reality of everything is rather silly idea(it will require much more evidence).
I have a keen interest in this topic and have read many essays, but i am not good at remembering names. Instead of pointing out what your argument is not, why not point out what your argument actually is on the realness of conscious experience?
So what does this mean to you? Are people really conscious or just under the idea that they are conscious but are in the final analysis not?
OMG. Of course when one believes that consciousness is a physical deterministic process, then conscious choices ARE a BIG farse, an illusion(i.e. there is no one, no SELF to do the choosing). You shouldn't be ashamed of the conclusions your own theory is leading to.
That would definitely qualify as being in an altered state of consciousness, resulting in irrational behaviour, yup. Kinda my point.Upisoft said:Isn't it possible that I didn't remember I was in a hospital and had surgery?