Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[balkan]

Please tell me what these advantages over the hypothetical robot are and I won't ignore them. I honestly don't know of any.

well... like I've personally said many times:
consciousness isn't a necessity... like wings aren't necessary for a bird either, it didn't have to take that evolutionary step (it didn't, evolution did), it could have survived in other shapes...
but it's working... the bird survived, and so did we... it doesn't matter whether or not it is necessary. our appendix isn't necessary either. that doesn't mean (or even indicate) that it wasn't at some point an advantage or that "something else" deals with our our appendix, now does it?

 

[Fliption]

1) i highly disagree. the ability to be conscious of what you are doing is quite essential to making innovations that would enable you to adabt to present and future environment... a brain that only responded and reasoned couldn't do that... you don't "react" a bow or clothes due to impulses... an idea like that comes from being aware of what you need and how you feel, and how you would feel if you took clothes on.

Again, everything you speak of can be attributed to a physical process in the brain. You are aware of your emotional and reasoning processes. That doesn't mean they would function differently if you were not aware of them.

2) you don't seem to understand what evolution does... evolution is random, taking care of "the variety of life" is a choise.. so it can't be evolution, it's human.

This is just a minor semantic point but humans are part of evolution to. I don't understand it when people suddenly think that humans can somehow override the evolutive process. Because as soon as we override it, then overriding it becomes simply a part of evolution.

3) according to whom? you? a merely reasoning brain would surely let the weak ones die. they're an expense and quite unneccessary for the human race to survive... on the other hand, if you have empathy and understand that they have feelings and lives too, then you wouldn't... but that has got nothing to do with reason.

The post from Les above said that people are confusing feelings/emotions with consciousness. Every single emotion that you have is the result of a physical process in the brain. The only difference between a conscious person and a non-conscious one is that the conscious person "knows" that they are feeling it and acting on it. None of the actions would be impacted by this fact.

I'm really surprised that there are people arguing this point when a major view of philosophy called Idealism/Solipsism is dependent on the fact that we cannot ever know whether anyone is conscious other than ourselves. That's why I keep asking for examples because I think I can make a lot of money ending Solipsism once and for all.

 

[Fliption]

well... like I've personally said many times:
consciousness isn't a necessity... like wings aren't necessary for a bird either, it didn't have to take that evolutionary step (it didn't, evolution did), it could have survived in other shapes...
but it's working... the bird survived, and so did we... it doesn't matter whether or not it is necessary. our appendix isn't necessary either. that doesn't mean (or even indicate) that it wasn't at some point an advantage or that "something else" deals with our our appendix, now does it?

Fine. Tell me what it "could" have been useful for. It's still the same exercise. Let's end solipsism once and for all.

 

[balkan]

usefull for:

innovation, building a more advanced social structure than any other animal on the planet...
the ability to express ourself in more depth than any other animal, and the ability to reason oneself out of an instinctive reaction... not usefull at all
yes, a robot could do that... because we would have programmed it.

you tell me why consciousness is indicative of "something else" because it isn't necessary, if it is not the same case with the appendix...

 

[balkan]

The post from Les above said that people are confusing feelings/emotions with consciousness. Every single emotion that you have is the result of a physical process in the brain. The only difference between a conscious person and a non-conscious one is that the conscious person "knows" that they are feeling it and acting on it. None of the actions would be impacted by this fact.

I'm really surprised that there are people arguing this point when a major view of philosophy called Idealism/Solipsism is dependent on the fact that we cannot ever know whether anyone is conscious other than ourselves. That's why I keep asking for examples because I think I can make a lot of money ending Solipsism once and for all.

i'm not confusing anything... what comes with this knowledge is the ability to know you're having these feelings, and not act on them... the ability to analyze and take advantage of those feelings and thoughts...
that is tremendously helpfull in a society.

 

[Fliption]

innovation, building a more advanced social structure than any other animal on the planet...
the ability to express ourself in more depth than any other animal, and the ability to reason oneself out of an instinctive reaction... not usefull at all
yes, a robot could do that... because we would have programmed it.

All these things are the result of brain processes. None of which are attributed to consciousness.

you tell me why consciousness is indicative of "something else" because it isn't necessary, if it is not the same case with the appendix...

I'm saying it has no evolutive purpose and never has had one. Unlike the appendix.

 

[Fliption]

i'm not confusing anything... what comes with this knowledge is the ability to know you're having these feelings, and not act on them... the ability to analyze and take advantage of those feelings and thoughts...
that is tremendously helpfull in a society.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think you quite see where I'm drawing the semantic lines yet. One more time...everything you have mentioned above, analyzing feelings and acting upon it are all brain processes. None of these processes are attributed to consciousness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm saying it has no evolutive purpose and never has had one. Unlike the appendix.

The thing is, even if the self-aware aspect can be shown to be attractive to natural selection, we are still left with the question of how a nervous system can produce it. What materials did nature have to work with according to physicalist theory? We have nerves for conduction of information and interconnectivity, we have complexity, and we have electro-chemical energy. From those materials we can see how an environmentally sensitive system could have been established in biology, and given what we know today about computers, we also can see how computing ability and memory might develop. So sensitivity, computing ability, and memory are covered.

Those most certain consciousness is purely neurological are encouraged by developments in AI. Some believe when the right algorithms are combined with sensitivity, computing ability and memory, it will eventually result in the self-aware aspect of consciousness. Actually, they think complexity is the key, and guess what? They can’t get a computer to stop acting like a computer. If the proper level of complexity is what’s needed, then shouldn’t the best AI programs already be showing some sort of self awareness? Even snails seem to have the self-aware aspect (as primitive as it is) because one can observe them asserting their will. Surely AI is currently able to produce a program as complex as snail awareness, and therefore demonstrate a computer with will. Put it on wheels, give it a system for initiating self-propulsion, and then show us a willful computer equaling, say, the willfulness of a snail. That is a very simple test of the physicalist theory of consciousness.

So far, it ain’t happening primarily because of one wrench stuck in the works: repetitiveness. It’s not the presence of repetitiveness that’s the problem (yes, living and conscious processes are full of repetitiveness); the problem is the inability of non-living physical operations to escape repetitiveness, which the physical processes associated with life, and functions associated with consciousness both do with ease (e.g., as manifested respectively in evolution and will). That computer on wheels above, for instance, might move around, but it will only “repeat” its programming, and will never escape it (and random variation programmed in isn’t “will”).

Thus physicalist theories for origin of life and consciousness share a common nemesis (mechanistic repetitiveness). So at least one physicalist skeptic asks for a small but very specific bit of evidence before expressing faith in physicalism. When asked for such evidence, all we hear is what physicalness can do, while the evidence being requested is what matter CAN’T be shown to do. The evidence isn’t to show that matter can self-organize itself for a few steps or be coaxed (by conscious chemists) to combine into highly complex molecules. The test isn’t to show that a computer can “think.” The two tests are: 1) demonstrate the potential of chemistry to progressively self-organize on its own (no, not into life, just show the ability to perpetually organize in harmony with the environment), and 2) demonstrate that any sort of physical construction can exhibit will. Very modest requests if you ask me.

 

[Fliption]

After reading the strength of my last post, I should probably clarify a bit. I'm not reallly saying that consciousness has no purpose. I suspect it does play a role in the scheme of things. What I'm saying is that in a strictly physical explanation of things, consciousness would have no known purpose or usefulness. And we can never know whatever usefulness it may truly have under such assumptions because there are so many philosophical issues associated with consicousness in a physical world. This is why I've suggested that anyone who claims that consciousness has definite advantages in evolution are making statements that would solve some of the oldest philosophical issues on this topic.

 

[loseyourname]

But what I have been saying is that there are no advantages of being conscious so this point doesn't mean much to me.

Fliption, you can't be serious. What are you capable of accomplishing, as a human, when you are unconscious? How long do you think you would last as a sleepwalker?

 

[Fliption]

Fliption, you can't be serious. What are you capable of accomplishing, as a human, when you are unconscious? How long do you think you would last as a sleepwalker?

I don't think you are understanding the issue you are raising.

Are you saying that my brain processes are not altered when I am unconscious? Is it not a fact that the altered brain processes are the reason I wouldn't be able to function? If my brain began to function as it would when I was conscious then I could function perfectly well, I just wouldn't know I was doing it. Of course this never happens because whenever my brain functions this way I just happen to be aware of it. This tells us that the two are closely connected somehow. Yet you know nothing about this connection of awareness to any of the physical processes that you are attributing so much usefulness to. This connection without an explanation is why it's called the hard problem. If you can make this connection you can end centuries of debate.

What you have just done is equate my consciousness to all the brain process differences between a sleeping and a conscious person. This is a physicalist theory with very little to stand on. How could anyone argue for solipsism when all we have to do is argue that if they didn't have consciousness then they would just go to sleep?

 

[balkan]

I understand what you're saying but I don't think you quite see where I'm drawing the semantic lines yet. One more time...everything you have mentioned above, analyzing feelings and acting upon it are all brain processes. None of these processes are attributed to consciousness.

well, indirectly they definitely are (at least according to the definition you wrote earlier)... cause you would necessarily have to be aware of your feelings in order to analyze them.

 

[balkan]

1) Those most certain consciousness is purely neurological are encouraged by developments in AI. Some believe when the right algorithms are combined with sensitivity, computing ability and memory, it will eventually result in the self-aware aspect of consciousness. Actually, they think complexity is the key, and guess what? They can’t get a computer to stop acting like a computer. If the proper level of complexity is what’s needed, then shouldn’t the best AI programs already be showing some sort of self awareness? Even snails seem to have the self-aware aspect (as primitive as it is) because one can observe them asserting their will. Surely AI is currently able to produce a program as complex as snail awareness, and therefore demonstrate a computer with will. Put it on wheels, give it a system for initiating self-propulsion, and then show us a willful computer equaling, say, the willfulness of a snail. That is a very simple test of the physicalist theory of consciousness.

2) So far, it ain’t happening primarily because of one wrench stuck in the works: repetitiveness. It’s not the presence of repetitiveness that’s the problem (yes, living and conscious processes are full of repetitiveness); the problem is the inability of non-living physical operations to escape repetitiveness, which the physical processes associated with life, and functions associated with consciousness both do with ease (e.g., as manifested respectively in evolution and will). That computer on wheels above, for instance, might move around, but it will only “repeat” its programming, and will never escape it (and random variation programmed in isn’t “will”).

3) Thus physicalist theories for origin of life and consciousness share a common nemesis (mechanistic repetitiveness). So at least one physicalist skeptic asks for a small but very specific bit of evidence before expressing faith in physicalism. When asked for such evidence, all we hear is what physicalness can do, while the evidence being requested is what matter CAN’T be shown to do. The evidence isn’t to show that matter can self-organize itself for a few steps or be coaxed (by conscious chemists) to combine into highly complex molecules. The test isn’t to show that a computer can “think.” The two tests are: 1) demonstrate the potential of chemistry to progressively self-organize on its own (no, not into life, just show the ability to perpetually organize in harmony with the environment), and 2) demonstrate that any sort of physical construction can exhibit will. Very modest requests if you ask me.

1) no... they aren't even at cockroach yet. or ant for that matter, i believe. but they are slowly progressing towards insectlike intelligence... comupter brains today are still incredibly linear compared even to that of a snail.
and exactly what selfawareness does a snail have, if you don't mind me asking?

2) well... that's where things like quantum mechanics come in handy... it's a neat way of escaping repetitiveness, but unfortunately, that can't yet be simulated on a computer.

3) yes... very modest... especially the "any physical construction can exhibit will" part... i like that... it's not like it took evolution a million years to do it, no... that's just a bad excuse for us not stepping right up and showing it...
one step at a time...

more about the "consciousness" not being neccessary...
evolution isn't choosing... it's random... how many times do i have to say this? is it hard to comprehend or what?
if you go to a club with a 50$ entrance fee, but you have crooked teath and are wearing leather pants, you won't get in or what? of course you will... and you'll have crooked teeth and be wearing leather pants on when you do...

if our mind was enough for us to survive, what the hell does it matter that we got more than necessary? i really don't get it...
and how can you honestly say that you can analyze your emotions without being aware of them?

 

[loseyourname]

I don't think you are understanding the issue you are raising.

Are you saying that my brain processes are not altered when I am unconscious? Is it not a fact that the altered brain processes are the reason I wouldn't be able to function? If my brain began to function as it would when I was conscious then I could function perfectly well, I just wouldn't know I was doing it. Of course this never happens because whenever my brain functions this way I just happen to be aware of it. This tells us that the two are closely connected somehow. Yet you know nothing about this connection of awareness to any of the physical processes that you are attributing so much usefulness to. This connection without an explanation is why it's called the hard problem. If you can make this connection you can end centuries of debate.

What you have just done is equate my consciousness to all the brain process differences between a sleeping and a conscious person. This is a physicalist theory with very little to stand on. How could anyone argue for solipsism when all we have to do is argue that if they didn't have consciousness then they would just go to sleep?

Who said anything about going to sleep? I said an unconscious human. Sleeping humans are still conscious of their dreams, at least in part.

Again, you are iterating what a hypothetical brain could do if it were capable of performing all of the normal human functions without consciousness. That is not the brain we have. The brain we have benefits from consciousness. You're still making an argument analagous to "Penguins could have fins that perform all of the functions that their wings do, and so wings are of no benefit to them." Surely you can see the fallacy here.

 

[Fliption]

well, indirectly they definitely are (at least according to the definition you wrote earlier)... cause you would necessarily have to be aware of your feelings in order to analyze them.

The process of identifying and analyzing anything is done by brain processes, none of which are attributed to consciousness.

 

[loseyourname]

Identifying and analyzing cannot be put to productive use until we become conscious of the analysis and identity.

 

[Fliption]

Who said anything about going to sleep? I said an unconscious human. Sleeping humans are still conscious of their dreams, at least in part.

You asked me if I could function when I was unconscious. The only time I am usually considered unconsiousness is when I am asleep. So how else was I to answer your question? And you also specifically mentioned sleepwalking.

Again, you are iterating what a hypothetical brain could do if it were capable of performing all of the normal human functions without consciousness. That is not the brain we have. The brain we have benefits from consciousness.

You definitely aren't seeing the point I'm making or the cans of worms you're opening. I am not creating a hypothetical brain. What I am trying to point out is that we have a feature that is not addressed by any physical process of the brain. Yet, all the behavior that is being referenced as "useful" can be mapped to a brain process. You are only making an assumption that consciousness is useful because that is the way it seems to be working to you subjectively. How else could you possibly know this?

You're still making an argument analagous to "Penguins could have fins that perform all of the functions that their wings do, and so wings are of no benefit to them." Surely you can see the fallacy here.

Yes I can easily see the fallacy here. But this is not what I am doing. I have already responded to this comment by saying that this only works if consciousness is useful to begin with! Wings are useful regardless of whatever else one might have evolved to replace wings with. But you haven't given any examples of how consciousness is useful. To do this, you will need to point to an activity that cannot be fully explained by some other process that has nothing to do with consciousness. Everything that has been listed here can be completely explained by physical processes of the brain that are not attributable to consciousness.

 

[Fliption]

Identifying and analyzing cannot be put to productive use until we become conscious of the analysis and identity.

Lol, or so it seems to you. Where is the scientific evidence?

So in a scientific description of the process of Identifying, analyzing and then putting into productive use, you're saying that there is a mystery process in there into which we can plug conscious activity? I still contend that all of this activity is the result of known brain processes, none of which are attributable to consciousness.

 

[balkan]

The process of identifying and analyzing anything is done by brain processes, none of which are attributed to consciousness.

once again: how can you honestly say that you can analyze your emotions without being aware of them?

 

[Fliption]

once again: how can you honestly say that you can analyze your emotions without being aware of them?

Because the process of anlyzing emotions can be attributed to brain processes that have nothing to do with consciousness. You only think it does because it seems that way to you subjectively. I feel like a broken record.

It is stated so boldly here yet there is no scientific evidence of such a thing.

 

[balkan]

Because the process of anlyzing emotions can be attributed to brain processes that have nothing to do with consciousness. You only think it does because it seems that way to you subjectively. I feel like a broken record.

It is stated so boldly here yet there is no scientific evidence of such a thing.

yes, you do sound like a broken record... you only focus on specific things, and avoid the rest like the plague to avoid having to answer them... you have done this from the beginning...
and look who's talking about scientific evidence... do you have evidence, that you can consciously analyze your emotions and thoughts without being aware of them? i'd really like to see that.

the analysis itself is not necessarily a conscious process, but if you weren't conscious of your feelings, you would simply react... this isn't hard to understand.
you have to be aware about your thoughts as well in order to analyze them... otherwise you would have to do trial and error until you got something right.
you would have to be aware of a thought in order to realize that it demands analysis...

 

[Fliption]

who's talking about scientific evidence... do you have evidence, that you can consciously analyze your emotions and thoughts without being aware of them? i'd really like to see that.

So now you're suggesting that a computer cannot, in principle, accomplish these acts without being aware? Even loseyourname concedes that there may be other ways to accomplsih these things but consciousnesss is just the way we happen to do it.

the analysis itself is not necessarily a conscious process, but if you weren't conscious of your feelings, you would simply react... this isn't hard to understand.

It isn't? Show me where I can find that in a science book that actually refers to consciousness as it is defined in this discussion. You are just saying what seems like common sense to you. But this isn't good enough to base science on as I'm sure you know.

you have to be aware about your thoughts as well in order to analyze them... otherwise you would have to do trial and error until you got something right.
you would have to be aware of a thought in order to realize that it demands analysis...

LOL Put needle on record... say it again... Naaa I'm tried of saying it because I'm either not saying it effectively enough or no one really cares to understand it. I think I've learned through this whole process to appreciate the time it takes to understand these concepts. I've been studying this stuff in some form or another for some time now and I think it's gotten into my brain through some process of osmosis, apparently, because it doesn't seem to be obvious to people who haven't been exposed to it long.

I have repeated the same comment because it is a comment that is so key to understanding the philosophical issues that are so carelessly being swept aside here. I may have focused only on specific things but I have not avoided anything that was relevant. I actually understand exactly what you are saying because I would have said the same thing...before I understood the issues. I hate to say it that way but it's honestly true.

 

[balkan]

lol... you're amazing...
you all the time base everything on thought experiments, lack of scientific evidence and the insufficiensy of science to explain something, but when confronted with an argument, you want it based on scientific evidence...

and you can't compare a computer in any way with anything living that has a brain... it's programmed in premade steps... no i don't think a computer can consciously react on an emotion... 1st of all, it doesn't have any, 2nd, it would be a programmed reaction (no quantum uncertainty involved anywhere). 3rdly, if it should analyze feelings and thoughts it would have to discover them first, which means that it would have an idea that they existed.

i would like you to define consciousness once again... cause last time, you defined it as being aware of your thoughts and feelings...
well, for the last time, tell me how you can analyse a thought or a feeling without being aware that its there... how would you set your thought processes in motion? how would you prioritize and how would you get the idea that this particular thought or emotion should be analysed?
and i would especially like to see some scientific evidence for what you have to say.

and avoid posting another question back about a computer please...

 

[Philocrat]

Modes of Consciousness

In the 'Book of nature' Consciousness is classed under a set of things called 'Unnecessary necessities' and the causal and relational laws which govern it are classed under the same set of things.

It seems that no one takes any notice of my classification of consciounes into three fundamental mods; (1) Inquisitive, (2) Acquisitive and (3) Precautionary. For those who claim that consciousness is an unnecessary or irrelevant sustaining device in the intelligible being of the human, but they still haven't explained why consciousness became or becomes part of the current human form. How can it be useless if it's part of the human nature? Now I am suggesting that not only is consciousness important and neceassry but also that it is divided into three fundamentally useful parts.

Ok, some of you seem to also argue that things get dumped or thrown away on the evelutionary pathways even when we see and find them to be very usefully and necessary. But how can evolution dump things that are constantly but quantifiably progressive? It would mean that the entire creative processes are pointless and mindless ventures? That everything is mindlessly going around in a circle? Either we say that CIRCULARISM is perfection itself or alternatively that given any creative process in spcacetime, things, or at least some things, resulting from this process ought to be able to physically progress to a perfect state? So which one is viable now: circularism or progressive existence?

Well, my own suggestion is that:

1) We should treat consciousness as purposive, regardless of if this is originally or subsequently realized.

2) We should classify it into three purposive parts as listed above and treat some parts as ephemerally relevant or necessary and the rest as originally and permanently necessary.

The question now is which of these three modes of consciousness is ephemerally necessary and which one is permanently or eternally necessary? Or simply which mode of consciousness will outlast the rest or survive destruction, given that it may be possible for human beings or a human being to survive physical destruction in the first place?

What do you guys think? My bet is on 'Acquisitive Mode of Consciousness', given that human beings are capable of physically progressing on their mutational pathways in the first place.

 

[Fliption]

lol... you're amazing...
you all the time base everything on thought experiments, lack of scientific evidence and the insufficiensy of science to explain something, but when confronted with an argument, you want it based on scientific evidence...

You say these things because you do not understand what my position is. I am not claiming the truth of anything! Based on scientific evidence or not. It is you and loseyourname who are demanding that things work a certain way(with NO scientific evidence). I have actually clarified in a previous post that I do believe that consciousness is serving a useful function. But what I've been trying to illustrate is that when you claim that consciousness is useful to a "physical" theory, you are introducing and forcing yourself to confront the hard problem of consciousness. You cannot make such statements without solving this problem first.

and you can't compare a computer in any way with anything living that has a brain... it's programmed in premade steps... no i don't think a computer can consciously react on an emotion... 1st of all, it doesn't have any, 2nd, it would be a programmed reaction (no quantum uncertainty involved anywhere). 3rdly, if it should analyze feelings and thoughts it would have to discover them first, which means that it would have an idea that they existed.

Yes I understand that these things cannot be done in practice. But I said in principle. Are you suggesting that quantum computers cannot ever be created? Are you claiming that artificial intelligence is just a dream? If you are, then you'll be lining up against a lot of physicalists/scientists. The odd thing is that you keep arguing that there is "nothing more" but yet you claim that we cannot duplicate the very same physical processes going on in the brain with a computer. It just doesn't make sense to me

i would like you to define consciousness once again... cause last time, you defined it as being aware of your thoughts and feelings...

There is absolutely no known reason, in princple, why all of the physical processes of the brain cannot be performed and the resulting entity not be conscious. So if we actually did this, the only difference between the conscious and non-conscious beings is that the conscious being "knows" he is performing the physical processes. From a 3rd party perspective, you cannot tell the difference between these two beings. It is the feature of "knowing" that I am referring to.

well, for the last time, tell me how you can analyse a thought or a feeling without being aware that its there... how would you set your thought processes in motion? how would you prioritize and how would you get the idea that this particular thought or emotion should be analysed?
and i would especially like to see some scientific evidence for what you have to say.

I just do not know how to say this any other way. All the activities you have mentioned above are directly related to physical processes in the brain. None of these physical processes can be attributable to consciouness. These are just the facts. You assume they are connected because it seems that way to you. Don't worry it seems that way to me too. I'm just telling you that this "seeming" is the only evidence we have and it is completely subjective.

You are under the impression through common sense that you consciously do these things that you mentioned above, but there is no connection scientifically between the two. This is why there is so much discussion about a "hard problem". How can two things that seem so connected have no connection when we look at it from a purely physical, reductionsist view? This is all part of the hard problem. Again, I'm not telling you that consciousness serves no purpose. I'm telling you that the hard problem prevents us from knowing any such fact. To suggest that you can map a specific physical process in the brain to the feature I called "knowing" is to suggest a MAJOR find of outlandish proportions.

 

[Fliption]

For those who claim that consciousness is an unnecessary or irrelevant sustaining device in the intelligible being of the human, but they still haven't explained why consciousness became or becomes part of the current human form. How can it be useless if it's part of the human nature?

I don't disagree in the end. I've tried to clarify my position by saying that consciousness cannot be useful in a purely physical theory. To insist that it is so and then have no way to show the connection is what introduces the hard problem. The hard problem goes away with many of the suggestions from the likes of Chalmers, who suggest introducing consciousness as a fundamental property of nature, as opposed to an emerging property of physical processes. The latter view is what causes all the problems.

But it's seems obvious to everyone that it is a property that does exists so therefore probably exists for a good reason. Which is why there is all the effort to explain it.

My only point is that we cannot claim there is a connection (that consciousness is useful) without dealing with the issues that stand in the way of us knowing such things.

 

[Philocrat]

Computers (within the AI Principle and consciousness argument) are already capable of 98% of what the humans are capable of. The other 2% is only a matter of further science. If anyone of you understand computers to programming level, you should know that the only thing that is left to be programmed into computers is 'Introspective self-awareness'. Well, my own investigation into this suggests that computers lack introspective self-awareness because of the 'Instruction Set limitations' in programs and programming languages. According to the 'INTRUCTION SET THEORY', all instructions in every program are fixed. Introspective self-awareness is possible only if you make instruction set in programs (especially in programming languages) fully dynamic. This will also enable us to answer the questions:

1) Can a Machine Think?

2) Can a Machine have Consciousness?

On the question as to whether biological form of intelligence could be rendered redundant, I would answer yes to this but with substantial clauses attached to it, of course. And one of such clauses is that we treat biological form of intelligence not only as inconclusive but aslo as actually physically improveable!

 

[Philocrat]

I don't disagree in the end. I've tried to clarify my position by saying that consciousness cannot be useful in a purely physical theory. To insist that it is so and then have no way to show the connection is what introduces the hard problem. The hard problem goes away with many of the suggestions from the likes of Chalmers, who suggest introducing consciousness as a fundamental property of nature, as opposed to an emerging property of physical processes. The latter view is what causes all the problems.

But it's seems obvious to everyone that it is a property that does exists so therefore probably exists for a good reason. Which is why there is all the effort to explain it.

My only point is that we cannot claim there is a connection (that consciousness is useful) without dealing with the issues that stand in the way of us knowing such things.

I am as puzzled as everyone else about the whole idea of there being a hard problem in the first place. Curse me under your breath if you like. My own private investigation into the whole 'hard problem' episode suggests to me (perhaps naively) that there is none. Although this process is substantially still primitive in structure and in scope, subjective experience is almost wholly public, that is, objective. To say that it is causally and relationally exclusive to the beholder and inexplicable to the outside world, or to even a bystander is absurd.

Or even if we wanted to take alterantive route and claim that consciousness or aspect of it is over and above the physical, we still haven't answered the questions as to its fundamental relevance to the overall human existence. For example could we do without it and what is its place in the end state of things or of the causal scheme of man? Supposing zombies and mary could survive purely within the physical without any emergent properties of any special kind to interplay?

There is equally the puzzle as to why we want to explain any hard or soft problem of consciousness at all? Supposing our physical bodies are already able to communicate the perculiar nature of consciousness to each other independent of our actually knowing this. If the physical bodies are already capable of this, it seems we owe no one any oral, physical or quantitative explanation.

On the next note, if the explanation of consciousness at soft and hard levels is relevant in science and needed in order to improve the entire human nature, may be we should think of redesigning the human visual faculty first before attempting such an explanation, for all we know we may have exhausted our very intellectual limits, and who knows.

Then finally, there is the vague term 'Physical' or 'Physical Explanation'; most of the people are limiting the scope of its meaning to what physics or science in general dictates. What stops us from widening the scope of its connotation? For we could say that what appears over above is physical. Is it only when causes, events, relations and any other properties of natural forms are mathematically accounted for that they are physical? Or are materially substantiated or instantiated that they are physical? My suggestion is that the term needs further expansion in scope and in substance. I have asked these questions before:

1) Does the invisibility or unobservability of things make them non-physical?

2) Does the invisibility or unobservability of things make them non-existent?

 

[Philocrat]

One priniciple that may be relevant to all this is the 'DEPRIORITISING PRINCIPLE' which attempts to fully synchronise 'CONSCIOUS-LEVEL VISUAL ATTENTION' with 'PASSIVE-VISUAL LEVEL ATTENTION. The former is mapped co-extensively into the external world and the latter mapped internally likewise up to the genetic level. I can't say very much about this as yet, but I am currently working on it to see in what way it could assist in the overall explanation of consciousnes without the over-demandedness of Physicalism, which I still believe is vaguely valued.

 

[Fliption]

I am as puzzled as everyone else about the whole idea of there being a hard problem in the first place.

Well first of all "everyone else" is not puzzled about it. There are a few tormented souls who don't agree with it or understand it but there are many people contributing here that do. Since I think I understand what the issue is and why it is not "absurd", perhaps I can help and discuss it with you. It's really hard to do this without more specific points on what you find difficult to accept. You may already have a laundry list of items but if not perhaps a place to start is the Scientific American article that I referenced earlier in this thread. It's a good summary. You could take a look at that and pick it apart. If it isn't detailed enough then we can move on to something else.

For example could we do without it and what is its place in the end state of things or of the causal scheme of man? Supposing zombies and mary could survive purely within the physical without any emergent properties of any special kind to interplay?

This is what we've been discussing here in the last few pages I think.

Then finally, there is the vague term 'Physical' or 'Physical Explanation';
1) Does the invisibility or unobservability of things make them non-physical?

2) Does the invisibility or unobservability of things make them non-existent?

I couldn't agree more. If you've read any of my particpation in threads like this you'll see that this is one of my soap boxes. I think I even discussed it in this very thread pages and pages ago. I personally dislike the concepts of physical versus non-physical. I don't have a clue what they mean. That's because everyone uses them in different ways. Personally I don't know why this distinction is even important. Who cares if something is physical or non-physical? Hard to know why it's important when you don't know what it means. lol

I suggested earlier that perhaps the distinction should be that a non-physical thing is something that has a causal relationship to things that lend themselves to objective inquiry but yet does not lend itself to objective inquiry. So in this definition, "something more" simply means something existing beyond our ability to objectively understand it.

But since that post I think I have another suggestion that could also work. At times I see people referring to non-physical things as if they have physical attributes. To say things like "non-physical substance" is a contradiction in terms and just blurs the distinction. So another suggestion that I have is that non-physical things are things that have some sort of mental value only. I'm talking about data, information, intelligence. For example, to look at a fractal is to see the mechanical and physical manifestation of an algorythm. The fractal is physical. The algorythm is non-physical. When people entertain the question "What is the connection between the physical and the non-physical?", they see a contradiction because they are attempting to mentally connect a "physical substance" with a "non-physical sybstance", whatever that is. The contradiction is in their definitions. No where else. But what is the relationship between a fractal and it's algorythm? It's kind of abstract and hard to explain but it's there nonetheless. In this particular definition "something more" is meaningless. The two concepts also loose all the biased preferences as everyone agrees that both these things exist.

These are just suggestions. It all depends on which definition best represents where people disagree. Currently, I have no idea where people disagree because all disagreement seems to be based on having different definitions. So it appears we have constructed this process backwards.

But it would be so nice if people would decide to either avoid these distinctions or come to a common understanding of what they mean.