Would an AI unit, with a quantum brain, be more conscious than a Human if

[confutatis]

Could an AI unit with a quantum brain, who could decipher the language of a modem connecting to the internet, be part of the virtual system, and in that way be more conscious than us?

I see you're really interested in this issue of a machine being more conscious than we are. To me the issue sounds very simple. First, being conscious is not a matter of scale; you can't be less conscious, or more conscious, or half-conscious. Like a light bulb, it can only be on or off; one bulb can't be "more on" than another.

You can, of course, be more conscious of more things, but here I think the story gets complicated. For instance, when I listen to rock music I'm usually not conscious of what the bass guitar is playing. I say "not conscious" because I can't remember which notes it played, whereas I'm usually able to remember which notes the lead singer sang. So there is this memory aspect to being conscious, the ability to recall information. However, if I hear the same song performed without the bass guitar, I will instantly recognize there's something missing. How can I know that something is missing if I wasn't conscious of it being there in the first place? I'm not sure how to explain that.

That is one complicated aspect. Here's another: consciousness manifests in many levels; sensory perception is at the bottom, but there are often things on top of it. For instance, while listening to a song you may be conscious not only of the sounds instruments make, but also of the melody, of its structure (verse/refrain/etc), of associations the song brings to you (eg, first time you danced with your sweetheart), and so on and on. As with language; you not only are conscious of this text, but you are also conscious of its meaning, and implications of the meaning, and so on.

With all those things in mind, your question becomes difficult to answer.

 

[Fliption]

So are unicorns! So what? Nobody makes stupid claims about reality based on the hypothetical existence of unicorns. What makes zombies different?

You cannot possibly understand the philosophical issue if you have to ask this question.

I know that, but you claim they could possibly exist. I claim zombies are a logical fallacy.

Confutatis, it's comments like this that made me suggest that perhaps you didn't understand how the zombie concept is being used. I am not saying that zombies do exists or that I believe they even can exists. All I am
saying is that the only way you or I can prove that consciousness exists in any individual is through a logically inductive argument based on our own personal experience of ourselves. Based on that personal knowledge I agree with you; zombies are bunk!

But unlike unicorns, consciousness does exists. Yet it does not lend itself to a reductive explanation by science. Which is the main point.

No, I don't miss the point at all. The point of the zombie concept in philosophy is to come up with problems that can't be solved, such as Chalmers' hard problem. I understand that much better than you realize.

They can't be solved under the current paradigm. This does not mean they cannot be solved. I'm not sure why you keep insisting this.

But I am claiming that zombies cannot possibly exist! You can't have conscious behaviour without consciousness anymore than you can have gravitational attraction without gravity. It's nonsense, and it's proof of philosophy's uselessness that people still take the idea seriously.

Proof of philosophy's usefulness? Do you not believe philosophy is useful? Are you letting a personal bias slip in here?

I believe that a robot could be programmed, in principle, to act like a human being in a specific area. If it is programmed well enough, you would never know the difference.

All you are saying is that science cannot prove that a figment of your imagination doesn't exist. Why should that matter to anyone? No one sees any relevance to the fact that science cannot prove that unicorns don't
exist. These things are just flights of fancy of confused philosophers.

Are you saying that consciousness is a figment of my imagination? Again, you don't seem to understand why the zombie concept is being used. The topic has nothing to do with zombies. It has to do with consciousness. The zombie concept is used because it is the word we attach to a person with no consciousness. That science cannot prove consciousness or explain it through its normal reductive methods is the main point. Not proving or disproving zombies. The idea that you can inductively show that zombies are illogical is not relevant to the main point here.

Did Einstein have to test the acidity of test tube 3 to come up with his principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass? Do you even know what that is? Perhaps you don't consider the principle of equivalence as real science, since it can't be proved.

So you are agreeing with me. The principle of equivalence is a fundamental law of physics. This is the same treatment that is being suggested for
consciousness. That we should consider viewing it as something more fundamental. If you think the law of equivalence is analagous to consciousness in that it is an assumption of science, then we aren't disagreeing.

Now that really upsets me. I ran a google search on "zombies+logical+fallacy" and found more than 500 sites. You might want to check some of them; a few say exactly the same things I'm saying here.

I only got 280.

Why didn't you say this before? Why don't you pick one out that mirrors your view because I still don't have a clue what it is. I would love to read your view in someone elses words. Would be glad to do it.

Also, I ran a google search on "Confutatis+confused" and I got 680 hits. So this fact alone is pretty meaningless. Here's the link if you want it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=confutatis+confused

Ironically, one them was this very thread

Don't come with this "you are alone" thing because I know it's simply not true. I know you are not alone either, I just think your school of thought is doomed to failure.

The view I am talking about will only be doomed for failure when someone can coherently present a reason why it should be.

I understand your perspective way better than you understand mine! I used to tell people the same things you are telling me now. But I learned something about that perspective and I realized it is wrong. And I'm not
trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm more interested if anyone can tell me something new about my old perspective, to see if I may be mistaken in
abandoning it. So far I have seen nothing but the same conceptual errors I made myself.

There is a big advantage when you can claim that you have personally held two opposing views at different periods of your life. One of the biggest advantages of this is the ability to communicate to the other side. I see no evidence of your ability to do this. From this fact and the responses that consistently focus on irrelevant points, I can only believe that you don't have the grasp on things that you think you do.

I do not agree! You say you 'assume', I say you 'know'. Quite different things. Assumptions need justification, knowledge doesn't.

Here's an example. While this may actually be true, it is completely irrelevant to the point. The only point is that I can only "know" consciousness through a subjective tool that isn't acceptable for scientific observations. Whether I know it or assume it, is an irrelevant word game.

Oh boy... it would help if you stopped looking for inconsistencies and actually tried to understand what I mean.

I'm not looking for them. I am truly trying to understand your point and whenever I logically think through what your saying, the inconsistencies are sitting there. They are one of the reason I cannot grasp what you are saying.

I will concede that they may only be perceived inconsistencies. Just understand that I see them as such and am not just being obstinate.

Can you consider for a moment that "saying a word" (or "writing a word") and "using a word" are not the same thing? Do you have any concept of someone holding a GPS without having a clue what it should be used for,
and someone actually using a GPS to find information about location?

Asking off the wall and seemingly irrelevant questions are useful for explaining things when you follow them up with explanations. This is not the first time you have asked me a load of questions that mean nothing to me only to leave it at that. I'm actually trying to understand believe it or not. Did it ever occur to you that I just might not have a clue what your saying half the time? As opposed to assuming I am being obstinate?

There is!

You would!

It is a flawed thought experiment!

How could I possibly know whether a robot was really experiencing color? You just claim that I would know but you do not explain how. If you're going to go against centuries of philosophy and claim that everyone else just fails to see what you can see, then the burden is on you at least to explain how this could ever be done. Claiming that you understand my view and that there are mystery web sites with your view on it isn't really sufficient. Provide a link at least.

(since I'm just repeating myself anyway, I decided to keep it short)

It is short because you repeated it. Heh. It has always been short. On explanations.

 

[Rader]

Yes, I agree with most of what you're saying. I think perhaps we may mean different things when we say "brain activity logically entails consciousness". I do not believe this to be true. In my mind, if this were true then consciousness would not be a philosophical issue at all and would be completely explainable as a complex result of more fundamental things. There would be no reason for us to even talk about it in this philosophy forum. To make the claim that brain activity entails consciousness, we would have to understand exactly how brain activity leads to consciousness. We do not have this understanding. Many in this forum are of the view that we cannot do this, in principle.

If it was per say just in the air, then equate it to a radio transmitter and reciever, the wave is always in the air but no reception without the unfolding of nature occurring. They way I would phrase it, is how consciuosness engulfs brains, depending on the complexity of them. Do you have a fair understanding of QM, do you know of the Van Neuman Process I and II? There are mathermatical proofs. Have you investigated QM theory of consciousness? Its Just my opinion from what I have learned.

When we say that brain activity logically entails consciousness, we are saying that we cannot imagine brain activity without consciousness. Can you imagine a rock floating in the air given our current laws of gravity? It isn't possible. The laws of gravity logical entail that the rock will fall. There is a direct, explainable relationship between the two. This relationship does not exists for brain acitivity and consciousness.

Then you would agree that if consciuosness, was per say just in the air, it would have philosphical meaning?

 

[confutatis]

Based on that personal knowledge I agree with you; zombies are bunk!

Then stop taking the idea seriously!

But unlike unicorns, consciousness does exists. Yet it does not lend itself to a reductive explanation by science. Which is the main point.

I said zombies are like unicorns, not consciousness. But this issue of "reductive explanations" needs to be further discussed. I have a very different view of what a reductive explanation is, and that particular view doesn't happen to be shared by many people. It's one of my crazy ideas, and I will only mention it here briefly.

The problem I see with your ideas is the same problem I see now with the ideas I had before. In essence, I was, and you are, taking an explanation for what it is not. What I came to understand, not without a lot of introspection, study, and reflection, is that explanations are lies. They seem true, but that is because there are ways to tell lies which makes them appear true. The scientific view of the world is a lie, or rather, an illusion (that's a crazy thing to say, I know...)

Now you are saying science can't explain consciousness. I used to think that too, but now I see it from a completely new perspective. If scientific theories are lies, then there's no sense in asserting that it's impossible to lie about consciousness. That is just not true; it's possible to lie about anything.

So, unless you are really interested in my crazy ideas, let's no longer discuss if consciousness can be scientifically explained. From now on, you know why I think it can: it's simply because I think scientific theories are lies, and there's nothing special about consciousness that prevents people from lying about it.

Actually, there is something somewhat special about consciousness, and that is the fact that you know quite a lot about it. That makes it very difficult for scientists to lie to you - hence the "hard problem". The best approach scientists found so far was to use their arrogance and their prestige to make you feel insecure about your knowledge of yourself. Stuff like denying you exist, or that you really understand what you are, or that you are a whole person... there's no ending to the strategies scientists can use to try and give their lies some appearance of credibility.

That is all I can say on this subject without repeating myself one more time.

 

[Fliption]

Then stop taking the idea seriously!
I said zombies are like unicorns, not consciousness.

I realize you said zombies and not consciousness. This is the point I was trying to make. If you had understood how the zombie concept was being used, you'd see that everything you are saying about zombies, you are saying about consciousness because that's all the zombie concept is meant to do. Illustrate the problematic feature of consciousness.

I'll say it again, this is not about proving or disproving zombies. I even asked you to forget about zombies because it keeps tripping you up and let's start talking about robots. I see my questions about how I can prove a robot is experiencing color has been ignored. Please don't ignore these things. I ask these questions to understand why you make the claims you do. You said that I could know this about a robot and I want to know how. One twisted view at a time please.

That is all I can say on this subject without repeating myself one more time.

The rest of this post is just more of the same. You continue to compund any existing confusion by adding yet even more fundamental complexity at the most inopportune times. Everytime I feel we have gotten to a place in the discussion where the confusion should finally be resolved, you step back and insert a total assumption change that would have been a crucial piece of knowledge from the beginning. I don't even know what you mean when you claim that science lies. What does that mean? Science is willfully giving me wrong information? Like what? This sort of conspiracy talk is almost delusional.

The amusing part is that the main point being discussed in most of these consciousness threads has been about the relationship between consciousness and science. And after all the discussions with you, it is only now that you are telling us that science is made up of evil people with real knowledge who spend their lives figuring out ways to hide it from the masses? This fact alone makes most all discussions with you in the past worthless. We could have avoided a lot of that. How can you expect anyone to reasonably understand anything you say when you present your views in such a haphazard way? I have read some of your posts in other threads and agreed with you completely. Then in other threads you sound dilusional and unfocused. Your views can't possibly be internally consistent.

 

[confutatis]

I have read some of your posts in other threads and agreed with you completely. Then in other threads you sound delusional and unfocused.

I told you it was crazy stuff. Now you know that I'm delusional and unfocused. That's information about me you didn't have before.

it is only now that you are telling us that science is made up of evil people with real knowledge who spend their lives figuring out ways to hide it from the masses?

I didn't say scientists are evil people. I didn't say they have real knowledge. I didn't say they spend their lives figuring out ways to hide that knowledge from the masses. And I don't know where you got the idea that what I said could possibly imply that.

What I'm talking about is the nature of scientific knowledge itself. Ask any scientist, and they will tell you science has nothing to do with truth in a metaphysical/ontological sense. If science is not about metaphysical truths, why do scientists talk about metaphysics then? The reason is simple: scientists are people too, and people are naturally interested in metaphysics. But the scientist lies when he claims to be speaking of metaphysics as a scientist, rather than as an amateur philosopher; he's lying because science explicitly forbids him to do it.

There is no conspiracy, just confusion over what kinds of claims belong in what kind of intellectual endeavour.

I realize you said zombies and not consciousness. This is the point I was trying to make. If you had understood how the zombie concept was being used, you'd see that everything you are saying about zombies, you are saying about consciousness because that's all the zombie concept is meant to do. Illustrate the problematic feature of consciousness.

Yes, the hard problem, I know all about that stuff. I used to think consciousness was a hard problem too, but then I realized everything is a hard problem. Even explaining gravity is a hard problem.

I can imagine a big object, with a mass ten times that of the earth, which does not attract anything to its surface. Mass without gravity. Does the fact that I can imagine a big planet with zero gravity make gravity a hard problem? I can certainly be the David Chalmers of physics, and look at all those theories about gravity and say, "ah, but you PhDs are not really explaining gravity, because you can't explain why it's possible to have mass but not gravity".

Now the interesting thing is that there is no David Chalmers of physics, because no physicist would give any thought to the idea that you can have mass without gravity. It's total nonsense and they fully understand why.

I see my questions about how I can prove a robot is experiencing color has been ignored. Please don't ignore these things. I ask these questions to understand why you make the claims you do. You said that I could know this about a robot and I want to know how.

I did not say you can know that a robot is experiencing colour. I said something slightly different, which you obviously have a hard time understanding. What I said was, if a robot behaves as if it is experiencing colour, you would have no basis to claim your perception of consciousness in the robot's behaviour is an illusion. Just as you lack any basis whatsoever to claim that your mother may be a zombie.

You make the issue simpler than it is, and that's why we can't agree on some fundamental points. You think that just because some idea appears possible to you, then that idea must necessarily have consequences in reality. And that is a fundamental issue, far more fundamental than "the problem of consciousness". You think a robot can behave as if it is experiencing colour without actually experiencing it; the idea appears possible to you; you work out the consequences of the idea but you never stop to ask what makes the idea possible. If you did, you would understand why it is not possible. Then the rest wouldn't follow and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Your views can't possibly be internally consistent.

For someone who claims it's impossible to know what's going on in other people's minds, that's too bold an assertion to make, isn't it?

 

[Fliption]

Yes, the hard problem, I know all about that stuff. I used to think consciousness was a hard problem too, but then I realized everything is a hard problem. Even explaining gravity is a hard problem.

Ok, I understand what you're saying. Now I want an explanation. It looks as if you expound on it below.

I can imagine a big object, with a mass ten times that of the earth, which does not attract anything to its surface. Mass without gravity. Does the fact that I can imagine a big planet with zero gravity make gravity a hard problem? I can certainly be the David Chalmers of physics, and look at all those theories about gravity and say, "ah, but you PhDs are not really explaining gravity, because you can't explain why it's possible to have mass but not gravity".

Now the interesting thing is that there is no David Chalmers of physics, because no physicist would give any thought to the idea that you can have mass without gravity. It's total nonsense and they fully understand why.

I don't get it. First you say there is a hard problem of gravity based on the idea that you can have mass without gravity and then you end with "It's total nonsense and they fully understand why" when referring to the mass without gravity idea. So which is it? Just wanted to point out that I didn't understand this explanation.

BTW, if you had a good argument for why there should be a Chalmers of physics I would personally love such a thing. I'm always looking for a way to put people who think they know everything in their place. There are some science types I have my eyes set on.

I did not say you can know that a robot is experiencing colour. I said something slightly different, which you obviously have a hard time understanding. What I said was, if a robot behaves as if it is experiencing colour, you would have no basis to claim your perception of consciousness in the robot's behaviour is an illusion. Just as you lack any basis whatsoever to claim that your mother may be a zombie.

I understand what you're saying here and agree with it. As a matter of fact it is the same thing I said. You seem to be putting words into my mouth. I'm going to put the actual dialogue here. I don't do this to try to put you in a bad spot. I just want you to see why I don't understand you.

I said:

"The issue is that if one did do these things, you would never know whether it really was conscious or not. "

This refers to a robot performing conscious behaviour. Notice, I'm not claiming it to be a zombie. And you're correct that I wouldn't have any basis to think so. I just don't know. This is the only point.

and you're response to this was:

"You would!"

Clearly this means that I could know that a robot behaving in a certain way was conscious. And then you say this:

"I did not say you can know that a robot is experiencing colour."

Do you not see the inconsistency?

You make the issue simpler than it is, and that's why we can't agree on some fundamental points. You think that just because some idea appears possible to you, then that idea must necessarily have consequences in reality. And that is a fundamental issue, far more fundamental than "the problem of consciousness". You think a robot can behave as if it is experiencing colour without actually experiencing it; the idea appears possible to you; you work out the consequences of the idea but you never stop to ask what makes the idea possible. If you did, you would understand why it is not possible. Then the rest wouldn't follow and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

See, here you go again. Up above you say

"I did not say you can know that a robot is experiencing colour."

But here you are clearly saying it that I can tell because it isn't possible for a robot to behave like it's experiencing and not really be experiencing. So again I ask, which is it?

Also, it is possible. You just state it isn't possible. You do not explain why. I can program some software that when attached to a digital camera would download pictures from the camera and say something like "Wow that's beautful". This is just a simple idea and obviously can be made more complex but how do you know whether my computer really experiences these pictures? How much conscious behaviour is enough for you? And I hope you will eventually realize that your answer can never be scientific which is the whole point.

For someone who claims it's impossible to know what's going on in other people's minds, that's too bold an assertion to make, isn't it?

I don't have to know what's going on in your mind to make a statement about your views. I said your views could not possible be internally consistent. Your views are all over these web pages. I don't need to know anything about your mind to make this assertion.

 

[confutatis]

I don't get it. First you say there is a hard problem of gravity based on the idea that you can have mass without gravity and then you end with "It's total nonsense and they fully understand why" when referring to the mass without gravity idea. So which is it? Just wanted to point out that I didn't understand this explanation.

I think I know why you have so much trouble understanding my point. I'm trying to show that your ideas lead to contradictions. The contradictions are clear for me, but of course you can't see them. But when I try to expose the contradictions, you see them as if they are originating from my ideas. It's hard for me to show how your ideas lead to contradictions without sounding contradictory myself; I have hinted at that several times before but it's really difficult to get that point across.

Look at the issue with mass and gravity. The point I was trying to make is not that gravity is a hard problem, but that the idea of a "hard problem" as expressed by Chalmers can be applied to a lot of things. I just took gravity as an example and worked its consequences. The consequence, as you saw, is a contradiction, at least according to physics.

The idea that you can have mass without gravity is as nonsensical as the idea that an object can have speed without changing its position. I hope at least in the case of speed you should be able to see what's nonsensical about it. But if you don't fully understand what 'speed' and 'position' mean, you may be lead to think one thing is completely independent from the other. You may be lead to believe there is a hard problem of speed, based on the false notion that measuring change in position has nothing to do with measuring speed.

Of course the issue with consciousness is not as straightforward, otherwise Chalmers wouldn't be as popular as he is. But it is essentially the same.

BTW, if you had a good argument for why there should be a Chalmers of physics I would personally love such a thing.

The world is already full of Chalmerses of physics. They are usually known as crackpots, and are notorious for being obsessed with issues of no relevance whatsoever.

I'm always looking for a way to put people who think they know everything in their place.

I refer to "people who think they know everything" as liars. You're a lot closer to my crazy ideas than you might realize

"The issue is that if one did do these things, you would never know whether it really was conscious or not. "

This refers to a robot performing conscious behaviour. Notice, I'm not claiming it to be a zombie. And you're correct that I wouldn't have any basis to think so. I just don't know. This is the only point.

Actually, what I meant was that not even a zombie has a way to know he/it is a zombie. The way Chalmers defines the concept, even zombies would have a hard time explaining their consciousness, despite the fact that they don't have any. It is quite funny when you think about it, all those zombies coming up with philosophies to explain something that doesn't exist for them. Thank God we non-zombies never engage in that sort of idiocy!

and you're response to this was:

"You would!"

Clearly this means that I could know that a robot behaving in a certain way was conscious.

Yes, you can know as much about the robot/zombie as the robot/zombie knows about itself. And that is because all knowledge is grounded on something shared by everything and everyone: reality.

And then you say this:

"I did not say you can know that a robot is experiencing colour."

I don't remember the exact context where I said that. But I can assure you that, unless I forgot to take my schizophreny pills, I was probably saying "I did not say you can know", as opposed to saying "you cannot know". Much like I never said you can access the internet, despite the obvious fact that you can.

I can program some software that when attached to a digital camera would download pictures from the camera and say something like "Wow that's beautful". This is just a simple idea and obviously can be made more complex but how do you know whether my computer really experiences these pictures?

It is a simple idea, but it cannot be made a lot more complex. We just don't know what beauty is, so we can't program a computer that can look for beauty in digitized images. And if we did know what beauty is, we wouldn't be impressed by a computer that can find beauty anymore than we are impressed by computers that can find spelling errors in digitized text.

How much conscious behaviour is enough for you? And I hope you will eventually realize that your answer can never be scientific which is the whole point.

Your whole point is, if we ask a non-scientific question, we can never get a scientific answer. That is what your point is. That is what the hard problem is.

We need something better. In order to understand the relationship between consciousness and reality, we need facts. All real science starts with facts, and should be limited to explaining some facts in terms of other facts, together with some postulated principles. That is all there is to science, and to claim that it cannot explain consciousness is to claim there are no facts about consciousness, or that we cannot come up with postulates to explain those facts in terms of other facts.

Whether in the end the explanation will be true or not, in a metaphysical sense, that is not a scientific question.

 

[Fliption]

I think I know why you have so much trouble understanding my point. I'm trying to show that your ideas lead to contradictions. The contradictions are clear for me, but of course you can't see them. But when I try to expose the contradictions, you see them as if they are originating from my ideas. It's hard for me to show how your ideas lead to contradictions without sounding contradictory myself; I have hinted at that several times before but it's really difficult to get that point across.

I want to clarify that the inconsistency discussed later in the thread is obvious and has nothing to do with my interpretation.

Look at the issue with mass and gravity. The point I was trying to make is not that gravity is a hard problem, but that the idea of a "hard problem" as expressed by Chalmers can be applied to a lot of things. I just took gravity as an example and worked its consequences. The consequence, as you saw, is a contradiction, at least according to physics.

Ok I see what you mean. Of course, you realize that the only way I can possibly interpret this correctly is to understand what the point you are trying to illustrate is to begin with. This is why I said earlier that you tend to ask a lot of leading questions that seem irrelevant and then just leave it at that without an explanation. I've been searching for your point on consciousness for some time and still am not sure I understand completely what you think because of this cryptic, nondescriptive style. I feel like I'm talking to a monk about zen. Which, of course I am not, so it's a shame.

The idea that you can have mass without gravity is as nonsensical as the idea that an object can have speed without changing its position.

Of course the issue with consciousness is not as straightforward, otherwise Chalmers wouldn't be as popular as he is. But it is essentially the same.

I see the point you are making. But of course you know I don't believe the analogy is accurate. You're just making the hard problem a lot simpler than it is. I'm feeling the need to pretend I'm wise through short cryptic messages myself today. So I'll leave it at that.

The world is already full of Chalmerses of physics. They are usually known as crackpots, and are notorious for being obsessed with issues of no relevance whatsoever.

I hardly think of Chalmers as the crackpot of philosophy with no relevance. So these people can't be called the Chalmers of physics. I've read a lot of your posts in threads that I haven't particpated in. I've done that to see if I can try to understand what your views are by seeing some consistent lines of thought. Overall, it seems you have trouble respecting anyone elses opinion but yours. Not so much the people in the forum, but it does seem you like to lash at anything or anyone established. So far, Dennett, Chalmers, Hawking can do nothing right. In this thread we have established that you think all scientists are liars so the list gets longer.

I refer to "people who think they know everything" as liars. You're a lot closer to my crazy ideas than you might realize

A liar is someone who thinks one thing and says something else. Some are liars. But some really believe all their ramblings and are just a bit too certain. Perhaps because they are too young to recognize the taste of their own foot in their mouth.

I have no idea how close to your views I am because I'm not clear on what they are.

Actually, what I meant was that not even a zombie has a way to know he/it is a zombie. The way Chalmers defines the concept, even zombies would have a hard time explaining their consciousness, despite the fact that they don't have any. It is quite funny when you think about it, all those zombies coming up with philosophies to explain something that doesn't exist for them. Thank God we non-zombies never engage in that sort of idiocy!

Again, I think you are oversimplifying things. It seems like you are thinking of a zombie with all of the behavior of a conscious human being and claiming it to be nonsense. But it doesn't have to behave exactly like a human being to illustrate the problems of consciousness and experience. Does a tree experience the feel of the wind?

Yes, you can know as much about the robot/zombie as the robot/zombie knows about itself. And that is because all knowledge is grounded on something shared by everything and everyone: reality.

Back to being cryptic here.

I don't remember the exact context where I said that. But I can assure you that, unless I forgot to take my schizophreny pills, I was probably saying "I did not say you can know", as opposed to saying "you cannot know". Much like I never said you can access the internet, despite the obvious fact that you can.

Umm yes that is exactly what you said and it is inconsistent. You did say "I did not say you can know" as you stated above but it is inconsistent nonetheless. The context of the comment was just as I presented it. I wouldn't distort the meaning of the quotes. If you want, you only have to go back a few posts to check it out for yourself. At least you can verify whether you took your pills or not.

It is a simple idea, but it cannot be made a lot more complex. We just don't know what beauty is, so we can't program a computer that can look for beauty in digitized images. And if we did know what beauty is, we wouldn't be impressed by a computer that can find beauty anymore than we are impressed by computers that can find spelling errors in digitized text.

Heh, irrelevant. You're making me work much too hard to put your view into focus. Beauty has nothing to do with it. Let me try again. Assume that it does everything I described and then says "This picture is red". Does it experience redness? Better yet, does something have to say anything or behave in anyway in order to have experiences? This goes back to my tree question earlier.

We need something better. In order to understand the relationship between consciousness and reality, we need facts. All real science starts with facts, and should be limited to explaining some facts in terms of other facts, together with some postulated principles. That is all there is to science, and to claim that it cannot explain consciousness is to claim there are no facts about consciousness, or that we cannot come up with postulates to explain those facts in terms of other facts.

Whether in the end the explanation will be true or not, in a metaphysical sense, that is not a scientific question.

And what has been suggested is to move from a view that says consciousness can be explained in terms of other facts (which is non-scientific) to a view that makes consciousness one of the postulates.

 

[confutatis]

I feel like I'm talking to a monk about zen. Which, of course I am not, so it's a shame.

Perhaps I have something in common with a monk, in that I think you can only understand some things if you see them for yourself.

You're just making the hard problem a lot simpler than it is.

I'm not making it simpler, I'm just dismissing it.

I hardly think of Chalmers as the crackpot of philosophy with no relevance.

I didn't say he was. What I said was that his line of reasoning would send him to the crackpot bin if he were a physicist, and that is because physicists don't have as much intellectual freedom as philosophers. For instance, no physicist can postulate the existence of an entity whose existence cannot be detected by any means; philosophers on the other hand make a living out of it.

A liar is someone who thinks one thing and says something else.

I don't understand why we should be debating the meaning of the word 'liar'. I told you it was crazy stuff, so just pretend I didn't say it. It's not essential to this discussion.

It seems like you are thinking of a zombie with all of the behavior of a conscious human being and claiming it to be nonsense. But it doesn't have to behave exactly like a human being to illustrate the problems of consciousness and experience.

What's with this "illustrate" thing you keep bringing up? You talk as if I haven't lived with my conscious mind for my entire life. What is there about my own consciousness which you think I don't understand?

Does a tree experience the feel of the wind?

How exactly would your understanding of anything change if you could answer that question? In other words, what other questions do you have whose answers depend on knowing the answer to that particular question? If you meet God today and He tells you, "yes, trees experience the wind", or "no, trees do not experience anything", how would that particular piece of knowledge fit with everything else you know?

You probably think I'm being cryptic, but I'm just trying to show you that you are asking a question that lacks meaning. You think the question can't be answered because consciousness is a diffcult problem, but to me the reason is far more mundane: when talking about trees, the concept of experience has no meaning. You can't say trees have experiences, and you can't say they don't. Just as you can't say whether trees are violent, romantic, whimsical, and so many other concepts. Do you think a tree has a sense of humour?

You're making me work much too hard to put your view into focus.

I appreciate your effort. Life can be difficult without those pills...

Beauty has nothing to do with it. Let me try again. Assume that it does everything I described and then says "This picture is red". Does it experience redness?

I could give you the same answer I did before, but then you would come back and tell me redness has nothing to do with it.

I already understood your point. Just because the robot says "this is red" doesn't necessarily mean it is experiencing red, beauty, whatever. I have no problem with that. But it absolutely doesn't follow from it that the experience of redness has nothing to do the physical process of seeing red. And it doesn't follow from it that there's more to experiencing red than the physical processes associated with the way humans experience red.

If your robot were made of flesh and bones, if it looks and behaves exactly like a human being, you would never doubt it has experiences. But then you wouldn't call it a robot. Do you realize that the word 'robot' already implies absence of experience?

Better yet, does something have to say anything or behave in anyway in order to have experiences?

The short answer is 'yes', because language is one of two criteria we use to establish consciousness in people. The other is behaviour.

And what has been suggested is to move from a view that says consciousness can be explained in terms of other facts (which is non-scientific) to a view that makes consciousness one of the postulates.

When I copied your quote above, I accidentally deleted one of the letters, so I had to type it back. I know which letter it is, and I know you can't possibly know. Even if I tell you, you'd have no way to know if I'm telling the truth. In fact, you do not even have a way to know if I'm not lying about replacing a letter to start with. Some imbroglio!

You see what's happening here? I am in possession of information about reality which has no bearing whatsoever on your reality. Which letter I took away and put back, or if I did it at all, is completely irrelevant to you. It's not part of your reality, but it is part of mine. So even though we share the same reality, we don't share our knowledge of it. We are all in possession of a good amount of knowledge about reality which simply cannot be shared, yet the reason it cannot be shared is simply because it doesn't matter to anyone but ourselves. Those things I know but cannot talk about do not have the power to tell you anything of any significance to you. You couldn't care less what truths I have in mind if you can't personally verify those truths for yourself.

What is science? It's shared knowledge, ideas about reality whose truth or falsehood can be established by every single independent observer. You may accept science or reject it, you may accept just a portion of it, but the fact of the matter is that you can know! Scientific knowledge is knowledge about things that are relevant to everyone.

You say science should account for knowledge only you have. I'm not denying that such knowledge exists, but I think people like Dennett are absolutely right when they say such knowledge is of no scientific relevance whatsoever. No paradigm change required, no new postulates. Behaviour can be accounted for on the basis of things we see; whatever else is left is of no relevance to scientists.

By the way, in case you want to know, it was the first 'A', right at the beginning of the sentence.

 

[Fliption]

Perhaps I have something in common with a monk, in that I think you can only understand some things if you see them for yourself.

All understanding happens this way. There is no other alternative. What does this have to do with explaining things clearly or not?

I'm not making it simpler, I'm just dismissing it.

But you're simplifying it to justify the dismissal of it.

I don't understand why we should be debating the meaning of the word 'liar'. I told you it was crazy stuff, so just pretend I didn't say it. It's not essential to this discussion.

Sorry, I wasn't debating it with you. I was just stating it so that we could both make sure we were defining it the same way. I'm having to be very careful when responding to you because the wrong word or phrase can send us into irrelevant territory. Based on the definition of liar I agree that there are some. But surely, all scientists aren't. Earlier you said they all were so I wanted to make we defined it the same.

What's with this "illustrate" thing you keep bringing up? You talk as if I haven't lived with my conscious mind for my entire life. What is there about my own consciousness which you think I don't understand?

You seem to think it's the same thing as the word 'beautiful'. You do understand that consciousness is a noun and not an adjective don't you?

How exactly would your understanding of anything change if you could answer that question? In other words, what other questions do you have whose answers depend on knowing the answer to that particular question? If you meet God today and He tells you, "yes, trees experience the wind", or "no, trees do not experience anything", how would that particular piece of knowledge fit with everything else you know?

You already know the answer to this because you say it below. If I could know this then it would say something about consciousness that currently can't be said. And that is that consciousness would be objectively knowable and subject to scientific investigation. That's a big implication.

(I'll concede that none of this would be the case if god told me that trees were conscious. It wouldn't be as meaningful to have the knowlegde devinely given. The whole question is whether consciousness is objectively knowable.)

You probably think I'm being cryptic, but I'm just trying to show you that you are asking a question that lacks meaning. You think the question can't be answered because consciousness is a diffcult problem, but to me the reason is far more mundane: when talking about trees, the concept of experience has no meaning. You can't say trees have experiences, and you can't say they don't. Just as you can't say whether trees are violent, romantic, whimsical, and so many other concepts. Do you think a tree has a sense of humour?

The question does not lack meaning. As I said above, the words beauty, being romantic, having a sense of humor are all adjectives. They are subjective descriptors of experience. They have no meaning from an objective perspective. But consciousness is a common thing that we all share, right? It is a noun. The fact that we experience anything at all is itself an objective thing. But yet it isn't subject to scientific reductive explanation. So perhaps is isn't reducable? But surely its existence is more absolute than "beauty".

I could give you the same answer I did before, but then you would come back and tell me redness has nothing to do with it.

And it wouldn't. It's not about the specfiic experience. It's about experience period.

But it absolutely doesn't follow from it that the experience of redness has nothing to do the physical process of seeing red. And it doesn't follow from it that there's more to experiencing red than the physical processes associated with the way humans experience red.

But it is a strong indicator. Especially as more and more time goes by and science continues to fail.

Do you realize that the word 'robot' already implies absence of experience?

Here's the definition I found. Pretty much what I was referring to.

1. A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance.
2. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.

The short answer is 'yes', because language is one of two criteria we use to establish consciousness in people. The other is behaviour.

I'm not talking about establishing consciousness. I'm talking about having consciousness. I don't believe language has anything to do with that.

When I copied your quote above, I accidentally deleted one of the letters, so I had to type it back. I know which letter it is, and I know you can't possibly know. Even if I tell you, you'd have no way to know if I'm telling the truth. In fact, you do not even have a way to know if I'm not lying about replacing a letter to start with. Some imbroglio!

You don't think the fact that humans are conscious is something that ought to be understood? You think its relevance is equivalent to you re-typing a letter in your posts? Hmmm better go take those pills.

 

[confutatis]

You don't think the fact that humans are conscious is something that ought to be understood?

No, I don't think the fact that humans are conscious is something that ought to be understood.

 

[Fliption]

No, I don't think the fact that humans are conscious is something that ought to be understood.

OK. Then will you allow those of who do to discuss it without the crypic insertions?

Otherwise, you need to clearly explain why you believe this aspect of reality should be ignored.

 

[confutatis]

OK. Then will you allow those of who do to discuss it without the crypic insertions?

I'm quite amused that you are absolutely incapable of understanding metaphors, and as a result call them cryptic. I suppose you are one of those people who never get the point of jokes.

Yeah, I know... what do jokes have to do with anything? Exactly!

Otherwise, you need to clearly explain why you believe this aspect of reality should be ignored.

Read Marion's paper. It's as "uncryptic" as it gets.

 

[Fliption]

I'm quite amused that you are absolutely incapable of understanding metaphors, and as a result call them cryptic. I suppose you are one of those people who never get the point of jokes.

Yeah, I know... what do jokes have to do with anything? Exactly!

Your characterization of me couldn't be more wrong. I'm just unamused with pretentious half answers which attempt to sound "wise". I don't have a lot of time for that and would rather not see such unproductive posts.

Read Marion's paper. It's as "uncryptic" as it gets.

Lol. Marion who?

 

[confutatis]

Your characterization of me couldn't be more wrong.

Of course not, from your perspective.

I'm just unamused with pretentious half answers which attempt to sound "wise".

You don't have be be jealous. One day you will become wise too.

I don't have a lot of time for that and would rather not see such unproductive posts.

Well, just don't read them then. No one is forcing you.

Lol. Marion who?

Oh boy...

 

[Rader]

Lol. Marion who?

Meet Marion
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=21664

 

[Fliption]

Of course not, from your perspective.

My own use of metaphors is an objective fact. It has nothing to do with perspective.

You don't have be be jealous. One day you will become wise too.

LOl. What would I possibly have to be jealous of? Wisdom is not speaking a bunch of garbage that no one understands and then shrugging as to why no one understands it. Wisdom does not ignore most of the relevant points only to respond to a few silly sentences. Brevity with little content is an indicator that one doesn't have any content to add.

This old saying says it all:

"It is the wise man who admits he knows nothing,while a fool think he knows it all."

Well, just don't read them then. No one is forcing you.

Unfortunately, I can't force all those other people participating from reading it and railroading the thread into what appears to be a useless outlet for ego stroking.

Oh boy..

My comment was not meant to ask who Marion was. I was illustrating the point that you assume things about what other people know when you post your responses. You are too brief in your explanations and assume people know what you're talking about. it has been a problem for me trying to understand you from the beginning. It's just some constructive criticism. Take it or leave it. I can only guess that this approach will continue to cause you trouble with others in this forum. Of course this criticism only matters to people who are here to either learn or teach. Iit doesn't matter much to people who are here to preach and impress themselves with their sermons.

 

[confutatis]

"It is the wise man who admits he knows nothing, while a fool think he knows it all."

I wish I could reply to your post without talking about myself, but talking about myself doesn't happen to be one my favourite subjects. Sorry about that.

Can you comment on Gothier's paper? That could make for interesting conversation.

 

[Fliption]

I wish I could reply to your post without talking about myself, but talking about myself doesn't happen to be one my favourite subjects. Sorry about that.

Can you comment on Gothier's paper? That could make for interesting conversation.

Yes, I've read it once and will read it again before I develop an opinion.

 

[Rader]

So the red mans verdict is: on quote:

I rest my case! Any machine capable of organizing information will, when it achieves the ability to present the gist of it's information, will claim to be consciously aware of what is going on.

Curious how the change of one word to this statement, describes what actually goes on in the human body and outside it.
I rest my case! Any particle capable of organizing information will, when it achieves the ability to present the gist of it's information, will claim to be consciously aware of what is going on.

 

[confutatis]

So the red mans verdict is: on quote:

I rest my case! Any machine capable of organizing information will, when it achieves the ability to present the gist of it's information, will claim to be consciously aware of what is going on.

I think I would agree with the red man in that any entity whose behaviour can only be described as "conscious" would certainly claim to be conscious. It is exactly the same reason we claim we are conscious, and it has nothing to do with some unspeakable tingling feeling in the head.

 

[Al]

Sorry, but doesn't it implies that conciousness is an illusion and that we (1st person obsrevers of the universe) don't exist? Where to put Descarte's cogito ergo sum, then?

 

[confutatis]

Sorry, but doesn't it implies that conciousness is an illusion and that we (1st person obsrevers of the universe) don't exist?

No, it only implies that you learn what consciousness is by observing your own behaviour, rather than by introspection.

There are aspects of consciousness which can't possibly be expressed with language; we can't talk about those aspects without contradicting ourselves, but that is not the same thing as denying they exist.

Where to put Descarte's cogito ergo sum, then?

Side by side with Wittgenstein's "wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber mu man schweigen", often translated as "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent".

 

[Al]

Sorry if I missteped, I was only looking for wisdom, not confrontation and even less sarcasm.

 

[confutatis]

Sorry if I missteped, I was only looking for wisdom, not confrontation and even less sarcasm.

You came to the wrong place. If you want wisdom, join a monastery! And if you want an intellectual discussion, do not act like a spoiled child when your views are confronted!

I don't think you want wisdom at all, you just want to hear things you like, and dismiss things you don't like as sarcasm. That's not wisdom, that's just intellectual narcissism.

 

[Fliption]

Sorry if I missteped, I was only looking for wisdom, not confrontation and even less sarcasm.

Welcome to the forums AI. Don't worry about confutatis. He treats everyone just as poorly. Mostly it is friendly around here

 

[Rader]

Sorry, but doesn't it implies that conciousness is an illusion and that we (1st person obsrevers of the universe) don't exist? Where to put Descarte's cogito ergo sum, then?

There are three arrows to measure existence, chronological, cosmological, physiological. There is a forth, consciousnes, which makes us aware of the other three, does it need the other three? How can the other three have evolved if the last was not first?

 

[Al]

OK, i realize my first post may have sounded presumptous, which was not the intention. I apologize. But the question was honest, as I have heard the illusion argument from more than one neurobiologist and I find hard to accept that conciousness doesn't exist since I experience it. They explain conciousness as perception-memory interaction, yet I have still trouble with the subjectivity.

 

[Rader]

OK, i realize my first post may have sounded presumptous, which was not the intention. I apologize. But the question was honest, as I have heard the illusion argument from more than one neurobiologist and I find hard to accept that conciousness doesn't exist since I experience it. They explain conciousness as perception-memory interaction, yet I have still trouble with the subjectivity.

You are not being very clear here. Are saying that you know a neurobiologist or two, that says that they are not conscious? Then they would be Zombies, personally I have never meet one. Now if the neurobiologist, is talking about other people, has he seen people walking around like Zombies, my only expereience is in the movies.

From my personal experience, I am conscious and from what you say you are to, so who cares if the neurobiologists are not.

Consciousness is no illusion if you experience it.

 

[Fliption]

OK, i realize my first post may have sounded presumptous, which was not the intention. I apologize. But the question was honest, as I have heard the illusion argument from more than one neurobiologist and I find hard to accept that conciousness doesn't exist since I experience it. They explain conciousness as perception-memory interaction, yet I have still trouble with the subjectivity.

I understand what you're saying. You aren't the only one who has trouble. I always thought an illusion was a conscious activity so to call consciousness an illusion seems like begging the question.

 

[confutatis]

But the question was honest, as I have heard the illusion argument from more than one neurobiologist and I find hard to accept that conciousness doesn't exist since I experience it. They explain conciousness as perception-memory interaction, yet I have still trouble with the subjectivity.

I wonder what I might have said that made you think I deny that consciousness exists. People certainly behave in conscious ways, so in order to assert that 'consciousness' doesn't exist we need to provide another explanation to what we describe as conscious behaviour.

As to subjectivity, it should be clear to anyone that it has nothing to do with consciousness. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding this. I can look at someone and assert if they are conscious or not solely on the basis of their behaviour, but I have no access whatsoever to their subjectivity. Of course it is true that one needs to be conscious in order to have subjectivity, but one also needs to be conscious in order to win a chess match, and no one goes around claiming consciousness has anything to do with chess.

And I definitely don't think our subjective experiences can be classified as illusions, since even illusions are subjective experiences. The central issue is, is experience an extra component to physical reality, something which exists independently of the physical world, or is it just a different perspective on the world? In other words, is your experience of the world somehow separated from the world itself, or is it just a subset of it?