Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2017 - 09:19pm PT
|
Jstan: . . . many of the participants are actually asking substantive questions?
(I have to get caught up in this thread. Looks like good conversation. Family has been visiting, and it's been trying and exhausting. I need counseling.)
Jstan, there is not a more substantive question than that which regards what you are.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2017 - 10:00pm PT
|
^^^^ It's What you do. We are the sum of our actions.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2017 - 10:20pm PT
|
And nothing whatsoever to suggest that if a robot could be programmed to act like a human that it would not be conscious (whatever consciousness is).
Ask yourself this: can a machine become alive if it has an extravagant complexity, and if a machine simply "appears" in its complexity to be alive should we accept it as a living thing? Can life be produced out of inanimate, inorganic material: circuitry and metal? Can we make metal and circuitry so complex that it will produce a living entity? Can life be produced/constructed outside the realm of biology? Our only experience with consciousness requires the accompaniment of a living thing. There are no examples I know of inanimate objects that are conscious.
It may very well be that the predicate of consciousness is, in fact, life.
If intelligence and consciousness can exist without inhabiting a living entity why haven't they done so as part of an evolutionary process?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2017 - 10:39pm PT
|
what is life?
certainly we have abandoned ideas of "life force" in biology and seek physical explanations.
similarly suggested, above in the thread, is that "mind" is what the brain does, since not only do we associate "mind" with something living, but that something living has to have a sufficiently complex nervous system to exhibit those properties we attribute to "mind."
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2017 - 10:56pm PT
|
Yes, what is life?
Well for one thing it's a product of organic processes.
To create and declare a machine conscious is to declare that machine alive.
To declare an inorganic object alive seems a step into madness.
Again, there is a basic problem here in understanding the difference between information and realization.
Intelligence is more than processing information; it is realizing that information as experience.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2017 - 11:50pm PT
|
To declare an inorganic object alive seems a step into madness.
but what difference does it make if there carbon involved (thus organic)? the chemistry is the chemistry, which we understand for organic and inorganic molecules.
are you saying that carbon is special in some way, it is the 'element of life'?
living things obey all the chemistry of non-living things.
(Werner will have his usual response).
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 08:01am PT
|
Life begets consciousness and occurs naturally as the product of organic processes. We can be certain of that. If you're saying consciousness (life) can be imparted to non-organic material it implies the separate nature of both as phenomena “in and of themselves” in the universe, ready to be imparted and, therefore, not the specific or unique products of any particular corporeal matter at all. If that’s the case we can assume life and its product consciousness were existent phenomena since the beginning simply waiting to be manifested.
So what you seem to end up saying here is that mind (consciousness) is separate from brain.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 08:41am PT
|
Life begets consciousness
No .... it is the other way around.
Consciousness begets life.
Consciousness = life (which is not material)
Consciousness is the absolute source of all life itself .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 09:29am PT
|
I am saying that the physical laws pertain to organic and inorganic matter, "life" in this sense has to do with the particular setting in which those physical laws operate.
On Earth, and probably in many other places, the Sun provides an external energy source which drives those physical processes, non-equilibrium process, which we identify as life.
As far as we can determine, this process is not uncommon, that is, life seems to have been a feature of Earth back to nearly its creation... the Earth being 4.534 Billion years and the earliest indications of life go back to 4.1 Billion years... and survived the Late Heavy Bombardment somehow..
From a physicalist's perspective, life is just another consequence of physical law.
But is "consciousness" separable from life?
I'd argue that successful scientific theory of "consciousness" results in a description that allows "consciousness" to be simulated by something that doesn't have "life" in a biological sense.
The argument is relatively straight forward, I think, and not very controversial.
A "successful scientific theory" provides the means to predict how a physical system will act in various situations. The calculations of the theory, given inputs, induce action and that can be tested. The theory is "successful" when those calculated actions agree with a comparison of the physical system.
A major part of my argument with various philosophical ideas has been that we test "consciousness" all the time ourselves, our own "theory of mind" provides the predictions, and the behavior of the thing we are testing is compared against what we think the behavior should be.
Look at the medical profession's protocol for characterizing consciousness. Here is a practical definition of consciousness, with all the limitations of that test laid bare. For instance, if you are traveling in an area where there are no English speakers, and you have a medical crisis, many of the "question-reponse" parts of the protocol are not possible.
"Wǒ yǒu duōshǎo shǒuzhǐ?"
I couldn't respond...
The point here is that our physical theory produces behavior that cannot be distinguished from the behavior of a person, say.
There is a legitimate argument to be made concerning whether or not that thing that produces the behavior is actually conscious. But that is what a successful theory would produce.
Now we cannot say that a scientific theory of consciousness is impossible. And so, the possibility of being able to "give consciousness" to some "inanimate" stuff is not outside the realm of possibility either.
There are a couple of interesting consequences to this: 1) that we could use this theory to explore the boundaries of "consciousness" possibly answering interesting questions e.g. "what is it like to be a bat?" 2) we realize that the thing we perceive as "consciousness" is actually a part of the way our brain works, part of the behavior of the brain.
The first point is scientifically exciting, and why people have worked on this so hard for so long. The second point gets back to the issues that philosophers like Dennett have raised, that is, what we perceive as "consciousness" isn't what consciousness is.
While Largo likes to call this a "howler" it is a very common sense approach to the subject.
My favorite Dennett example is something you perceive as you look at the screen in front of you reading this. That is, it appears to be continuous.
Now any elementary knowledge of the eye would recognize that there are two rather large blind spots in your visual field, where the optic nerve enters the retina. You may have mapped out this region in some 7th grad biology class... it is real, and it does obstruct your field of view.
Yet you perceive that visual field as continuous.
Now when I was young, we were taught that the brain does an amazing job at "filling in" the holes. That is a physical process that has physical consequences, for instance, the brain activity associated with filling in the holes would be detectable. Of course there is no activity associated with this.
Instead, the brain ignores it, and uses a "model" of the visual field that presumes it is continuous, that is, our perception of the visual field is a model that takes our discontinuous sense of that field and interprets it as continuous.
We move our eyes around to "test" this model, but it is well known that if something changes in that field of view faster than our "rastering" we fail to "see it."
There is no "filling in" of the visual field, there is a perceptual model of that field. That model is the result of evolutionary adaptation, and it is a good model which has conveyed advantage to the organisms that had it.
In a way, we could say that what we see is not what we see... which sounds ridiculous, but is actually what is happening.
It is not a stretch to use this simple example as an analogy to the difference between what we perceive consciousness to be and what consciousness is... the thing we ascribe all these amazing attributes to is actually the result of our perception, not of the reality...
I think this is a very simple conclusion, but of course it has all these implications that are apparently very threatening to a large number of people.
But in the end, we do not have access to the thoughts of other people, and instead use our own theory of mind to test whether or not those people have thoughts, and what those thoughts might be.
So we depend on the behavior instantiations of "consciousness" to determine whether or not something is conscious.
Describing consciousness scientifically means being able to "produce" those behaviors in a manner that is indistinguishable from conscious beings.
While it may matter to some whether or not the thing that does the calculation of our theory is actually "conscious" it becomes a side issue. We do not know that some other person is "actually conscious" we depend on a set of "tests" compared to the predictions of our own "theory" to make that determination.
It is no different.
And therefore, "consciousness" is a behavior that an inanimate object can have.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 09:53am PT
|
Ed: Now whether or not we can "download" the state of a specific mind into the simulation is another issue, but a side issue I believe.
I’m not sure this is the best or only way to consider mind: as a state. It does not seem to answer the question of “what mind is.” Existence equates to states? If something has no state, then it doesn’t exist?
“What state is the water heater in?” provides only a little insight into what a water heater is. What my state of mind is currently in may not help me or others to figure out What MikeL is. Is subjectivity mind? Is consciousness mind? If it is, then what the brain is and how it works may only attempt to explain mind, but that does not define it or say what all it is. Observational explanation is not a definition of the being of anything, I’d say. Explanation is only a *one* way to say what a thing is. It’s a view, a narrative, a theory, an explanation.
jgill: We are the sum of our actions.
This constitutes a Calvinist homily. It’s the kind of thing that parents tell their children, or teachers their students. “BE SOMEONE BY ACCOMPLISHING THINGS; YOU ARE NO MORE THAN WHAT YOU DO.” Unfortunately, if one has fewer resources (things, capabilities) in their life, they will judged by others to be inferior.
There appears to be a conflagration between two assertions often made here. (1) Mind is subjectivity (whatever *that* is and however one could pin it down). This appears to be Searle’s and Largo’s argument. To say that subjectivity is consciousness is a tautology: we learn nothing new. (2) Mind is what mind does (hence Ed’s and science’s focus on observation of activities). This seems to suggest that entities that do nothing, do not exist. It provides one perspective, but it could hardly cover all.
These are almost pure philosophy issues.
It might be important to say what subjectivity is. I don’t believe anyone can say what it is. All one can do is point at subjectivity’s apparent manifestation. Read a novel, see a movie, listen to people’s stories, lie on a couch in a therapist’s office, read interpretations of myth. Right there is subjectivity. What is it?
Subjectivity could be absolutely anything, *and* it could be nothing.
(I see that there are a number of cable series are coming forward to promote scary AI narratives. We’ll be up to our eyeballs in science fiction narratives.)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 10:01am PT
|
This, other sites, and human history pretty conclusively show, despite agreed upon total mastery of rational thought, humans quite regularly run off the road. We seem to be assuming artificial attempts at intelligence will not suffer from the same flaw? If it does suffer from this flaw the new creation will arguably be artificial but unintelligent.
I also worry that such a creation could be highly intelligent but insane, to use a possibly obsolete and anthropomorphic term.
It seems quite possible that the more intelligent you are the less rational you appear to others.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 11:19am PT
|
I'd argue that successful scientific theory of "consciousness" results in a description that allows "consciousness" to be simulated by something that doesn't have "life" in a biological sense.
But as an argument this still fails to address the issue since simulation is just that. Simulation implies a distinguishing lack of authenticity. If something is a simulation of consciousness how can it be said to actually be conscious?
In the end I see no evidence that life can be instilled in an inorganic machine for the purpose of producing consciousness, based on the notion that complexity alone is the holy grail of that conscious thought when at its foundation consciousness is differentiated from information processing by the unique properties of subjective experience and realization.
Again, it sounds as though you agree that consciousness stands alone as a phenomena exterior to the matter or structure that produces that consciousness and is simply waiting to be installed. If so, why can't we also say consciousness stands as a universal predicate.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 04:03pm PT
|
the unique properties of subjective experience and realization
Unique in what way? Unique to humans? Unique to consciousness?
How could you know that those properties are unique?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 04:26pm PT
|
How could you know that those properties are unique?
A better question is how can you know that they aren't unique? Where's the proof that a rock realizes anything, a piece of metal, a series of circuits no matter how complex they may be.
I recognize consciousness when I interact with it. If you can fool me into that recognition, you've only fooled me. You haven't produced consciousness.
Every human is aware of their own consciousness and, as a result, becomes aware of it in others. I don't buy the notion of absolute subjectivity because humanity is by nature a species in which experience is a commonality and human beings are all much more alike than they are different.
The idea that I can't know your consciousness assumes I can't recognize the subtleties of consciousness in others when, of course, I can. If not, then how is it a sophisticated machine might fool me into thinking it was alive and thoughtful? Even Turin thought that a high bar indeed. Well, if I can't recognize consciousness in others anyway why does the bar have to be set so high?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 04:29pm PT
|
In the end I see no evidence that life can be instilled in an inorganic machine for the purpose of producing consciousness . . .
Once again, an argument about the future predicated upon evidence gathered from the present or the past. Sounds a lot like what JL was saying.
Never say never.
;>)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 04:38pm PT
|
We do not know that some other person is "actually conscious" we depend on a set of "tests"
Any living being automatically has consciousness.
There is no test required.
Even a simple blade of grass has consciousness.
All life has consciousness otherwise it would be dead matter ......
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 05:16pm PT
|
Never say never.
A blade with two distinct edges cutting in a variety of directions.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 06:00pm PT
|
Where's the proof that a rock realizes anything, a piece of metal, a series of circuits no matter how complex they may be.
Do you think that a chimpanzee realizes anything? How about a cat?
Do you still insist that the properties you mentioned are unique?
If so, unique to what?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2017 - 08:07pm PT
|
I recognize consciousness when I interact with it. If you can fool me into that recognition, you've only fooled me. You haven't produced consciousness.
If you can be fooled into that recognition, can you really recognize it? How do you know it is what you believe it is, if you can be fooled into believing that it is what you think it is, when it's not?
Every human is aware of their own consciousness and, as a result, becomes aware of it in others.
But those others maybe can fool you into a recognition of it when it doesn't exist? But you can't fool yourself into recognizing it in yourself?
Maybe that's why we're so sure that what we believe is true, even though we know that we might be fooled into that belief, by others, or by ourselves. As a belief process, it's been working out for us so far I guess.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!