Branch Thread: Consciousness

[FreshlyMinted]

I had this idea in a different thread and thought it would be interesting enough to pursue in and of itself

think about a machine that we create to simulate consciousness. We KNOW is only using electrical signals to do so because we created it. Would it realize that and claim that its thoughts are only electrical signals? Or is part of consciousness believing that you have consciousness as an entity that is not only the end result of neurons firing?

If the machine says that it is only electrical signals firing, can we truly say that it has consciousness? Since it is the most competent judge as to whether or not it does.

If it claims that is does indeed have consciousness can we consider people who believe consciousness to be something quantifiable to have consciousness?

 

[AgentM]

Good thread. I think that eventually it will get to the point where computers will be capable of such advanced simulated conciousness that we won't be able to tell the difference between them and us in that regard, and then they will likely surpass us quite quickly.

Since we really don't know a lot about conciousness it will take a long time (likely centuries) for us to narrow it down to where we can say "Conciousness is X", if we ever get to that point. By that time Artificial Intelligence will likely be well advanced, to the point where it might not even matter to anyone except philosophers.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Good thread. I think that eventually it will get to the point where computers will be capable of such advanced simulated conciousness that we won't be able to tell the difference between them and us in that regard, and then they will likely surpass us quite quickly.

Since we really don't know a lot about conciousness it will take a long time (likely centuries) for us to narrow it down to where we can say "Conciousness is X", if we ever get to that point. By that time Artificial Intelligence will likely be well advanced, to the point where it might not even matter to anyone except philosophers.

Haha, I would argue that now it doesn't matter except to philosophers :2razz:

 

[Oftencold]

First you'd have to properly define and understand consciousness, which of course has never been done.

It has been suggested the humans are incapable of this, because they have no exterior perspective, that is they cannot observe consciousness while not partaking of it.

 

[John Doe]

Like I said in the other thread, *we* are just electrical signals running through chemical wires. If we are conscious, then anything that mimics us exactly must also be conscious.

 

[Arch Enemy]

one of my favorite quotes, Pascal:

If we dreamt the same thing every night, it would affect us as much as the objects we see every day. And if an artisan were sure to dream every night for twelve hours’ duration that he was a king, I believe he would be almost as happy as a king, who should dream every night for twelve hours on end that he was an artisan. 75
If we were to dream every night that we were pursued by enemies, and harassed by these painful phantoms, or that we passed every day in different occupations, as in making a voyage, we should suffer almost as much as if it were real, and should fear to sleep, as we fear to wake when we dread in fact to enter on such mishaps. And, indeed, it would cause pretty nearly the same discomforts as the reality. 76
But since dreams are all different, and each single one is diversified, what is seen in them affects us much less than what we see when awake, because of its continuity, which is not, however, so continuous and level as not to change too; but it changes less abruptly, except rarely, as when we travel, and then we say, “It seems to me I am dreaming.” For life is a dream a little less inconstant. 77

 

[lizzie]

Are we talking "consciousness", "self-consciousness", or both?

 

[windovervocalcords]

Good question. What about objectless awareness?

 

[Oftencold]

Like I said in the other thread, *we* are just electrical signals running through chemical wires. If we are conscious, then anything that mimics us exactly must also be conscious.

If you wish to embrace such a limiting, and frankly absurd belief, than I suggest you begin a philosophical discussion with the next thunderhead that passes above you.

Also, you might consider looking up recent research in the possible role of quantum mechanics in brain function. If this turns out to be the case, then saying that consciousness is based on electrical activity would be less valid than saying that wheat is produced in the form of bread at the supermarket.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Good question. What about objectless awareness?

I don't know what that is. Do tell!

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Like I said in the other thread, *we* are just electrical signals running through chemical wires. If we are conscious, then anything that mimics us exactly must also be conscious.

But you don't *know* what consciousness is. You can monitor activity in the brain and see the electrical signals, but there's no test that can point to consciousness as an entity. Electrical signals can produce emotions, but is that consciousness? Electrical signals can evoke memories, but is that consciousness?

 

[Cephus]

It's entirely irrelevant. I am conscious and I know that what goes on in my head is just a bioelectric response. My entire being is nothing more than that. The brain is, for all intents and purposes, a machine. The desire to think it's something more, that humanity is something beyond it's biological parts doesn't mean that it actually is.

The problem is that we made up these words and largely, they are self-serving. We come up with words like "conscious" and "sentient" and "intelligent" and then use ourselves as the baseline standards for these words to have any meaning. I think it's funny to watch people say "this animal is more intelligent than that animal" when what they really mean is "this animal acts in a manner more identifiable with humanity than that animal does". We identify intelligence and sentience based on how similiar it is to us, not on some independent standard that takes us entirely out of the picture.

When you take this to artificial intelligence, where there is a possibility that machines may eventually functionally replicate the human mind, people are uncomfortable with the idea and they still refer to it as "simulated" intelligence because we can see that these machines don't have some magical, mystical component that man's ego insists that we have to have. Man wants to think it's special, therefore it invents some special element out of whole cloth as a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, you can't just make yourself special by fiat, you have to deal with the reality and the reality, as we currently understand it, is that we're nothing more than a 3-pound lump of tissue in our heads that, through a complex series of electro-chemical reactions that we don't fully understand yet, has developed consciousness. Just because people want to feel special and invent an imaginary "soul" or something similar doesn't make it so.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Tools that we have now can't measure everything.

What are the measurements of "goodness" whether you are talking about morality or aesthetics. Yes there are systematic ways to categorizes goodness, but these differ wildly and debate is possible.

You could argue that these things have no basis in scientific observation and you'd be right, but they exist. We treat them as if they exist and we feel their effects everyday. You could say they aren't tangible, but they exist nonetheless. Why is consciousness so different? It may very well be the case that when I die nothing happens; that souls are entirely constructions of desperation. However, since people believe that they exist, they do *exist* in the same sense as morality; they are a concept that governs a large part of life for a good portion of people. This is largely a matter of belief.

Why do you believe what your senses tell you, for instance?

 

[Cephus]

Tools that we have now can't measure everything.

Until you can find a tool that can measure it, you're just whistling dixie.

What are the measurements of "goodness" whether you are talking about morality or aesthetics. Yes there are systematic ways to categorizes goodness, but these differ wildly and debate is possible.

"Goodness" is an entirely subjective concept, you can't measure it because it's not real.

You could argue that these things have no basis in scientific observation and you'd be right, but they exist. We treat them as if they exist and we feel their effects everyday. You could say they aren't tangible, but they exist nonetheless. Why is consciousness so different? It may very well be the case that when I die nothing happens; that souls are entirely constructions of desperation. However, since people believe that they exist, they do *exist* in the same sense as morality; they are a concept that governs a large part of life for a good portion of people. This is largely a matter of belief.

The problem is, you're just showing you cannot tell the difference between concepts and reality. There is a difference between a rock and a concept of a rock. One actually exists in reality, the other exists solely in your mind. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to throw your concept of a rock at me all you want, I won't even duck.

Why do you believe what your senses tell you, for instance?

Because they have proven themselves to be generally reliable in describing what is actually real. By comparing our observations with a huge variety of other individuals, we can tell what is most likely true and what is most likely not.

 

[Oftencold]

How sad!


...

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Until you can find a tool that can measure it, you're just whistling dixie.

Agreed... I think. Not sure I know what whistling dixie means

The problem is, you're just showing you cannot tell the difference between concepts and reality. There is a difference between a rock and a concept of a rock. One actually exists in reality, the other exists solely in your mind. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to throw your concept of a rock at me all you want, I won't even duck.

I did it and I saw through my remote viewing that you did, indeed duck sir. :2razz:

Well obviously you can't be physically hit with what is intangible, but why do you get ashamed or embarrassed or angry or motivated. Here you're just showing you cannot tell the relationship between intangibility and tangibility. How can something that does not exist do anything?

Because they have proven themselves to be generally reliable in describing what is actually real. By comparing our observations with a huge variety of other individuals, we can tell what is most likely true and what is most likely not.

Right, aren't emotions not senses as well? I can compare my feelings of happiness with the vast majority of everyone and they will say that they too feel happy. Whatever that means, it shows that happiness exists.

 

[John Doe]

But you don't *know* what consciousness is. You can monitor activity in the brain and see the electrical signals, but there's no test that can point to consciousness as an entity. Electrical signals can produce emotions, but is that consciousness? Electrical signals can evoke memories, but is that consciousness?

If we assume we are conscious, and since all evidence points to us being purely electro-chemical processors, then yes, electrical signals can produce consciousness.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

If we assume we are conscious, and since all evidence points to us being purely electro-chemical processors, then yes, electrical signals can produce consciousness.

All evidence that can be measured by mechanical tools. Biological tools like reasonability and sensation point to us having something on a superior level. What is to say that electro-chemical signals aren't just the building blocks of consciousness?

For instance, if you build a fully functional house with legos, on some level you are right in saying that the house is only a bunch of legos snapped together, but on a superior level you are right in saying that it is a house.

 

[John Doe]

All evidence that can be measured by mechanical tools. Biological tools like reasonability and sensation point to us having something on a superior level. What is to say that electro-chemical signals aren't just the building blocks of consciousness?

For instance, if you build a fully functional house with legos, on some level you are right in saying that the house is only a bunch of legos snapped together, but on a superior level you are right in saying that it is a house.

I don't get what you mean by superior level.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

I don't get what you mean by superior level.

Superior meaning more... meta? Zoomed out, I think would be the most accurate.

 

[Cephus]

Agreed... I think. Not sure I know what whistling dixie means

The point was that unless you can find a tool to measure it, there's no point in claiming it exists. The fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know some things, nor does it mean we ought to accept things for which there is no evidence, just because someday it might turn out to be true. It might also turn out to be false. Our views of reality are constantly changing and evolving, we will never achieve a constant view where we know it all and nothing will ever change.

Well obviously you can't be physically hit with what is intangible, but why do you get ashamed or embarrassed or angry or motivated. Here you're just showing you cannot tell the relationship between intangibility and tangibility. How can something that does not exist do anything?

None of those are physical either, except that they all represent particular states of brain chemistry. Certainly they exist, given that they occur within the brain as discrete electrochemical impulses. We interpret those impulses and act on them according to our internal needs and desires.

Right, aren't emotions not senses as well? I can compare my feelings of happiness with the vast majority of everyone and they will say that they too feel happy. Whatever that means, it shows that happiness exists.

Emotions aren't senses because they don't measure external experiences, they are an internal reaction to largely external experiences.

 

[JoeMama]

Thanks for the thread, freshlyminted,

A great source that could provide a good background and that I think we would all would enjoy. It's audio, but don't fret, the three professors (the 2 hosts + the guest) are brilliant and present the topic in an easy to listen format, not dry and boring.

Though many of you probably are aware of these ideas, listening, at the very least, will organize your thoughts:

Philosophy Talk - Can Science Explain Consciousness?
(go to 'listen online')

VERY thought provoking

 

[FreshlyMinted]

The point was that unless you can find a tool to measure it, there's no point in claiming it exists. The fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know some things, nor does it mean we ought to accept things for which there is no evidence, just because someday it might turn out to be true. It might also turn out to be false. Our views of reality are constantly changing and evolving, we will never achieve a constant view where we know it all and nothing will ever change.

Why deny your own experiences as the proper tools? It is, after all, your experience of sight that leads you to believe all sorts of conclusions. Why is that particular experience more "objective" than any others?

None of those are physical either, except that they all represent particular states of brain chemistry. Certainly they exist, given that they occur within the brain as discrete electrochemical impulses. We interpret those impulses and act on them according to our internal needs and desires.

I know they're not physical. That's the point. You have non-physical sensibilities that can be affected by non-physical phenomena. It's just a different level of ontological status, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist as entities in and of themselves.

Emotions aren't senses because they don't measure external experiences, they are an internal reaction to largely external experiences.

Like I said above, there's no way to be sure that sight or touch measure external experiences because you cannot be an external observer. All sensations are just as real as any other sensation

@joemama, thanks for the link. I'm only about halfway through, but it's still good!

 

[John Doe]

All evidence that can be measured by mechanical tools. Biological tools like reasonability and sensation point to us having something on a superior level. What is to say that electro-chemical signals aren't just the building blocks of consciousness?

For instance, if you build a fully functional house with legos, on some level you are right in saying that the house is only a bunch of legos snapped together, but on a superior level you are right in saying that it is a house.

How exactly do "biological tools" and rationality and sensation mean we have meta-physical properties?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. We can directly observe the brain is chemicals + electricity. We can model these things very accurately.

You need to watch [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA"]YouTube- Substance dualism[/ame].

 

[FreshlyMinted]

How exactly do "biological tools" and rationality and sensation mean we have meta-physical properties?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. We can directly observe the brain is chemicals + electricity. We can model these things very accurately.

You need to watch YouTube- Substance dualism.

I gotcha, but I'm not sure that the video addresses what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about two separate substances one being physical and one being non-physical. I'm talking about physical substances and occurrences combining together to create a non-physical sensation that is just as real as the house made out of legos.

If you were really really honest about the house, you would say it's just a bunch of legos put together in a specific way. In a certain sense, the house does not exist because it isn't a thing unto itself... it's just a bunch of legos arranged a certain way.

I'm drawing the parallel with consciousness- if you break it down into its constituent parts then it is just a bunch of neurons firing. However, the sticking point is you can say the exact same thing about anything that has a fundamental underlying structure of constituent parts.

That's not water, that's just a conglomeration of hydrogen molecules combined with oxygen molecules

That's not hydrogen, that's just a certain amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons bound together

That's not a proton, that's just two up quarks and a down quark.

And so on and so forth. All of the things I talked about exist... except they don't.