hey science

[disappoint]

Am I an idiot? You're the guy that must've gone to Lieutenant Data's school of conversationalism, so you tell me.

LOL'd. I swear he pours through thesaurus.com, dictionary.com, and does just enough research on a subject to come on these boards to be condescending towards everyone so he can feel better about himself to make up for his lack of real understanding of the subject. Maybe his mom didn't love him, dad beat him, kids picked on him or has some other early childhood trauma. Whatever his problem, anyone that engages in conversation with him long enough will soon realize what a snake in the grass he is. I can't help but feel sorry for him and wonder what it's like to be in his head. Whatever consciousness is, his form of it must be really unpleasant.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Am I an idiot? You're the guy that must've gone to Lieutenant Data's school of conversationalism, so you tell me.

If that's your response I can only take it as an affirmative.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

LOL'd. I swear he pours through thesaurus.com, dictionary.com, and does just enough research on a subject to come on these boards to be condescending towards everyone so he can feel better about himself to make up for his lack of real understanding of the subject. Maybe his mom didn't love him, dad beat him, kids picked on him or has some other early childhood trauma. Whatever his problem, anyone that engages in conversation with him long enough will soon realize what a snake in the grass he is. I can't help but feel sorry for him and wonder what it's like to be in his head. Whatever consciousness is, his form of it must be really unpleasant.

When you guys are finished making excuses for your lack of substantive contributions I'm ready to discuss the topic at any time.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Prove that consciousness exists.

Prove anything exists.

Prove it to who?

When you guys are finished making excuses for your lack of substantive contributions I'm ready to discuss the topic at any time.

:thumbsup:

 

[moonbogg]

Its easy to tell who understands the topic, and more importantly, who has generated their own thoughts on the subject from those who are here for other reasons. I believe there are two, maybe 3 of us. The rest just troll or try to discredit the efforts of those who want to unders.....wait a fucking second. Why am I discussing this shit on a hardware forum again?

Honestly Cerpin, we both deserve a good trolling for trying to discuss this here. Our fault, not theirs.

 

[IronWing]

Its easy to tell who understands the topic, and more importantly, who has generated their own thoughts on the subject from those who are here for other reasons. I believe there are two, maybe 3 of us. The rest just troll or try to discredit the efforts of those who want to unders.....wait a fucking second. Why am I discussing this shit on a hardware forum again?

Honestly Cerpin, we both deserve a good trolling for trying to discuss this here. Our fault, not theirs.

The OP rolled a troll thread and never returned. Until the OP returns and explains another intention it will remain a troll thread.

He could have asked something specific about the bio-chemical underpinnings of self-awareness but he didn't. And furthermore if he had, the odds of anyone here knowing anything about the topic are about nil. If knowledge and understanding were the OP's goal he would be reading journals, not posting questions to ATOT. Therefore, a troll he remains.

 

[zinfamous]

Am I an idiot? You're the guy that must've gone to Lieutenant Data's school of conversationalism, so you tell me.

that's pretty awesome right there.

:beer:

 

[moonbogg]

The OP rolled a troll thread and never returned. Until the OP returns and explains another intention it will remain a troll thread.

He could have asked something specific about the bio-chemical underpinnings of self-awareness but he didn't. And furthermore if he had, the odds of anyone here knowing anything about the topic are about nil. If knowledge and understanding were the OP's goal he would be reading journals, not posting questions to ATOT. Therefore, a troll he remains.

You are correct. I was aware of that possibility when I first saw how simple his OP was. I also suspected that people would join in for a decent talk despite being troll bait, and they did. It just went to shit, that's all.
Any time a person expresses genuine interest in a subject, they are a target for trolls, so I go in expecting it. They are easy to ignore. Its also easy to confuse a sensitive topic for a troll. Happens a lot. Ignoring a bad callout is also easy to ignore thankfully.

 

[Ruptga]

that's pretty awesome right there.

:beer:

 

[disappoint]

There are some things we can never know. This might be one.

This is erroneous thinking.

Considering you can't predict the future of human knowledge, I'd say you will never know what we can never know.

Unless you become omniscient. Then it's game over because what else is there for you to do? Imagine how bored you would be if you were omniscient.

How to become unbored? Create something you can never predict. Crazy humans perhaps. And now you know that I know why we're here.

 

[SlitheryDee]

There are many persuasive arguments. Read "Mind, Machines, and Godel," for example. Read a bunch of the papers here: http://consc.net/online/1/all

I did your required reading, and I remain unconvinced. Mind, machines, and Godel poses a good argument for why one system, operating from outside another system, may see the truth of a formula that is unprovable inside the second system. It does not show in convincing terms that a human mind would not fail in the same respect. The only nods it makes in that direction are the fact that a human mind may give up on an infinite regress instead of stating it infinitely, and that it possesses a certain capacity for self evaluation. Neither of which seem beyond the capabilities of a machine, provided you admit that the human mind may not be performing so nearly a complete self evaluation as the author would have you believe. The protean nature of the machinery of human brain may require that a different godelian formula be applied from moment to moment, but that also is something that could eventually be replicated in a true machine.

The papers in your link are a general mess, with few authors seeming to agree on even basic terminology for the concepts they are attempting to write on. Phenomenal Consciousness is an interesting subject though. I do now know that I would be considered a First Order Representationalist in that I believe that awareness of an experiential element is sufficient for consciousness of it. I admit that nailing down the "what it's like" problem is difficult, but it also doesn't seem to be exactly what Moonbog was saying. I've seen no references to the incapability of matter to experience things versus the capability of a mind made of matter experiencing things.

 

[disappoint]

I've seen no references to the incapability of matter to experience things versus the capability of a mind made of matter experiencing things.

There is no reason why matter can't form complex enough structures to attain consciousness any more than silicon atoms can't form complex enough structures to achieve computational ability.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is no reason why matter can't form complex enough structures to attain consciousness any more than silicon atoms can't form complex enough structures to achieve computational ability.

You're missing the mark.

The question isn't really whether they can or can't, but rather how would one know when consciousness is "attained"?

In other words, the difficulty doesn't so much lie in proving that a Turing machine has consciousness, but rather in proving that an atom does not.

As long as you define consciousness in terms of outward behavior, your "explanations" will be tautologies, and they will mean nothing.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I did your required reading, and I remain unconvinced. Mind, machines, and Godel poses a good argument for why one system, operating from outside another system, may see the truth of a formula that is unprovable inside the second system. It does not show in convincing terms that a human mind would not fail in the same respect. The only nods it makes in that direction are the fact that a human mind may give up on an infinite regress instead of stating it infinitely, and that it possesses a certain capacity for self evaluation. Neither of which seem beyond the capabilities of a machine, provided you admit that the human mind may not be performing so nearly a complete self evaluation as the author would have you believe. The protean nature of the machinery of human brain may require that a different godelian formula be applied from moment to moment, but that also is something that could eventually be replicated in a true machine.

You have my respect for actually reading the literature. I'm aware of the pitfalls of the Lucas-Penrose argument, so I don't expect you to be wholly convinced by it, but rather I hope that you can appreciate the seriousness with which this topic is approached by academics and the reality that the issue is far from resolved.

The papers in your link are a general mess, with few authors seeming to agree on even basic terminology for the concepts they are attempting to write on. Phenomenal Consciousness is an interesting subject though. I do now know that I would be considered a First Order Representationalist in that I believe that awareness of an experiential element is sufficient for consciousness of it. I admit that nailing down the "what it's like" problem is difficult, but it also doesn't seem to be exactly what Moonbog was saying. I've seen no references to the incapability of matter to experience things versus the capability of a mind made of matter experiencing things.

Like I said above, it isn't necessarily anyone's aim to prove that a material mind is incapable of subjective experience, but rather how to determine with objectivity and rigor which configurations of matter have experience and which (if any) do not.

 

[moonbogg]

There is no reason why matter can't form complex enough structures to attain consciousness any more than silicon atoms can't form complex enough structures to achieve computational ability.

Of course, but we don't know if complexity is what creates it, or simply enriches something pre existing. Each of us knows that matter can pull it off, either by itself or in conjunction with unknown laws or stuff. Maybe those who think its an illusion are correct and it isn't what we think it is.
The key is finding out what it is (or isn't) and how it works. You should be able to detect consciousness objectively if you understand it. Right now the best you can do is admit that you are conscious and then take the wild guess that others are as well.

 

[disappoint]

Of course, but we don't know if complexity is what creates it, or simply enriches something pre existing. Each of us knows that matter can pull it off, either by itself or in conjunction with unknown laws or stuff. Maybe those who think its an illusion are correct and it isn't what we think it is.
The key is finding out what it is (or isn't) and how it works. You should be able to detect consciousness objectively if you understand it. Right now the best you can do is admit that you are conscious and then take the wild guess that others are as well.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that there may be something other than complexity at work the onus is on you to provide evidence that this something other exists or at least why it's necessary and why complexity alone can't accomplish it especially when presented with evidence of multiple examples where the sum is often much more capable than the parts.

You're basically using the logical fallacy known as the God of the gaps, except instead of invoking God where your knowledge fails you, you invoke "something else that we don't know about yet".

In both cases I'm not saying they're not possible, I'm saying there is no reason to believe such things exist because our current understanding does not require them to exist to make sense of what we do observe.

 

[ThinClient]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that there may be something other than complexity at work the onus is on you to provide evidence that this something other exists or at least why it's necessary and why complexity alone can't accomplish it especially when presented with evidence of multiple examples where the sum is often much more capable than the parts.

You're basically using the logical fallacy known as the God of the gaps, except instead of invoking God where your knowledge fails you, you invoke "something else that we don't know about yet".

In both cases I'm not saying they're not possible, I'm saying there is no reason to believe such things exist because our current understanding does not require them to exist to make sense of what we do observe.

:thumbsup:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is erroneous thinking.

Considering you can't predict the future of human knowledge, I'd say you will never know what we can never know.

Unless you become omniscient. Then it's game over because what else is there for you to do? Imagine how bored you would be if you were omniscient.

How to become unbored? Create something you can never predict. Crazy humans perhaps. And now you know that I know why we're here.

I did not make an erroneous statement. The future of human knowledge is irrelevant to what I was saying. There are some things which cannot be known, or more specifically there are things which cannot be known if true or false and therefore there cannot be a determination of the validity of some statements. You don't know this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm saying there is no reason to believe such things exist because our current understanding does not require them to exist to make sense of what we do observe.

Since your current understanding does not provide an answer to the question, how do you know what you have to know? The answer is you don't know and that is all that can be said, at least right now.

 

[zanejohnson]

it would be cool to be able to experience different animals, and different species of 'earlier' human's conciousness's.


if that makes sense.

 

[zanejohnson]

i'd imagine everyday folk even have drastically varying conciousness's..

i would imagine an artist sees the world drastically different than say, a soldier.

 

[disappoint]

I did not make an erroneous statement. The future of human knowledge is irrelevant to what I was saying. There are some things which cannot be known, or more specifically there are things which cannot be known if true or false and therefore there cannot be a determination of the validity of some statements. You don't know this?

Cannot ever be known or cannot now be known? I'm curious as to why you left out never here but earlier you wrote can never be known. If you mean there are things that can never be known, what are those things?

 

[disappoint]

Since your current understanding does not provide an answer to the question, how do you know what you have to know? The answer is you don't know and that is all that can be said, at least right now.

Does not provide an answer to what question? What consciousness is? I already answered that question earlier. Whether certain people like that answer or not doesn't affect it's validity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Cannot ever be known or cannot now be known? I'm curious as to why you left out never here but earlier you wrote can never be known. If you mean there are things that can never be known, what are those things?

I don't have to tell you anything along those lines. That was all done last century. Whitehead didn't like it. Russell didn't either, nor did Hilbert and now you. Ego and your faith doesn't matter. It's the nature of things. Why? Ask God

 

[disappoint]

I don't have to tell you anything along those lines. That was all done last century. Whitehead didn't like it. Russell didn't either, nor did Hilbert and now you. Ego and your faith doesn't matter. It's the nature of things. Why? Ask God

And I don't have to tell you why I'm glad one of us gets his knowledge from this century. But I will anyway.