Humans are essentially machines with programming

[Throckmorton]

Why are you some of you people arguing about consciousness? Obviously consciousness exists because I am conscious. Well, I don't know about the rest of you-- for all I know I could be the only conscious one in the world.

 

[spidey07]

Ok, I know it's fun to talk about this crap in college and "expand your mind".

That's just your brain adjusting to reality. You are no longer a child and you are forced to transition into an adult. This transition involves questioning of your sense of self and your own reality. It also is an awakening that the world does not revolve around you.

Yes, Humans are essentially machines. To think that you can combat that "machinery" is just youthful ignorance. Your brain is hardwired for the most part. The programming comes someplace outside yourself.

 

[ed21x]

Machines + Programming = Rational

Women != Rational

.:

Women != Machines + Programming

Q.E.D.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

I always laugh at Star Trek episodes when they auto-magically fix someone's brain.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: Flyback
At first glance your thread will likely get laughed at and people will shrug you off, but I simply do not know how anyone can adopt a naturalist perspective and not agree that humans are just machines ("chemical scum"). You cannot cherry pick if you are a naturalist and yet I manage to see people repeatedly attempt to inject their own belief system into what they call "naturalism". Things they throw around but do not fit within the tenets of their professed belief:

Free will (define it -- soft determinism doesn't count)
Mental causation (is it not inert if the physiological is all that matters?)
Consciousness (as something non-illusory, a byproduct)
Qualia (measure this in scientific terms or else it doesn't exist)
Responsibility for actions (in a cause and effect deterministic system, I don't know how you could *ever* say this exists or at least the individual has any "personal" responsibility)

I am a dualist and I respect the naturalist's right to an opinion, but I question whether they fully appreciate the view they advocate or whether it is adopted for some other reason(s).

Causality and the existence of consciousness are two separate issues. You can have consciousness (as defined by the existence of qualia) in a fully determinate universe. Science doesn't necessarily preclude qualia either: It's not possible to give a physical account of economic laws even though they we can empirically verify they exist. To deny qualia is to deny the value of empirical experience, which in fact seems contrary to the premise of science.

Contrasting social sciences (so-called "economic laws") with something that almost every sane person on earth asserts the existence of (not too many people dispute the existence of consciousness) is not the greatest choice of approach IMO.

Anyways:
Science can know your own mind better than you can. At least, that is the truth according to Dennett, friends and fans. If that is true, and if you cannot measure qualia -- indeed if there are no laws* or functions*, nor is there any way to explain the 'indexicality' that you experience -- then what really makes you believe it exists at all? What makes you think consciousness exists as something non-illusory?

Is "empirically verifying they exist by experience" not an appeal to intuition? Is that not a rather weak argument, if not outright circular reasoning itself ("qualia exist because my experiencing of quale says so...") Is that 'scientific'?

Originally posted by: mrkun
Why must mental states be something other than physical in origin?

To borrow from Kripke: Is a stimulated c-fiber the same as thing as 'pain'? Can the stimulated c-fiber exist without 'pain'?

Originally posted by: mrkun
Are you aware of David Chalmer's theory of "non-reductive materialism" with regard to consciousness? I would suggest reading his book The Conscious Mind.

Coincidentally enough the day you posted that I had been re-reading sections of my copy. I do not agree with the positions he advocates although he makes the case for them very convincingly.


(* When I say no laws or functions of qualia, I mean the experience of 'what it is like', not the corresponding physiological happenings.)

Ah hell, I haven't thought about any of this stuff in like two years. I have finals to study for, but I'll get around to making a response in due time. By the way, I both hate you and am thankful to you for forcing me to think for once. lol

 

[SlickSnake]

This is a decent existentialist thread. But at the present time, I am having trouble wrapping my feeble consciousness around it.

My machine is broken. I got some virus or bacterial crap invading my chemistry, atm. I have had it creeping up on me for the last week, I guess. Now, I can barely move my mouth and my tongue hurts.

You guys need to go post in this thread where I appear to embarrass myself due to my emasculated mental state and chemical brain imbalance. I think religion and this topic kind of go hand in hand, since religion is really just an attempt to explain consciousness at the most fundamental level.

 

[dbk]

i.robot?

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: videogames101
our body is a machine, free will is an illusion, everything is pre-determined.

(prove me wrong)

(yep, i'm in my harsh truth mode atm)

...does that mean I'm not going to play Starkrak 2nite?

Good freak, you know what? I think I'm gonna write in the URL to this popup..

more like copy and paste, was this predetermined?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...te=y&parentid=27749522

 

[irishScott]

That's one way of looking at it. Personally, I think there's something more to sentient life in general though. Call it the soul if you want, I honestly have no idea what it is. Could just be some psychological crap, but hell can't hurt to think about it.

Also, even if your statement is correct, we're not "programmed" in any comprehensible way. Humans are not True/False binary machines. We make decisions that don't make sense, we have emotions, and there are always more than two options.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Why are you some of you people arguing about consciousness? Obviously consciousness exists because I am conscious.

What is more likely to be correct: science or your singular mind? A great many scientists and philosophers would suggest you are in fact *not* conscious and that there is nothing to consciousness other than an illusion. Many reputable people believe this.

Further, how is it obvious that you are conscious to me and the rest of us? Can you prove it empirically? We should easily be able to know 'what it is like' to be you if your consciousness 'exists'. And yet we cannot...the burden is on you to prove consciousness exists according to science. So far I have not heard any convincing evidence from you to prove the existence of your 'consciousness'. From our point of view your physiological plumbing and behaviorism works well enough to do away with such 'myths', doesn't it?

(I don't support this position; I'm a 'delusional' according to a great many on this forum: I believe in consciousness, free will, a soul and a creator God.)

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well, I don't know about the rest of you-- for all I know I could be the only conscious one in the world.

"One so seldom has the opportunity to meet fellow solipsists..."* :laugh: (Think about this for a moment.)

(*From D. Deutsch's Fabric of Reality)

Originally posted by: mrkun
Ah hell, I haven't thought about any of this stuff in like two years. I have finals to study for, but I'll get around to making a response in due time. By the way, I both hate you and am thankful to you for forcing me to think for once. lol

I look forward to your response. BTW I am a great fan of David Chalmers and recommend the anthology he has assembled in addition to his website:

Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings

http://consc.net/online (Online papers on consciousness)

Originally posted by: irishScott
Also, even if your statement is correct, we're not "programmed" in any comprehensible way. Humans are not True/False binary machines. We make decisions that don't make sense, we have emotions, and there are always more than two options.

In the cause and effect deterministic system that naturalists promote, how are options anything other than an 'illusion' when the emotions and reasoning that govern such decisions are pre-determined by your physical 'state in time'. On the face of it we may look complicated, but if we knew your state ahead of time could we not predict your behavior? (Appeals to quantum indeterminism don't apply here; the mind is largely believed not a quantum machine.)

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: irishScott
That's one way of looking at it. Personally, I think there's something more to sentient life in general though. Call it the soul if you want, I honestly have no idea what it is. Could just be some psychological crap, but hell can't hurt to think about it.

Also, even if your statement is correct, we're not "programmed" in any comprehensible way. Humans are not True/False binary machines. We make decisions that don't make sense, we have emotions, and there are always more than two options.

Just because you have more than two options does not mean your behavior is not deterministic. Humans are incredibly complex, yes - but the question is - are we always behaving in such a way that is completely goverened by our present state and the state of the world around us?

Basically, is each one of us just a giant state machine (to use digital logic terms) with millions of inputs and millions of states? Something that complex could give the illusion of free will, yet a completely specified state machine has completely deterministic behavior.

 

[fire400]

...rofl

this thread's gotten 1 star!

 

[0roo0roo]

obviously we aren't a blank slate. we are born with programming. else learning language and such would be a massive b*tch.
animals are obviously born with many instincts.

 

[Leros]

Humans are just a physical/chemical machine.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Why are you some of you people arguing about consciousness? Obviously consciousness exists because I am conscious.

What is more likely to be correct: science or your singular mind? A great many scientists and philosophers would suggest you are in fact *not* conscious and that there is nothing to consciousness other than an illusion. Many reputable people believe this.

Further, how is it obvious that you are conscious to me and the rest of us? Can you prove it empirically? We should easily be able to know 'what it is like' to be you if your consciousness 'exists'. And yet we cannot...the burden is on you to prove consciousness exists according to science. So far I have not heard any convincing evidence from you to prove the existence of your 'consciousness'. From our point of view your physiological plumbing and behaviorism works well enough to do away with such 'myths', doesn't it?

Determinism doesn't preclude consciousness. Just because I'm typing this message right now because of every event in my life that lead to this moment doesn't mean that I'm not conscious. Also, true randomness and free will could be allowed by quantum phenomenon if they are really random, or consciousness could exist on an even lower level of existence.

(I don't support this position; I'm a 'delusional' according to a great many on this forum: I believe in consciousness, free will, a soul and a creator God.)

Well I don't believe in a soul or a God but it's clear to me from my own experience that my consciousness is real.

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well, I don't know about the rest of you-- for all I know I could be the only conscious one in the world.

"One so seldom has the opportunity to meet fellow solipsists..."* :laugh: (Think about this for a moment.)

(*From D. Deutsch's Fabric of Reality)

I did think about it, which is why I typed that. I'm 100% sure that I'm conscious, but the rest of you could very well not be. Since there's no reason why I would be unique among humans, I can assume that everyone else is conscious. I've never heard of solipsistism, but I've thought the same thing many times since I was a kid-- what if life is a complete illusion? It's mind blowing that the Romans asked the same questions and created a name for it. The fact that our minds think that way probably demonstrates something.

Originally posted by: mrkun
Ah hell, I haven't thought about any of this stuff in like two years. I have finals to study for, but I'll get around to making a response in due time. By the way, I both hate you and am thankful to you for forcing me to think for once. lol

I look forward to your response. BTW I am a great fan of David Chalmers and recommend the anthology he has assembled in addition to his website:

Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings

http://consc.net/online (Online papers on consciousness)

Originally posted by: irishScott
Also, even if your statement is correct, we're not "programmed" in any comprehensible way. Humans are not True/False binary machines. We make decisions that don't make sense, we have emotions, and there are always more than two options.

In the cause and effect deterministic system that naturalists promote, how are options anything other than an 'illusion' when the emotions and reasoning that govern such decisions are pre-determined by your physical 'state in time'. On the face of it we may look complicated, but if we knew your state ahead of time could we not predict your behavior? (Appeals to quantum indeterminism don't apply here; the mind is largely believed not a quantum machine.)

Doesn't the brain operate on electricity? That would make it a quantum machine... But I may be thinking about it wrongly.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Doesn't the brain operate on electricity? That would make it a quantum machine... But I may be thinking about it wrongly.

I don't think that's quite right. Whatever the determining factor is for identifying a quantum machine is I don't think it's "operates on electricity".

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Also, true randomness and free will could be allowed by quantum phenomenon if they are really random, or consciousness could exist on an even lower level of existence.

Because there's randomness doesn't mean you 'willed' it into existence. Randomization would suggest just that, 'unpredictable deviations', not 'willed deviations'.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Also, true randomness and free will could be allowed by quantum phenomenon if they are really random, or consciousness could exist on an even lower level of existence.

Because there's randomness doesn't mean you 'willed' it into existence. Randomization would suggest just that, 'unpredictable deviations', not 'willed deviations'.

I mean that it would allow your brain to think in a non deterministic way

 

[NanoStuff]

Not really. The scales on which neurons operate leave no room for 'quantum flux deviations'. And whatever rare quantum event may obscure or promote signal transmission, it would certainly not be beneficial.

 

[Ruptga]

I find your lack of original philosophical insight disturbing.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Why are you some of you people arguing about consciousness? Obviously consciousness exists because I am conscious.

What is more likely to be correct: science or your singular mind? A great many scientists and philosophers would suggest you are in fact *not* conscious and that there is nothing to consciousness other than an illusion. Many reputable people believe this.

Further, how is it obvious that you are conscious to me and the rest of us? Can you prove it empirically? We should easily be able to know 'what it is like' to be you if your consciousness 'exists'. And yet we cannot...the burden is on you to prove consciousness exists according to science. So far I have not heard any convincing evidence from you to prove the existence of your 'consciousness'. From our point of view your physiological plumbing and behaviorism works well enough to do away with such 'myths', doesn't it?

Determinism doesn't preclude consciousness. Just because I'm typing this message right now because of every event in my life that lead to this moment doesn't mean that I'm not conscious. Also, true randomness and free will could be allowed by quantum phenomenon if they are really random, or consciousness could exist on an even lower level of existence.

I never stated determinism precludes consciousness. I *did* discuss them together further up in the same post, but did not say that one (consciousness) necessarily requires the other (free will). I am stating that a great many well-respected scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness does not exist whatsoever if you cannot scientifically measure it (in the 'what it is like' / qualia experience sense itself).

Can you prove empirically that your 'conscious' experience exists? From our point of view behaviorism and your physiological make up is enough to show how you as a machine operate. Why would some supernatural, non-measurable thing called 'consciousness' exist? Can the 'what it is like to be Throckmorton' aspect of it be quantified scientifically?

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well, I don't know about the rest of you-- for all I know I could be the only conscious one in the world.

"One so seldom has the opportunity to meet fellow solipsists..."* :laugh: (Think about this for a moment.)

(*From D. Deutsch's Fabric of Reality)

I did think about it, which is why I typed that. I'm 100% sure that I'm conscious, but the rest of you could very well not be. Since there's no reason why I would be unique among humans, I can assume that everyone else is conscious. I've never heard of solipsistism, but I've thought the same thing many times since I was a kid-- what if life is a complete illusion? It's mind blowing that the Romans asked the same questions and created a name for it. The fact that our minds think that way probably demonstrates something.

[/quote]

The fallacy you make is that assuming other humans exist is a given absolute ('Since there's no reason why I would be unique among humans...') along with an objective reality.

You use this as a baseline and jump from that to assuming that the other bodies that you believe you perceive and interact with are indeed conscious. I could see that as an easy leap, but what if we start off from the *correct* starting point of questioning your sense data and reasoning itself (since they are based on a non-reliable physical body).

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Why are you some of you people arguing about consciousness? Obviously consciousness exists because I am conscious.

What is more likely to be correct: science or your singular mind? A great many scientists and philosophers would suggest you are in fact *not* conscious and that there is nothing to consciousness other than an illusion. Many reputable people believe this.

Further, how is it obvious that you are conscious to me and the rest of us? Can you prove it empirically? We should easily be able to know 'what it is like' to be you if your consciousness 'exists'. And yet we cannot...the burden is on you to prove consciousness exists according to science. So far I have not heard any convincing evidence from you to prove the existence of your 'consciousness'. From our point of view your physiological plumbing and behaviorism works well enough to do away with such 'myths', doesn't it?

Determinism doesn't preclude consciousness. Just because I'm typing this message right now because of every event in my life that lead to this moment doesn't mean that I'm not conscious. Also, true randomness and free will could be allowed by quantum phenomenon if they are really random, or consciousness could exist on an even lower level of existence.

I never stated determinism precludes consciousness. I *did* discuss them together further up in the same post, but did not say that one (consciousness) necessarily requires the other (free will). I am stating that a great many well-respected scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness does not exist whatsoever if you cannot scientifically measure it (in the 'what it is like' / qualia experience sense itself).

Can you prove empirically that your 'conscious' experience exists? From our point of view behaviorism and your physiological make up is enough to show how you as a machine operate. Why would some supernatural, non-measurable thing called 'consciousness' exist? Can the 'what it is like to be Throckmorton' aspect of it be quantified scientifically?

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well, I don't know about the rest of you-- for all I know I could be the only conscious one in the world.

"One so seldom has the opportunity to meet fellow solipsists..."* :laugh: (Think about this for a moment.)

(*From D. Deutsch's Fabric of Reality)

I did think about it, which is why I typed that. I'm 100% sure that I'm conscious, but the rest of you could very well not be. Since there's no reason why I would be unique among humans, I can assume that everyone else is conscious. I've never heard of solipsistism, but I've thought the same thing many times since I was a kid-- what if life is a complete illusion? It's mind blowing that the Romans asked the same questions and created a name for it. The fact that our minds think that way probably demonstrates something.

The fallacy you make is that assuming other humans exist is a given absolute ('Since there's no reason why I would be unique among humans...') along with an objective reality.

You use this as a baseline and jump from that to assuming that the other bodies that you believe you perceive and interact with are indeed conscious. I could see that as an easy leap, but what if we start off from the *correct* starting point of questioning your sense data and reasoning itself (since they are based on a non-reliable physical body).

[/quote]

Being able to measure consciousness has nothing to do with whether it's real or not. Obviously I can't prove to you that I'm conscious, but I'm sure that I am, and I see no reason to believe that everyone else is an automaton that creates the illusion of consciousness.

Consciousness isn't supernatural. I believe it's a side effect of having a brain, and that mammals are just MORE conscious than organisms with less mental capacity.

 

[NanoStuff]

I believe it's a side effect of having a brain, and that mammals are just MORE conscious than organisms with less mental capacity.

There's no belief about it, that's exactly how it is.

 

[NanoStuff]

?

 

[Xavier434]

Given the progression of genetic and biological engineering just over the past 30 years, it wouldn't shock me at all to learn that we were designed by some other more advanced species and dumped on this rock. Seriously, if we are this far into the science now as opposed to where we were in 1980 can you imagine how far we will be by the year 3000?