Consciousness question

[cpolk]

One thing is for sure. The most likely path to a succesful "chat bot" is the system I described above, which to make it clear I certainly did not think up myself. It is the path a large number of programmers have undertaken. The flaw as I percieve it is they are trying to get the chat bots to build up entire sentences and their definitions, as opposed to one word at a time (at least those I've seen). From what I've seen of how children learn language, I think the best way to go is to somehow provide an AI with some other context for judging a word and then simply using single words. To that end, other programmers are designing visual recognition systems which I think should be combined with a chat bot that works with single words and compares them to both memories and current input like that visual data.

Well, we do it in two ways... as infants, we have a limited (but growing) choice of words combined with points and gestures. As we learn more about how sentences are constructed, we eliminate the need for additional gestures. Proper grammar (not that I'm a reliable source on info) is, by nature, designed to pre-emptively answer questions.

Such as the sentence, "Bring me the towel on the counter." Consists of three independent thoughts strung into one action, "Bring me what? the towel where? on the counter."

So along with individual words and usage, you'll have to feed Alive the 3rd grade grammar concerning nouns, subject, predicate, different forms of verbs, etc. so that it can string several independent ideas into a single sentnece or action.

 

[HypnoPsi]

How can you discuss what others believe if you dont understand what you believe?

Maybe materialists should remember that logic when they are debating theists?

Either way, to me, consciousness clearly exists - just as what we call matter/energy clearly exists, the same holding true with space/time. What these things are, ultimately, I don't know.

I only know that I'm aware of my self, my thoughts, ideas, feelings, surrounding, etc.,.

Can you have conscious awareness without awareness of both subject (self) and object (everything other than self)? Personally, I think you can. A goldfish probably doesn't have much of a sense of self, and a member of my family has a budgerigar that spends it's entire day either pecking or humping a mirror in it's cage. I'm absolutely certain these animals are conscious, though.

So, if you materialists are saying that you're not following a faith then surely you should be able to define the minimum characteristics that are necessary to produce consciousness and give a few real world examples? Calculators? Water cisterns? Mobile phones? What else?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[cpolk]

So, if you materialists are saying that you're not following a faith then surely you should be able to define the minimum characteristics that are necessary to produce consciousness and give a few real world examples? Calculators? Water cisterns? Mobile phones? What else?

That depends on how it is defined. Give me a clear definition that I can use to establish whether or not something has the type of conciousness that you are personally looking for, and then I will tell you what you already know.

I have given several examples of awareness in a functional mechanical sense, and you didn't accept that because it didn't fit your definition. I then offered to discuss it on a human level, which is the highest level that we, as humans, are capable of comprehending it. You didn't like that, because you wanted to include your pets in the discussion.

I take it your definition is somewhere in between, but that leaves a lot of room.

 

[PixyMisa]

Maybe materialists should remember that logic when they are debating theists?

We do. And we point it out to them.

So, if you materialists are saying that you're not following a faith then surely you should be able to define the minimum characteristics that are necessary to produce consciousness and give a few real world examples? Calculators? Water cisterns? Mobile phones? What else?

Have you actually bothered to read any of the posts in this thread?

 

[Iacchus]

And again, if you are suggesting it couldn't operate without a set of instructions, then you have to, by that logic, suggest that those instructions could not operate without another set of instructions.

Everywhere I look around me I see structure, and structure doesn't just happen of its own accord.

Further, you assume too much. Why is it that the existance of temporary things suggests something eternal?

Because it implies a beginning and an end, and that suggests boundaries. Whereas if that which is temporary is bound within, shouldn't that which is timeless be bound without?

 

[PixyMisa]

Everywhere I look around me I see structure, and structure doesn't just happen of its own accord.

That's exactly the problem. (The solution is that this is not true.)

Because it implies a beginning and an end, and that suggests boundaries. Whereas if that which is temporary is bound within, shouldn't that which is timeless be bound without?

There are words here, but meaning is absent.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Either way, to me, consciousness clearly exists - just as what we call matter/energy clearly exists, the same holding true with space/time. What these things are, ultimately, I don't know.

I only know that I'm aware of my self, my thoughts, ideas, feelings, surrounding, etc.,.

Can you have conscious awareness without awareness of both subject (self) and object (everything other than self)? Personally, I think you can. A goldfish probably doesn't have much of a sense of self, and a member of my family has a budgerigar that spends it's entire day either pecking or humping a mirror in it's cage. I'm absolutely certain these animals are conscious, though.

Hold on a minute, the only evidence YOU have that consciousness exists is your own consciousness. You have no evidence that other humans have consciousness:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1463815&postcount=944

So how can you be absolutely certain animals are conscious.

You are using two different definitions of consciousness, one that applies to you, and one that can be applied to the behavior of a goldfish or a budgerigar (from the UK?).

This is the problem, are we talking about awareness of self, awareness of thought, awareness of ideas, awareness of feelings, awareness of surroundings, all of these combined, minimal levels of all of these, minimal levels of any of these . . .

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, scientists are very good at nailing down the meanings of the terms they use. That's a very large part of why science works. Other fields of human endeavour are less so.

Agreed. Science has done an incredible work with some words, terms like "energy" (useless in a "new age" language and pretty accurate in science language) are a good example of this.

But IMO, regarding "consciousness" or "awareness" science is still looking for proper definitions. True, cognitive science definitions are AGES ahead of common sense concepts, but we still need working models and more adequate definitions.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Basically a computer program needs to be developed that is capable of taking a word and randomly expererimenting with it by seeing how often that word is used when combined with THIS set of data, and how often it is used when combined with THAT set of data.

Pretty interesting. Do you know if this approach is being used in AI?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Either way, to me, consciousness clearly exists - just as what we call matter/energy clearly exists, the same holding true with space/time. What these things are, ultimately, I don't know.

I only know that I'm aware of my self, my thoughts, ideas, feelings, surrounding, etc.,.

Fair enough. Thats close to what a Zen Buddhist believes about the world. Still, one thing is to be aware, and a different thing is to understand. One has to develop some behavioural models, and those are based on certain (hidden) assumptions. If I look for food everytime Im hungry its because in a way I believe there is a world out there, independent of my subjectivity, that can provide me with the sensation of not being hungry anymore. Do you see where Im going?

And what you say lead us to what I was assuming about your ideas. You do believe, in a way, that consciousness is as fundamental as space/time. Now, a next step is to realize if you also think that consciousness has a clear ontological status without a world "surrounding it".

 

[Iacchus]

That's exactly the problem. (The solution is that this is not true.)

There are words here, but meaning is absent.

Do you believe there was something before the Big Bang?

 

[Iacchus]

And what you say lead us to what I was assuming about your ideas. You do believe, in a way, that consciousness is as fundamental as space/time. Now, a next step is to realize if you also think that consciousness has a clear ontological status without a world "surrounding it".

Darn tootin'. What Universe is there to speak of without the ability to acknowledge it? It is quite fundamental, at least, for human beings.

 

[Tricky]

Darn tootin'. What Universe is there to speak of without the ability to acknowledge it?

The same one. It doesn't matter whether or not you speak of it or acknowledge it.

 

[cpolk]

Do you believe there was something before the Big Bang?

I believe it is possible.

Let me make an assumption. Firstly, the "big bang" is, by the definition I personally use in thought, a term used to demonstrate the point when the laws of physics as we know them came into being. I don't know how that actually occured, and I can't do anything more than guess. So, no huge explosion - plain and simply, when the laws of physics began.

Before that, I can make the assumption that, since the laws of physics were different, perhaps non-existent, there might have been a completely different definition of "time", or perhaps time did not exist at all. That is difficult for us to understand, because we are only humans and can only understand through human perception, of which time is a crucial element.

However, whatever was before the laws of physics began is completely irrelevent, as it no longer applies. Becuase it no longer applies, and we are limited to investigation within the parameters of the laws of physics, we will never be able to claim what was "before". All we can know is what has happened since the laws of physics began, because that is all we have the Universal means to investigate.

 

[HypnoPsi]

If you've read through previous posts, particularly the ones by Pixy and Dark Jaguar, there are three tiers of the definition of awareness that we are talking about. I think that cats, dogs, and possibly insects are on the second tier.

I have absolutely no evidence that my dog thinks in terms of abstracts, beyond reacting to his physical environment, so I cannot place him on the third tier. I cannot say for sure if my dog understands the concept of art, or thinks, "I am me."

This is interesting from an evolutionary psychology perspective and related to higher cognitive functions. Either way, I am quite sure you consider your dog conscious.

Since you are adamant about not allowing the common toilet in the conversation regarding awareness, that eliminates the first tier. Since you are adamant about not allowing the self-regulating thermostat in your definition of awareness, that eliminates the second tier.

I have absolutely no idea where you get these ideas from. I, as a non-materialist, and trying to understand the materialist view of consciousness. Since the materialist view seems to include thermostats and toilet cisterns then that is what I am trying to understand. I have never suggested removing them from the conversation.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[cpolk]

This is interesting from an evolutionary psychology perspective and related to higher cognitive functions. Either way, I am quite sure you consider your dog conscious.

I have absolutely no idea where you get these ideas from. I, as a non-materialist, and trying to understand the materialist view of consciousness. Since the materialist view seems to include thermostats and toilet cisterns then that is what I am trying to understand. I have never suggested removing them from the conversation.

You are trying to classify what doesn't need to be classified instead of defining what needs to be defined.

Dogs and elephants are both mammals. If I make a statement with an elephant in mind, and you make an opposing statement with a dog in mind, you are missing the connection completely by saying, "You are an elephant mammalist and I am a canine mammalist."

Once we define that we are not talking about mammals on whole, but specifically either elephants or dogs, we can have a discussion. Until we reach such an agreement, discussion is pointless.

Edit: Yes, Kudo's for hanging in there.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Well, my definition of consciousness requires some level of sentience, sapience, and self-awareness.

<snip>

Animal consciousness is sentience, smart animals have sapience also.
Human consciousness is sentience, sapience, and self-awareness.

The definition of consciousness I've been using in this thread is obviously that of human consciousness.

The minimum system required is one that exhibits sentience, sapience, and self-awareness.

All very interesting, and I would certainly agree that the great apes, along with humans demonstrate the highest levels of consciousness. Next to that I would include whales and predators like lions, tigers and wolves.

But what I am trying to ascertain here is why western atheist-materialist skeptics (WAMS) will not accept that their view of consciousness, as an emergent property or epiphenomenon of matter, is not faith-based? If it were not faith-based, I believe that WAMS should be able to say exactly what causes (or is) consciousness quite explicitly.

It seems that so far most WAMS in this thread have gone with the idea that consciousness is information processing. Thus the claims that toilet cisterns, thermostats and even micetraps are conscious. (But a thermometer also processes information, so I'm not sure why they are discounting that one.)

I think it's fair to say that you think a much higher level of complexity is required to produce consciousness, in the context of self awareness. But what? What would you say on the subject of earthworms, insects, frogs, snakes and mice?

You seem to believe that consciousness can be inorganic (as in computers and cognitive modelling programs). I'm curious to know your most basic real-world example. At hand, I have both a scientific calculator and a basic calculator (both of which have a memory function allowing calculations involving constants). Would you say these devices are ever conscious (presumably when turned on and performing a calculation), at however rudimentary a level, with the scientific calculator being more conscious?

(I apologise if I'm asking you questions you've already answered, but it's kind of hard to keep up with everyone.)
_
HypnoPsi

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

You seem to believe that consciousness can be inorganic (as in computers and cognitive modelling programs). I'm curious to know your most basic real-world example. At hand, I have both a scientific calculator and a basic calculator (both of which have a memory function allowing calculations involving constants). Would you say these devices are ever conscious (presumably when turned on and performing a calculation), at however rudimentary a level, with the scientific calculator being more conscious?

(I apologise if I'm asking you questions you've already answered, but it's kind of hard to keep up with everyone.)
_
HypnoPsi

Yes, I think human consciousness can be replicated artificially. The most basic real world example does not exist. Calculaters or computers are not self-aware.

It seems our discussion might turn into an argument over the definition of faith.

And kudos for trying to keep tract of all the various arguments.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Well, one interesting idea is the mirror test - see if an animal recognises that the thing in the mirror is itself. Most apes pass the test, as do dolphins. Human babies don't usually pass the test until 18 months or so, which is illustrative of the point that human consciousness is something that develops over time, not something that we are magically granted.

I don't have time to look out my child psychology textbooks, but other experiments beyond the red rouge on forehead/mirror experiment have been performed at only several weeks old to test if babies can differentiate between their mother and a stranger by either face or voice recognition. These experiments have been said to support the idea that a sense of self-awareness in relation to others and the environement is either genetically innate or develops much earlier than 18 months.

Are you now saying you don't believe that any type of consciousness exists until there is self-consciousness?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[uruk]

But what I am trying to ascertain here is why western atheist-materialist skeptics (WAMS) will not accept that their view of consciousness, as an emergent property or epiphenomenon of matter, is not faith-based? If it were not faith-based, I believe that WAMS should be able to say exactly what causes (or is) consciousness quite explicitly.
_
HypnoPsi

Give it time. Rome wasn't built in a day. These things take time to understand an figure out. Especially something as ill understood as the brain.
We've. only been studying the brain for a few years. and technology has only recently been catching up with theory. The best idealist and non-materialist have been able to come up with is spooks and goddidit.