On Consciousness

[dlorde]

They are consciously derived machines, that result purely from our consciousness. Nothing more. They don't have their own.

We are biologically derived machines that result purely from evolution by natural selection, nothing more. We can produce biological conscious entities almost at will (albeit without a full understanding of all the process details). Do you suppose some cosmic censor will prevent us creating non-biological consciousness once we figure out what it takes, or are you suggesting it's just too difficult?

 

[!Kaggen]

We are biologically derived machines that result purely from evolution by natural selection, nothing more. We can produce biological conscious entities almost at will (albeit without a full understanding of all the process details). Do you suppose some cosmic censor will prevent us creating non-biological consciousness once we figure out what it takes, or are you suggesting it's just too difficult?

Your choice of words is so 18th century.

When will we be mature enough in our approach to biological entities to avoid using descriptions from the economy to describe them?

It is revealing though that the type of usage from the 18th century for the unknown in biology as the latest economic fad has now graduated to computers, the darling of the economy today.

 

[dlorde]

Your choice of words is so 18th century.

Thanks
I hope my point got across - I notice you didn't address it. Which parts struck you as particularly 18th century?

When will we be mature enough in our approach to biological entities to avoid using descriptions from the economy to describe them?

Analogies can always assist understanding - which economy-related descriptions did you have in mind?

It is revealing though that the type of usage from the 18th century for the unknown in biology as the latest economic fad has now graduated to computers, the darling of the economy today.

What, in particular, does it reveal, and how would you rephrase it for the 21st century?

 

[Roboramma]

And Kaggen!, while you're answering dlorde's questions, perhaps you could also answer mine? Thanks.

 

[rocketdodger]

They are consciously derived machines, that result purely from our consciousness. Nothing more. They don't have their own.

Suppose we had the technology to construct an adult human from scratch, starting only with raw materials and a blueprint.

Would the constructed person be conscious like other adults -- adults, mind you, that are biologically and chemically indistinguishable from it ?

Or is the fact that this being was constructed based on technology somehow relevant?

 

[rocketdodger]

It is revealing though that the type of usage from the 18th century for the unknown in biology as the latest economic fad has now graduated to computers, the darling of the economy today.

You mean what you consider the unknown in biology.

 

[Itztli]

EM fields are real things. They are real just like neurons, axons and dendrites are. The EM field concept is one of the cornerstones of scientific exploration. There is no cop out involved in analyzing the possible consequences of the EM field inside a brain (beyond just the connectionist paradigm). This is a legitimate scientific question.

Sure, EM fields are real things, and every electrical charge that moves generates an EM field. However, the offered hypothesis that EM fields have anything to with consciousness is just an appeal to magic. It's very similar to the QM hypothesis that way.

To truly explain and understand consciousness you must be willing to cut it apart until you get pieces that are no longer conscious. For some people, that just doesn't sound possible, so they invent stuff like Quantum Mechanics or EM fields that keep the 'wholeness' of consciousness. The cop-out doesn't involve the physics of QM or EM, it involves the mental block to an explanation that involves only small, non-conscious parts.

 

[!Kaggen]

I'm actually talking about the predictions that we are able to make with physics. The fact, for instance, that Newtonian mechanics can be used to predict the next sighting of Halley's comet. Or that we can, with thermodynamics, rule out the possibility of perpetual motion machines, or that general relativity has withstood decades of experimental testing, or that QM has done the same.

These are not just descriptions of prior phenomena, they are descriptions of the world that make predictions about what we'll see in places that we haven't looked yet, and those predictions have turned out, time and again, to be incredibly accurate. You are saying that's a coincidence?

If not, why do you think those predictions have turned out to be accurate?

Yes they are a co-incidence. An accurate co-incidence.

Because they have yet to turn out to be inaccurate.

 

[!Kaggen]

Thanks
I hope my point got across - I notice you didn't address it. Which parts struck you as particularly 18th century?


Analogies can always assist understanding - which economy-related descriptions did you have in mind?


What, in particular, does it reveal, and how would you rephrase it for the 21st century?

Comparing biological organisms to the industrial machines driving the economics of the day.

None- biology should have nothing to do with economics. Sure, analogies appeal to the simple interpretations at the beginning of a journey of discovery, but they are merely there for a lack of new words and new understandings, not a substitute.

We are Homo sapiens .....

 

[!Kaggen]

You mean what you consider the unknown in biology.

Well yes if you have convinced yourself computer science explains everything you might find this difficult to swallow.

 

[!Kaggen]

to truly explain and understand consciousness meaning you must be willing to cut it apart until you get pieces that are no longer consciousmeaningful. For some people, that just doesn't sound possible, so they invent stuff like quantum mechanics poetry or em fields art that keep the 'wholeness' of consciousness. The cop-out doesn't involve the physics of qm poetry or em art, it involves the mental block to an explanation that involves only small, non-conscious meaningless parts.

ftfy

 

[tensordyne]

Sure, EM fields are real things, and every electrical charge that moves generates an EM field. However, the offered hypothesis that EM fields have anything to with consciousness is just an appeal to magic. It's very similar to the QM hypothesis that way.

To truly explain and understand consciousness you must be willing to cut it apart until you get pieces that are no longer conscious. For some people, that just doesn't sound possible, so they invent stuff like Quantum Mechanics or EM fields that keep the 'wholeness' of consciousness. The cop-out doesn't involve the physics of QM or EM, it involves the mental block to an explanation that involves only small, non-conscious parts.

I, for one, have no problem with breaking things down into their component parts (and also knowing how they combine back together again!). The problem I have with Dennett-like thinkers is that they do not get the Searle idea of consciousness, the something it is like to be something. The emphasis is always on behavior, on information flow. That is the low hanging fruit we already know how to investigate (not that these are worthless things to investigate, quite the opposite).

If you can tell me how you put things together in a certain way that causes that thing to experience red (or anything), then you have solved how to have something be artificially conscious. Like Searle, I see it is most logical to figure out how that happens in biological entities before trying it artificially (from an epistemological point of view it does not make sense to do it otherwise). If you do not know why the previous makes sense, it is my contention you are missing a major concept of what consciousness is about.

Perhaps the reason why some people do not get Searle is because they really are philosophical zombies. I find it much more likely however that there is an anti-sensation bias in some people's thinking due to culture or training. For myself, I would like to take Empiricism and apply it, as best we can, with as few assumptions as possible, to the internal states of what it is like to be something (in humans first for practical and epistemological reasons).

Don't get the above? I do not know what to say. It should be self-evident as far as I can tell (assuming the meaning of all the words are understood).

All the best to you all!

 

[PixyMisa]

EM fields are real things. They are real just like neurons, axons and dendrites are. The EM field concept is one of the cornerstones of scientific exploration. There is no cop out involved in analyzing the possible consequences of the EM field inside a brain (beyond just the connectionist paradigm). This is a legitimate scientific question.

It is a legitimate scientific question, and the answer is no.

 

[tensordyne]

They are consciously derived machines, that result purely from our consciousness. Nothing more. They don't have their own.

I am not so sure Zeuzzz. We have no logical or evidence based line of inference which allows us to say any of our machines are not conscious. Perhaps computers are designed in such a way that they feel intense, constant pain, or pleasure, or who knows what.

The only assumption that I have ever seen that makes sense about consciousness is that other humans (and animals in general) will have similar conscious states. It is at least a starting point that allows for a scientific investigation of consciousness.

 

[tensordyne]

It is a legitimate scientific question, and the answer is no.

OK, special note, I am moving past that question for now. If you wanna keep going on about it, that is your prerogative, just like it is my prerogative to leave those issues alone for the moment. I think I will get back to it but I have to look into some things (I did say I would look into two things and report back so I hope I will).

 

[Itztli]

ftfy

You just turned it into something else, but didn't fix anything.

 

[Itztli]

If you can tell me how you put things together in a certain way that causes that thing to experience red (or anything), then you have solved how to have something be artificially conscious.

If you believe it is possible to make conscious experiences you describe out of elements that are not themselves conscious, then why are EM fields such an appealing notion ?

As far as I can see, EM fields are attractive, because they avoid the cutting up of consciousness into non-conscious parts. They keep it whole. I have not seen anything that explains (in some kind of formal detail) what EM fields can do, that old fashioned wired connections between neurons or other elements could not do.

 

[Itztli]

Perhaps the reason why some people do not get Searle is because they really are philosophical zombies.

Yes, and people who do get Searle are just p-zombies in denial.

 

[Mr. Scott]

If you believe it is possible to make conscious experiences you describe out of elements that are not themselves conscious, then why are EM fields such an appealing notion ?

That's good! It seems some people believe that consciousness cannot be made up of unconscious parts. I wonder how far they feel it must be broken down. Perhaps they believe quantum interactions are the smallest bits of consciousness.

What I'm hearing is, "because of the way consciousness feels to me, the smallest pieces of my consciousness must also be conscious." In other words, divide the magic bean of consciousness in half, and you get two half-sized magic beans of consciousness? Divide each half again into quarters, etc, do you ever get a non-conscious bit of bean? If not, then do you have any theory of consciousness at all?

 

[Roboramma]

Yes they are a co-incidence. An accurate co-incidence.

Because they have yet to turn out to be inaccurate.

So, from you perspective, there's no reason to suspect that they will continue to be accurate in the future, correct?