(October 11, 2018 at 11:13 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:05 am)polymath257 Wrote: So, yes, all people are conscious

You can observe only your own consciousness yet claiming without scientific proof that everyone else is conscious.

Quote:Yes, it is irrational to think that a p-zombie will respond *identically* in every way to all stimuli as something conscious and NOT be conscious.

Why is it irrational?

Quote: In what way are they *not* conscious? Why would they do all of these things *unless* they are, in fact, conscious?

They don't experience qualia

Why do you think it is possible to be physically identical to something that experiences qualia and NOT experience them?

Why do you assume it is possible for something to report having qualia, discuss qualia, wax eloquent about qualia, and still not actually experience qualia? 

To me, those seem fundamentally contradictory.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:23 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 10:01 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Why? Can you prove it scientifically?

Science is not another word for math or whiskey; it does not prove, it merely shows us what the evidence indicates Evidence that our brains produce all of our mental states: all the evidence we have.

Scientists have never observed mental states they only observed behaviour

(October 11, 2018 at 10:12 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 10:05 am)polymath257 Wrote: Well, what is pain? It is an adversive reaction to a potentially damaging stimulus. I don't see any reason why that isn't possible in silicon.

Supercomputers are more powerful than human brains. Reproducing single artificial qualia like feeling of pain should have been done by now

The most advanced supercomputer of our time would takes about 40 minutes to simulate about one second of human brain activity. Where did you get the fanciful notion that we have a supercomputer more powerful than a human brain?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:25 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:13 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: You can observe only your own consciousness yet claiming without scientific proof that everyone else is conscious.

Why is it irrational?

They don't experience qualia

Why do you think it is possible to be physically identical to something that experiences qualia and NOT experience them?

Why do you assume it is possible for something to report having qualia, discuss qualia, wax eloquent about qualia, and still not actually experience qualia? 

Why do you think it is impossible?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:22 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:16 am)polymath257 Wrote: I disagree. if they are able to report experiencing qualia, discussing qualia in detail, etc, it is meaningless to say they don't experience qualia.

By definition p-zombie can talk about qualia without experiencing it. You can even teach computer to do that.

Quote:And that is sufficient *from a scientific perspective* to say they are, in fact, conscious.

What does science have to do with your personal opinion?

And if you can get a computer to pass an unrestricted Turing test, that computer is conscious.

Science is *defined* by the use of testable hypotheses. In this case, the hypothesis that other people have internal states is supported by a wide range of observations and deductions. It is eminently testable and has passed all relevant tests. That makes it scientific.

---

(October 11, 2018 at 11:27 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:25 am)polymath257 Wrote: Why do you think it is possible to be physically identical to something that experiences qualia and NOT experience them?

Why do you assume it is possible for something to report having qualia, discuss qualia, wax eloquent about qualia, and still not actually experience qualia? 

Why do you think it is impossible?

Because I believe that all mental states supervene on the physical.

---

(October 11, 2018 at 11:25 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:23 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Science is not another word for math or whiskey; it does not prove, it merely shows us what the evidence indicates Evidence that our brains produce all of our mental states: all the evidence we have.

Scientists have never observed mental states they only observed behaviour

Sorry, that's like saying that scientists have never observed an electric field, they have only observed the effects of such fields. The observation of such effects *is* an observation of the field. Or, in this case, of consciousness.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 10:12 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Supercomputers are more powerful than human brains. Reproducing single artificial qualia like feeling of pain should have been done by now

The most advanced supercomputer of our time would takes about 40 minutes to simulate about one second of human brain activity. 

1 You don't have to emulate whole human brain but only one small part that is responcible for single qualia like feeling of pain.
2 You don't have to do it in real time. It doesn't matter if CPU is experiencing pain for 1 second or 40 minutes.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:13 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: You can observe only your own consciousness yet claiming without scientific proof that everyone else is conscious.

Then if you believe there are no other consciousness and or minds it really begs the question. What are you doing on a discussion board ?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:29 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The most advanced supercomputer of our time would takes about 40 minutes to simulate about one second of human brain activity. 

1 You don't have to emulate whole human brain but only one small part that is responcible for single qualia like feeling of pain.
2 You don't have to do it in real time. It doesn't matter if CPU is experiencing pain for 1 second or 40 minutes.

I disagree. Consciousness involves a real-time interaction with an environment. Furthermore, it is distributed over the brain and so modeling of one part of the brain is not sufficient.

Furthermore, modelling the neural network is different than *being* a neural network. So we would be modelling consciousness, not being conscious. Unless, that is, your supercomputer has the neural network structure of the brain.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:22 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:16 am)polymath257 Wrote: I disagree. if they are able to report experiencing qualia, discussing qualia in detail, etc, it is meaningless to say they don't experience qualia.

By definition p-zombie can talk about qualia without experiencing it. You can even teach computer to do that.

You want to believe that? Fine. Imagine us all out of existence and fuck right off happy in your bubble of pointless solipsistic navel gazing. What is stopping you from doing just that?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:22 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:16 am)polymath257 Wrote: And that is sufficient *from a scientific perspective* to say they are, in fact, conscious.

What does science have to do with your personal opinion?

Well, if one's personal opinion is science-based, rather a lot.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:27 am)polymath257 Wrote: Science is *defined* by the use of testable hypotheses. In this case, the hypothesis that other people have internal states is supported by a wide range of observations and deductions.

Then why are you talking about consciousness if science can only observe behavior?

Quote:Because I believe that all mental states supervene on the physical.

Can you prove it scientifically? What if brain is only transmitter/receiver?

Quote:Sorry, that's like saying that scientists have never observed an electric field, they have only observed the effects of such fields. The observation of such effects *is* an observation of the field. Or, in this case, of consciousness.

Scientists have never observed qualia