I take it that you, Genkaus, consider consciousness an algorithmic (Turing) process independent of the specific form of the processor/brain. Is that correct? Does consciousness serve a necessary function or is it an epiphenomenon, a functionless by-product of deterministic events?

---

(May 10, 2012 at 12:00 am)padraic Wrote: Proof? Not yet. So what? I'm merely opining, not trying to convince you of anything. I may be wrong,no matter how unlikely I think that might be.

That sounds alot like faith to me. You really don't have any excuse for ridiculing other people's beliefs now do you?

(May 10, 2012 at 10:29 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I take it that you, Genkaus, consider consciousness an algorithmic (Turing) process independent of the specific form of the processor/brain. Is that correct?

Yes.

(May 10, 2012 at 10:29 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Does consciousness serve a necessary function or is it an epiphenomenon, a functionless by-product of deterministic events?

I assume you are referring to my domino analogy. Notice how I said that every domino would be connected to another domino in another pattern. Thus, consciousness would not be an epiphenomenon, it would be a function that connects the stimulus to the response.

(May 10, 2012 at 10:39 am)genkaus Wrote: ...every domino would be connected to another domino in another pattern. Thus, consciousness would not be an epiphenomenon, it would be a function that connects the stimulus to the response.

I don't see where consciousness gets inserted into the causal chain. Suppose the brain in question was not organic, but a series of gears, levers and hydronic pumps. The interactions of those parts would be clearly visible and seen to act one upon the other to produce behaviors normally associated with consciousness. But you wouldn't see anything related to sensation or experience involved.

(May 10, 2012 at 11:31 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I don't see where consciousness gets inserted into the causal chain. Suppose the brain in question was not organic, but a series of gears, levers and hydronic pumps. The interactions of those parts would be clearly visible and seen to act one upon the other to produce behaviors normally associated with consciousness. But you wouldn't see anything related to sensation or experience involved.

Once you are able to make a series of gears, levers and hydraulic pumps that mimic all of human behavior, you'd simply be able to see where consciousness comes in. You should remember, when talking about human behavior, it's not just the external behavior we're talking about. Capacity to perceive through senses and the capacity to perceive one's own thoughts, actions and motivations also form a part of human behavior. Once someone becomes capable of creating this complex piece of machinery, the problem of consciousness would be resolved.

Why do you assume consciousness is some separate levitated entity, rather than an emergent phenomena of a sufficiently complex but ad hoc system of ultimately deterministic nature?

Your consciouness is nothing but a gap filler trying to, in one single bound and in nebulous and obscurantist language - which is always a deadly sin to intellectual honesty - something whose detailed granular operation we have considerable knowledge of, but whose overall complexity as yet defies our ability to comprehensively model.

(May 10, 2012 at 11:46 am)genkaus Wrote: Once you are able to make a series of gears, levers and hydraulic pumps that mimic all of human behavior, you'd simply be able to see where consciousness comes in…Capacity to perceive through senses and the capacity to perceive one's own thoughts, actions and motivations also form a part of human behavior…Once someone becomes capable of creating this complex piece of machinery, the problem of consciousness would be resolved.

I’m not so sure of that. Star Trek - The Next Generation, Episode 35: The Measure of a Man explores this problem in an interesting dramatic form. The simulation of outward human behavior doesn’t prove that the machine has an interior subjective experience. In my opinion, no one can experience someone else’s subjective consciousness, which is what you are describing, not a link in the causal chain. Perhaps if some cybernetic link could be formed between an organic brain and a machine consciousness and if the sensory input from the machine was radically different for the machine (like echo-location), and if the human experience a whole different set of qualia, THEN I would consider that very compelling evidence of machine consciousness. But that’s a lot of ‘ifs’.

(May 10, 2012 at 11:47 am)Chuck Wrote: Why do you assume consciousness is some separate levitated entity,..Your [concept of] consciouness is nothing but a gap filler trying to, in one single bound and in nebulous and obscurantist language[, explain]…something whose detailed granular operation we have considerable knowledge of, but whose overall complexity as yet defies our ability to comprehensively model.

I am not a dualist and you do not understand my stance. I do not invoke a separate medium from an alternate reality to account for consciousness. My position generally aligns with pan-psychism. This view considers some mental phenomena to be inherent properties of reality, must like mass and charge. My position differs from materialism in that materialism denies the existence of all mental phenomena below some, as yet undefined, scale. It’s a subtle difference but one that, in my opinion, has theological implications. Because of the subtlety of the concepts involved, Genkaus, me, and others, have been very careful with how we express ourselves. The goal is clarity and specificity. It seems to me you would rather not delve into the details of your opinions since that might reveal how shallow your opinions really are.

(May 10, 2012 at 3:15 am)Ryft Wrote: ...

(May 9, 2012 at 9:03 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Why does it seem to you that only in God one can have an absolute standard of truth from which logic reflects? What does God provide that the universe by itself doesn't, in other words?

The metaphysically necessary preconditions for the existence and intelligibility of normative and necessarily true propositions.

I can't deal with all your points just yet because this is an area I haven't properly studied.

It seems to me that whether or not God exists, a person's understanding of rationality ultimately comes from universe. For instance, I can hold a red ball in my left hand and a blue ball in my right hand. I can see that they're two different objects. The blue ball cannot be the red ball. I can try to mash them together has hard as I can and they are still separate entities. But nevertheless the red ball is still itself, and the blue ball is still itself. Perhaps this is ultimately where the law of non-contradiction comes from. It's inconceivable for the red ball to be the blue ball because I have no experience of this being possible.

One might say logical laws are the result of analogous experiences that we have everyday of our lives since childhood. If you were to ask me how I know that A cannot be not-A, I might say because I have no experience nor conception otherwise.

Also, I don't see how positing the existence of God helps in this matter. If all our knowledge comes from experiences and memory of the space/time universe, and God is immaterial/eternal perhaps he could have created a universe made up of something other than space/time, and we'd then have completely different "logical" laws.

(May 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: ....... This view considers some mental phenomena to be inherent properties of reality, must like mass and charge.

Both parts of this statement is nonsensical. Mass and charge are not properties of reality. Reality has existed as a perception for eons before the vaguest notion of charge and mass ever came into being.

Charge and mass are now seen as potentially emergent properties of some, by no means all, constituents of a universe that is thought (very profitably) to exist independently of any preception of reality; but which has now, through contingent events, also become perceived as part of reality by some.

So, clarify whether you assert mental phenomena to be fundamental to the perception of reality, but which is not necessarily fundamental per se to any universe that might provide an external framework in which perception of reality can emerge; or you assert that mental phenomena is indeed to fundamental per se to any universe, or a fundamental constituent that may exist independent of perception of really, but which thorugh contingents events, may have become part of perception of reality.

(May 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I’m not so sure of that. Star Trek - The Next Generation, Episode 35: The Measure of a Man explores this problem in an interesting dramatic form.

Never seen it.

(May 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The simulation of outward human behavior doesn’t prove that the machine has an interior subjective experience.

Isn't that what I just said? To properly simulate consciousness, your machine should have the capacity for sensations and self-awareness.

(May 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In my opinion, no one can experience someone else’s subjective consciousness, which is what you are describing, not a link in the causal chain.

That is most certainly not what I'm describing. The mechanism in place that gives rise to and effects your subjective experience is a part of your identity. The only way I could have that experience is if I had that mechanism and then it'd be a part of my identity. Which means I'd be you.

(May 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Perhaps if some cybernetic link could be formed between an organic brain and a machine consciousness and if the sensory input from the machine was radically different for the machine (like echo-location), and if the human experience a whole different set of qualia, THEN I would consider that very compelling evidence of machine consciousness. But that’s a lot of ‘ifs’.

No, you wouldn't. Because, for the duration of the link, the machine and human consciousnesses wouldn't exist separately and would be considered a singular consciousness - neither human nor machine. You would not be able to say for certain that the machine had a consciousness for a fact because the basic parts which define a consciousness are already present in the human brain and therefore would automatically be a part of this new consciousness.

That episode of TNG was a famous episode that deals with the sentience of Data. I had to watch it in a philosophy class once. Relevant part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PMlDidyG_I