Cato Wrote:I trust that when a fellow human is describing his/her experience that he/she is experiencing qualia. This is reasonable since my experience is very similar to that being described and the fact that qualia is able to be discussed.

And if the Cyberboy 3000 describes its "experience?" Or Siri? We are getting close to the age in which instinctive hunches based on face shapes and body motions, or the formations of linguistic forms, are not guaranteed to represent actual sentience.

Quote:What isn't contestable are the types of existents that experience qualia. You'll hear speculation as to whether or not a squirrel or toad will experience qualia, but will never hear reasonable people discuss whether or not a rock or an atom experiences qualia. To do so is absurd and meaningless. Inveighing the hypothetical philosophical zombie as something to be taken seriously is similarly grotesque; reason being is that you areYou are engaging in useless speculation and calling it philosophy.

I'm still waiting for actual evidence. Other than an instinct-based hunch, what evidence can you provide that anything experiences qualia?

Quote:Productive conversations can be had regarding qualia, but not when you hang your hat on atoms experiencing qualia and the existence of philosophical zombies.

I'm not hanging my hat on anything except an unwillingness to conflate a philosophical argument (looks like me, so feels and thinks like me) with actual evidence (There's qualia, there's the brain, there's a lack of qualia, there's a lack of brain.)

---

Chas Wrote:

bennyboy Wrote:Some things are not observable by others. For example, my qualia are real and easily identified-- by me. You, however, cannot ever have access to my "what it's like to drink cocoa" sensations.

This is precisely where you are making assumptions. You do not know this to be true. Nor do you have any evidence for that claim. You are simply declaring this to be not possible.

Science of the gaps, now, is it?

I declare it's not possible in the same way I declare it's not possible to see fairies. You declare it may be possible because you have faith in science. You've done a good job eliminating "yet" from these statements, but it's still lingering.

Quote:Pro tip: Every time a scientist has predicted there is no room for advancement, or that all is known, he has been wrong. Every. Single. Time.

This is both a strawman AND a false statement. First, I've never said nobody could ever learn more about qualia. I've said nobody could ever directly access qualia or prove that a given physical system actually had them rather than just seeming to.

Second, there have been many times in which science made no advancement-- those times in which scientific ideas were wrong.

Quote:"Extra"? "unnecessary"? Why? Because you see them as something other than consciousness?

No. Because in this thread, the philosophical argument is made that an entity SEEMING to be conscious is sufficient evidence to believe that it really is.

Quote:I suspect they are part and parcel with consciousness.
That they are an integral part of what consciousness is.
You have no evidence that they are not.

You can suspect whatever you want. However, until you can actually show that qualia exist empirically, rather than by making philosophical assumptions about physical correlates of consciousness, you are engaged in philosophy, not science.

(May 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

Chas Wrote:This is precisely where you are making assumptions. You do not know this to be true. Nor do you have any evidence for that claim. You are simply declaring this to be not possible.

Science of the gaps, now, is it?

That's really twisted, benny. You are the one making the claim. You have no basis for your statement about the limits of science.

Quote:I declare it's not possible in the same way I declare it's not possible to see fairies. You declare it may be possible because you have faith in science. You've done a good job eliminating "yet" from these statements, but it's still lingering.

No - you are making the assertion that it is not possible without any justification except that it hasn't been done yet.

Quote:

Quote:Pro tip: Every time a scientist has predicted there is no room for advancement, or that all is known, he has been wrong. Every. Single. Time.

This is both a strawman AND a false statement. First, I've never said nobody could ever learn more about qualia. I've said nobody could ever directly access qualia or prove that a given physical system actually had them rather than seeming to.

Not a strawman - you have, in fact, said that there is a limit on what we can learn about qualia.

Quote:Second, there have been many times in which science made no advancement-- those times in which scientific ideas were based on false ideas.

I didn't say there weren't areas where no progress was made. Try reading what I actually write.

Quote:

Quote:"Extra"? "unnecessary"? Why? Because you see them as something other than consciousness?

No. Because in this thread, the philosophical argument is made that an entity SEEMING to be conscious is sufficient evidence to believe that it really ils.

Which has precisely nothing to do with anything I've said.

Quote:

Quote:I suspect they are part and parcel with consciousness.
That they are an integral part of what consciousness is.
You have no evidence that they are not.

You can suspect whatever you want. However, until you can actually show that qualia exist empirically, rather than by making philosophical assumptions about physical correlates of consciousness, you are engaged in philosophy, not science.

I know that we experience the thing termed 'qualia'. My point is that there may not be any separate thing as qualia, that it is just an aspect of consciousness.

(May 19, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Chas Wrote:

(May 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Science of the gaps, now, is it?

That's really twisted, benny. You are the one making the claim. You have no basis for your statement about the limits of science.

Sure I do. I've specified that by "science" I'm referring to the physical sciences. In order to study something in science, you have to show that it has a physical existence-- either as an object, or as a property of objects. So far, nobody has defined qualia precisely, or even shown them to exist.

Quote:No - you are making the assertion that it is not possible without any justification except that it hasn't been done yet.

No, I'm making the assertion based on the nature of qualia, and on the type of things which science is designed to investigate.

Quote:Not a strawman - you have, in fact, said that there is a limit on what we can learn about qualia.

If I said it, go ahead and quote it.

Quote:I didn't say there weren't areas where no progress was made. Try reading what I actually write.

You said, " Every time a scientist has predicted there is no room for advancement, or that all is known, he has been wrong. Every. Single. Time."

Let me go on record now by announcing formally that I predict that there is no room for advancement in the field of chicken-gut divining.

Quote:I know that we experience the thing termed 'qualia'. My point is that there may not be any separate thing as qualia, that it is just an aspect of consciousness.

Consciousness?

I would agree that qualia are, by definition, an aspect of consciousness. But then I'd realize that you are using a definition of consciousness that has already been repurposed to fit into the physical monist world view: states of brain function, fMRI scans, etc. and not the subjective experience that consciousness really refers to.

(May 18, 2014 at 3:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Some things are not observable by others. For example, my qualia are real and easily identified-- by me. You, however, cannot ever have access to my "what it's like to drink cocoa" sensations.

What do you mean by "real" in this case? If by "real" you mean that your qualia "exists," I'd say that's yet to be demonstrated. Not only do others not have access to your "what it's like" experiences, you don't have access either. I'm sure you "believe" that you have qualia, but your belief can have other explanations than the existence* of qualia. So, in what sense is your qualia knowably "real" ?

(May 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm)bennyboy Wrote: And if the Cyberboy 3000 describes its "experience?" Or Siri? We are getting close to the age in which instinctive hunches based on face shapes and body motions, or the formations of linguistic forms, are not guaranteed to represent actual sentience.

Why are you invoking technology here? Future AI and subsequent boundaries for sentience is an entirely different discussion.

Quote:I'm still waiting for actual evidence. Other than an instinct-based hunch, what evidence can you provide that anything experiences qualia?

Nobody but you seems to discount qualia as an attribute of human consciousness, so I don't understand what you're getting on about. If you're looking for correlation of neurological impacts to qualia please read about occipitotemporal lesions causing prosopagnosia.

(May 17, 2014 at 2:26 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Oh, now you change the terms to mean something else... ok.
You can have the cake...

No I did not. Those problems are fundametnally metaphysical, totally dependent on philosphical notions, not empirical problems... It IS philosophy AND physics. This was clear as crystal for Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc. B

Quote:Do you mind writing down that equation?
Somehow, I don't think that Shrödinger's equation will have what you think it does... but I need to see it, first.

Is this the fisrt time you hear about it or are you just playing an idiot? It is not this: G(m1m2)/r^2, but it is quite as famous. If you don't know what it is and what's it even about, why do you ask to see it? It makes simply absolutely no sense, because you can't really understand the formula if you have not studied physics. The equation describes how the wave-function evolves. That's enough for our purposes. google it, if you don't believe what I wirte.

Quote:You're arguing for a theory that's far... very far... from demonstrated... if it will ever be.

I was not arguing for anyhing except against dogmatism and ignorance. I have explicitly stated that I do not believe that the tehroy is shown to be true. But neither is hard AI or any of its competitor. So, if can't even understand what I mean and don't mean, even if I can hardly have been mopre clear on this ...

Quote:And the major piece of evidence the proponents of the theory have to show is the effect of anesthetics on some structures within the neurons.

No, that's not the major evidence. You have not understood the article, nor the theory, as I have already told you.

Quote:This is what I mean that correlation does not imply causation: the effect of the anesthetic does not mean that the theory is correct...

Oh shit. I just wasted some lines in pointing out to you that NOBODY is claiming that it is evidence of anything. But you did not understand anything about it. The logic of falsification. You only verify precisly what I said: inductionist fallscy. (And you have no idea what that means)

Quote:All I saw was that it impaired movement of tadpoles...
My reading skillz must be a bit off, I am getting a bit old!

Those drugs are commonly used with humans, but it is easier to research them with tadpoles, for obvious ethical reasons.

Quote:But before Copernicus, no one falsified it... Concerning Penrose's theory we are in the pre-Copernicus era... We'll see how it develops.

Yes, in terms of consciousness we ARE living pre-copernicanian era!
Now you show show a glimpse of understanding. It's a serious scientific theory, and as it is with science, it always begins with guesses, and some of those guesses turn out to be supported by evidence, where others fail; and the process of getting the "evidence", to corroborate it, ("trying to falsify tht theory"), that can be a long path.

Quote:Turing machines are sequential machines, like all computer CPUs up to the 90's. At best, one can claim that current parallel CPUs can do the same as a single CPU, it just takes longer. The brain, it seems, has different areas dedicated to different tasks, meaning that one of those areas could not perform the tasks of the other areas, so it is a parallel machine not reducible to a sequential one.
Thus any analogy between the brain and a Turing machine, like what Penrose is trying to accomplish, is faulty.
The theory fails at the most basic level.... and no one notices, because Penrose has worked with such great minds as Stephen Hawkins... -.-'

First you can't grasp a thing that is obvious (how Gödel's proof is connected with mind) and when I have to explain it to you, you start out being sarcastic. Now, a little intellctual honesty, please.

Anyhow, as I told you, if you read what I write, that I do not find the argument that appealing, and that is for precisely the reasons you give. I am perfectly aware of all that. To put it in mathematical terms, you don't have to assume that brain is sound, or, you can assume that only some module of it is. However, as I also wrote, the Orc OR does not rest logically on that argument. Now, Penrose believes in it (and he has his reasons, you can be sure, that go beyond what you say, for the man is not an idiot), an for that reason and the reason that, if that argument were correct, that would, indeed, be one hell of an evidence for their theory, so that's why they start with it.

Personally, I don't believe in hard or soft AI, that is to say, I find it implausible (for reasons which would take too much time to explain), so I would like to believe in Penrose's argument, but unfortunately it is not a proof, even it is smart. But, as I said, there are other reasons to be skeptical of AI, as it implies dualism (D.Chalmers has shown this) plus some others.

Quote:Oh ,[fun time] you should meet the female half of the world's population!

But ...
twisted logic is still logic.

Quote:Ah.... ok.... enjoy that. That's not the problem at hand, remember?

Even if human mind is not equal with TM, it certainly can run it. They are connected. If mind is algiorithmic, obviously proofs about limits of algorithmic processing are connceted to it.


But you seem to make an error. I have read from an authorative book (I can't prove it mathematically) that all computations run by network-models can be executed by TM. So, as far as I understand it, you've got it wrong: the question is really not TM vs. some more holistic (or whatever) learning networks, but about soundness. Thus, even if Penrose's argument is not convincing, or at least not as convincing as it might appear, mind MUST be understood, within both hard AND soft AI as analogous to TM.

And some physicists claims that actually TM runs the whole world, but that's another story.

Quote:It's starting to feel like I'm arguing with a creationist...

Well, I can only tell that I feel the exactly the same, and guess what, In was going to end this with more or less with those very same words of yours, for I don'trepeat myself more than twice to people who cannot becaue of lack of intelligence or will no because of lack of intellctual honesty understand what Is say; your ignorance and and incapacity to understand what I write and were and were not in fact claiming, is certainly on the level of creatinist --

(May 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm)bennyboy Wrote: And if the Cyberboy 3000 describes its "experience?" Or Siri? We are getting close to the age in which instinctive hunches based on face shapes and body motions, or the formations of linguistic forms, are not guaranteed to represent actual sentience.

Well, once you can produce a strain of A.I. which can naturally and competently produce speech in a manner indistinguishable from an actual person, you might have a point. Sadly, they don't exist and even children wouldn't likely be fooled by even the most advanced ones developed.
Further, we have a complete understanding as to how these A.I. work. While psychology has advanced far, our knowledge of human psychology is not nearly comparable, aside from rather general assessments.

Quote:I'm still waiting for actual evidence. Other than an instinct-based hunch, what evidence can you provide that anything experiences qualia?

What evidence could you provide that the smoke you see in the distance is the result of a fire? Aside from the smoke itself, you could tell from the smell in the air, a general move by people away from the area, and/or the fact that you just saw an fire truck pass by and head in that direction. Are these guarantees that there's a fire making that smoke? No, but it's probabilistically favored. That's why we rightly assume that others have consciousness.

Quote:I'm not hanging my hat on anything except an unwillingness to conflate a philosophical argument (looks like me, so feels and thinks like me) with actual evidence (There's qualia, there's the brain, there's a lack of qualia, there's a lack of brain.)

You have a funny understanding of evidence then, which is information that makes a proposition more likely to be true than it would have been otherwise. The reason we think other people think and feel like us isn't merely "they look like me", it's because they behave like us and display more subtle signs of consciousness that are almost impossible to do consciously (subtle, subconsciously produced facial expressions are a prime example of this).

Quote:Science of the gaps, now, is it?

I declare it's not possible in the same way I declare it's not possible to see fairies. You declare it may be possible because you have faith in science. You've done a good job eliminating "yet" from these statements, but it's still lingering.

People love to say "science of the gaps" when they're saying something ridiculous. I've yet to see an example of "I don't know, therefore science". I have seen plenty of "We don't know yet, so we'll continue the science" and "It's a reasonable assumption that we believe X, Y and Z about consciousness".

Quote:This is both a strawman AND a false statement. First, I've never said nobody could ever learn more about qualia. I've said nobody could ever directly access qualia or prove that a given physical system actually had them rather than just seeming to.

Second, there have been many times in which science made no advancement-- those times in which scientific ideas were wrong.

I don't follow this. Even when you're wrong, you can make advancements. Alchemists were wrong, but they were the reason chemistry eventually blossomed. Newton was wrong on many things (the nature of space and time, his calculations of the solar system's orbits, etc.), but he practically cemented science as we know it as a legitimate discipline.

Quote:No. Because in this thread, the philosophical argument is made that an entity SEEMING to be conscious is sufficient evidence to believe that it really is.

Funnily enough, this water I'm drinking SEEMS to be water, but I can't be certain, so I probably shouldn't drink it...

Quote:You can suspect whatever you want. However, until you can actually show that qualia exist empirically, rather than by making philosophical assumptions about physical correlates of consciousness, you are engaged in philosophy, not science.

What I'm more interested in is why you think philosophical zombies are metaphysically possible. All you've really done so far is assert that they're epistemically possible, and then you make this unsupported leap that we should take them seriously as an actual metaphysical possibility.

I guess we both agree that the theory needs to mature a bit more until it's to be taken seriously... so I'll reply only to a few things.

(May 19, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Hegel Wrote:

Quote:Do you mind writing down that equation?
Somehow, I don't think that Shrödinger's equation will have what you think it does... but I need to see it, first.

Is this the fisrt time you hear about it or are you just playing an idiot? It is not this: G(m1m2)/r^2, but it is quite as famous. If you don't know what it is and what's it even about, why do you ask to see it? It makes simply absolutely no sense, because you can't really understand the formula if you have not studied physics. The equation describes how the wave-function evolves. That's enough for our purposes. google it, if you don't believe what I wirte.

I know what the Schrödinger Equation looks like... What I don't know is what the particular Schrödinger's Equation for microtubules looks like.
I even once had to solve it for a Hydrogen atom... yeah, every grad student's dream!
Add a bit of complexity to the system and you need numerical methods to solve it.
But perhaps the few nanometers of the microtubules is enough for them to behave a bit more classically... like Intel processors which are now reaching the limits o lithography with electrical tracks merely 22nm wide... and it seems they have a roadmap where they plan to do the same at 5nm by 2020. Holy cow!
Sure, they do have to take into account some QM for the gate switching and so on, but the tracks are only some 20 atoms wide and conduct electricity.

(May 19, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Hegel Wrote:

Quote:And the major piece of evidence the proponents of the theory have to show is the effect of anesthetics on some structures within the neurons.

No, that's not the major evidence. You have not understood the article, nor the theory, as I have already told you.

I told you I didn't read past a certain part, didn't I?

(May 19, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Hegel Wrote: inductionist fallscy. (And you have no idea what that means)

No, and I don't care.

(May 19, 2014 at 4:49 pm)Hegel Wrote: Now, Penrose believes in it (and he has his reasons, you can be sure, that go beyond what you say, for the man is not an idiot), an for that reason and the reason that, if that argument were correct, that would, indeed, be one hell of an evidence for their theory, so that's why they start with it.

Just because the man is smart, doesn't mean he's correct. Like I said on day one, he's biased.
He may be correct, to some extent... But the theory is not tested enough to become the mainstream notion.
Let's wait and see.... I anticipate Penrose himself will not see it, if it ever does get there.
Higgs was a bit luckier.

(May 19, 2014 at 4:25 pm)rasetsu Wrote: What do you mean by "real" in this case? If by "real" you mean that your qualia "exists," I'd say that's yet to be demonstrated.

I mean that there is a subjective experience of what things are like, rather than an absense of it.

(May 19, 2014 at 3:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No, I'm making the assertion based on the nature of qualia, and on the type of things which science is designed to investigate.

There is no such thing as a "type" of thing science is designed to investigate. Science in principle investigate all type of things. What science does do differently from everything else is to insist upon reliability of its own investigation by insisting on rigorous verification of its own results.

If science can verify its results, than science is superior to any other method. If science can not verify its results, then science is still no worse than any other method.

In principle, under no circumstances can any other method be prefer to science if one is concerned with reliability of one's investigative efforts, rather than attempting to uphold that which has no ground to be upheld.

To say something in principle can not be investigated by science is to admit whatever that thing is in principle unverifiable and thus in principle indistinguishable from hellucination, or bullshit.

(May 19, 2014 at 3:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

Quote:Not a strawman - you have, in fact, said that there is a limit on what we can learn about qualia.

If I said it, go ahead and quote it.

You have in effect said qualia is indistinguishable from either helluciation or bullshit.

---

(May 19, 2014 at 5:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 19, 2014 at 4:25 pm)rasetsu Wrote: What do you mean by "real" in this case? If by "real" you mean that your qualia "exists," I'd say that's yet to be demonstrated.

I mean that there is a subjective experience of what things are like, rather than an absense of it.

And why do you suppose science can not explain, in principle, not only the existence and operating mechanism of subjective experience in general, but why you might have imaged experiencing the particular subjective experience you think you have experienced?