why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[Dmitry1983]

By definition of p-zombie their behavior is identical to conscious humans. So from evolutionary point of view there is no need for subjective experience.

 What evidence do you have that a p-zombie would have behavior identical to humans? 

Robots don't have subjective experience and they can already act very similar to humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LikxFZZO2sk

It is likely that in future their behavior will be identical to humans.

---

By definition of p-zombie their behavior is identical to conscious humans. So from evolutionary point of view there is no need for subjective experience.

I'm interested in what evidence you have that a consciousness serves no function that would differentiate the behavior of a p-zombie from that of a conscious human being.  Simply assuming that it serves no such function is pointless.

What type of behavior can't be programmed in a robot without subjective experience?

[Angrboda]

 What evidence do you have that a p-zombie would have behavior identical to humans? 

Robots don't have subjective experience and they can already act very similar to humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LikxFZZO2sk

It is likely that in future their behavior will be identical to humans.

Seriously? Your evidence is that a robot can duplicate behaviors unrelated to consciousness, therefore they are close to duplicating behaviors associated with consciousness? Are you stupid?

Robots can exhibit some behaviors that are similar to those of humans, yet other behaviors, such as general intelligence, not so much. General intelligence is an important factor in survival, so your suggestion that robots are already close to human behavior and that they are likely to achieve identical behavior in the future is not supported. Even if we did manage to duplicate many of the human behaviors in robots, that doesn't mean we would be able to duplicate the behaviors associated with consciousness in humans in robots, so you are again begging the question by mere assertion. I know you can assert that something likely will happen. I'm looking for evidence. The history of artificial intelligence is a compelling argument against the suggestion that we are close to duplicating the feats of human behavior, specifically as it relates to survival. So, no, nothing you have provided is evidence that p-zombies that can be just as good as humans at survival can exist or are even likely. Try again.

[Dmitry1983]

Robots don't have subjective experience and they can already act very similar to humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LikxFZZO2sk

It is likely that in future their behavior will be identical to humans.

  that doesn't mean we would be able to duplicate the behaviors associated with consciousness in humans in robots

What are examples of such behaviors that can't be reproduced in a robot?

[bennyboy]

By definition of p-zombie their behavior is identical to conscious humans. So from evolutionary point of view there is no need for subjective experience.

Okay, that simply shifts the question without altering the substance any.  What evidence do you have that a p-zombie would have behavior identical to humans?  If you're simply defining a being to existence, then I'm not impressed.  That would be nothing more than an assertion that a being without consciousness could have the same behavior as a conscious being, and is little more than begging the question.  I'm interested in what evidence you have that a consciousness serves no function that would differentiate the behavior of a p-zombie from that of a conscious human being.  Simply assuming that it serves no such function is pointless.

There are no mental events that we know of that aren't correlates to physical functions, specifically the function of neurons as they collect information from the environment, process it, and output behaviors in response.  In fact, there is no way that I know of to demonstrate that sentient mind even exists at all, in any configuration of matter or its properties.

But given that consciousness DOES exist, either it adds something that is not present in physical mechanism, or it does not.  If it does, then the universe is not a physical monism-- it is dualistic at least, and evolution is not meant to describe the emergence of spirits or other immaterial quantities or properties AFAIK.  If it does not, then it is a happenstance artifact, which makes evolution as an explanation useless.


I would tend, then, to view matter itself as intrinsically dualistic, which would mean that consciousness doesn't evolve any more than fundamental particles do, because they are inseparable-- it is only the forms which it takes which might be said to evolve.

As for evidence-- perhaps we should start by establishing what evidence we could take that demonstrates mind exists at all, anywhere in the Universe? Given any physical system, and asked "Does it really experience rather than just seeming to?" how would you establish which to be the case? In other words, how might I differentiate between a sentient being and a p-zombie? Because if I can't, I'm not studying mind at all-- but rather a collection of behaviors which I've assumed to represent mind-- and that would be begging the question in a pretty obvious way.

[Belacqua]

From a new article on the Aeon web site:

"To put it bluntly, the claim that there’s nothing but physical reality is either false or empty. If ‘physical reality’ means reality as physics describes it, then the assertion that only physical phenomena exist is false. Why? Because physical science – including biology and computational neuroscience – doesn’t include an account of consciousness. This is not to say that consciousness is something unnatural or supernatural. The point is that physical science doesn’t include an account of experience; but we know that experience exists, so the claim that the only things that exist are what physical science tells us is false. On the other hand, if ‘physical reality’ means reality according to some future and complete physics, then the claim that there is nothing else but physical reality is empty, because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness."

by:

Adam Frank is professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester in New York.
Marcelo Gleiser is a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where he is the Appleton professor of natural philosophy and professor of physics and astronomy, and the director of the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement (ICE).
Evan Thompson is professor of philosophy and a scholar at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-blind-spot-of...experience

[GrandizerII]

From a new article on the Aeon web site:

"To put it bluntly, the claim that there’s nothing but physical reality is either false or empty. If ‘physical reality’ means reality as physics describes it, then the assertion that only physical phenomena exist is false. Why? Because physical science – including biology and computational neuroscience – doesn’t include an account of consciousness. This is not to say that consciousness is something unnatural or supernatural. The point is that physical science doesn’t include an account of experience; but we know that experience exists, so the claim that the only things that exist are what physical science tells us is false. On the other hand, if ‘physical reality’ means reality according to some future and complete physics, then the claim that there is nothing else but physical reality is empty, because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness."

by:

Adam Frank is professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester in New York.
Marcelo Gleiser is a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where he is the Appleton professor of natural philosophy and professor of physics and astronomy, and the director of the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement (ICE).
Evan Thompson is professor of philosophy and a scholar at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-blind-spot-of...experience

Maybe you've posted this already in this thread (and if so, I missed it), but what view of consciousness do you lean towards? Is it panpsychism? I've been hearing a lot about it lately, and it's interesting to say the least.

[Belacqua]

From a new article on the Aeon web site:

"To put it bluntly, the claim that there’s nothing but physical reality is either false or empty. If ‘physical reality’ means reality as physics describes it, then the assertion that only physical phenomena exist is false. Why? Because physical science – including biology and computational neuroscience – doesn’t include an account of consciousness. This is not to say that consciousness is something unnatural or supernatural. The point is that physical science doesn’t include an account of experience; but we know that experience exists, so the claim that the only things that exist are what physical science tells us is false. On the other hand, if ‘physical reality’ means reality according to some future and complete physics, then the claim that there is nothing else but physical reality is empty, because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness."

by:

Adam Frank is professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester in New York.
Marcelo Gleiser is a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where he is the Appleton professor of natural philosophy and professor of physics and astronomy, and the director of the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement (ICE).
Evan Thompson is professor of philosophy and a scholar at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-blind-spot-of...experience

Maybe you've posted this already in this thread (and if so, I missed it), but what view of consciousness do you lean towards? Is it panpsychism? I've been hearing a lot about it lately, and it's interesting to say the least.

No idea whatsoever-ism! 

To me it's a total mystery. Though panpsychism sounds sort of appealing, I don't see it as more than speculation yet. If you know some good links about it I'd be interested to read more.

[brewer]

From a new article on the Aeon web site:

"To put it bluntly, the claim that there’s nothing but physical reality is either false or empty. If ‘physical reality’ means reality as physics describes it, then the assertion that only physical phenomena exist is false. Why? Because physical science – including biology and computational neuroscience – doesn’t include an account of consciousness. This is not to say that consciousness is something unnatural or supernatural. The point is that physical science doesn’t include an account of experience; but we know that experience exists, so the claim that the only things that exist are what physical science tells us is false. On the other hand, if ‘physical reality’ means reality according to some future and complete physics, then the claim that there is nothing else but physical reality is empty, because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness."

by:

Adam Frank is professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester in New York.
Marcelo Gleiser is a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where he is the Appleton professor of natural philosophy and professor of physics and astronomy, and the director of the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement (ICE).
Evan Thompson is professor of philosophy and a scholar at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-blind-spot-of...experience

I disagree, this statement is based on limited considerations. Medical science takes consciousness and experience into account all of the time.

[Alan V]

"Electrochemical events in the brain are perceived by the subject as experiences because it's an emergent property and someday we'll know why that is" is about the same.

No, electrochemical events in the brain are perceived by the subject as experiences because they are happening to the subject's body, to him or her. We won't understand it in the way you prefer because it doesn't reduce to simple explanations. This is implied by emergentism: New properties of a complex arrangement of matter like the human brain cannot be explained by simply examining its components working in isolation. In other words, they don't reduce to mere physics or even to component parts. Thus the orchestra analogy.

You may think you're making me look foolish, but you're making yourself look foolish to me for not understanding what emergentism implies.

What neither you nor Bennyboy seem to understand is that I am trying to provide my own interpretations of what I have read from scientific experts. In fact, I'm presently working on a summary of points from the book The Consciousness Instinct by Michael Gazzaniga to explain what I mean, since you obviously won't take it from me. I will likely post that within the week. If that doesn't help, I will stop trying to explain this subject to you.

The bottom line is that scientific experts do offer complex explanations for "Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind" -- the subtitle of the book. You and Bennyboy simply don't agree with them. Thus your overstated arguments against them.

[tackattack]

So can we program robots to be intuitive and thus fallible and would that be worth doing if possible?