On naturalism and consciousness

[Mudhammam]

This is precisely what I mean. -If a machine ever- begs the question -do they already-. Machines do ask those first two questions constantly, the third is meaningless because they aren't biological entities - in the same way that meds are meaningless. You're asking for an entirely dissimilar architecture to express itself in a way understandable more as "human" than as "conscious" - wouldn't you say?

I'm not begging the question. There's no reason to think any AI is conscious any more than your thermostat (or maybe you think that possesses an inkling of consciousness?). Yes, they can perform incredibly "intelligent" functions. They can't self-introspect, ponder the meaning of their existence, feel emotion, pleasure, pain, etc. I challenge you to provide any material support--as in name one pioneer of AI who claims this to currently be the case--if you seriously contend otherwise. MAYBE that will be possible someday, but it's not at this point, with not even a clear path on how to get there (because we don't know what causes consciousness to arise other than its connection to brains). And how was the third question meaningless? Surely, despite regular maintenance, computers age and eventually "die" too. That I hope it might express itself in a way that is similar to human beings in order to determine the state of its "conscious self," well, I'm not exactly sure how else you'd expect us to be able to confidently assert that it is a conscious mind otherwise.

I don't think pan-psychism has anything to offer us. Not all claims are created equal. We -do- have "Einsteins" doing that btw. Curiously, those einsteins aren't testing beach sand for consciousness, nor are they attempting to understand our architecture as some sort of radio transceiver. They have a good idea as to what they're looking for and where they'll find it (I mention this not because it's indicative of them being right, just that they're doing work on "something" that has a demonstrable effect - juxtaposed with claims that get no further than the claiming). I simply cant place pan-psychism on the same shelf as these. The field isn't wide open, for me.

I disagee. There are no current "Einsteins" just as there are no "Newtons" or "Darwins." That is, these men were truly able to apprehend the magnitude of their respective fields and bring many of the wide ranging conflicts into a revolutionary new paradigm. There are many brilliant men and women working in the field of AI and neurobiology and philosophy of mind and what not, but no one as far as I can tell who has put forth any workable theory that brings all these disputes into an entirely new framework. I say that because if there was, no doubt he or she would be well-recognized above the rest.

Is panpsychism a valuable contribution to philosophy? I don't know. At this point I tend to agree with you on that particular, but so long as it keeps people thinking about the problem in innovative ways, I appreciate it as a theory of mind as I do any other thoughtful hypothesis (again, I myself putting my own position--physical monism--slightly above the rest).

I don't really disagree with the general sentiment you're putting forth, Rhythm. It's just the confidence and certainty that you're expressing (as I perceive it anyhow) in a particular point of view that I'm trying to get you to justify, or at least minimize.