Quantum consciousness...

[I_am_not_mafia]

Either way, there is no reason to pre-suppose that we cannot build artificial conscious agents.

I agree.  But the question is-- how would you know if you did?  You could operationalize consciousness in purely objective terms, but that begs the question because it is the subjectivity which makes mind interesting.

Well we'd be building conscious robots for a reason. We'd therefore be judging the robots that we build on whether they perform the functionality that we want of them. Whether someone wants to call them conscious or not would come afterwards, and not be particularly relevant unless we were concerned with AI-rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can we ever prove that we are conscious? Can we prove that an animal is? This is why it is important to define it first, so we have some way of determining whether something is conscious or not.

No, we can't.  And, in fact, I'd say that consciousness is so essential to existence that our inability to objectively observe it doesn't bode well for objective observation as the best way to learn about the mind.  I really think we have to define at least some of what "science" means to include methodical self-observation a la the roots of psychology.

b-mine

I'm not sure why you think this is so.  Do you also think that we cannot objectively observe electrical current with a voltimeter?  That we cannot objectively observe temperature with a thermometer? Time with a stopwatch?

[bennyboy]

No, we can't.  And, in fact, I'd say that consciousness is so essential to existence that our inability to objectively observe it doesn't bode well for objective observation as the best way to learn about the mind.  I really think we have to define at least some of what "science" means to include methodical self-observation a la the roots of psychology.

b-mine

I'm not sure why you think this is so.  Do you also think that we cannot objectively observe electrical current with a voltimeter?  That we cannot objectively observe temperature with a thermometer?  Time with a stopwatch?

You are exactly sure why I think so, since we've debated it at least a dozen times.  The issue is to what degree one will accept physical correlates of mind AS mind, and whether this relationship is true by definition, or something which bears the BOP.

If I'm dreaming about a magic unicorn, and you are watching my brain, you will probably know that I am dreaming, and you may eventually be able to know that I'm dreaming about a magic unicorn.  You will not be able to ride it with me.  That's because you aren't actually conscious of what I'm conscious of.  At least right now, we will get MUCH better results by teaching me to lucid dream, by getting me in the habit of writing in a little dream diary as soon as I wake up, and so on.

Now, you can definitely do physical science.  You can poke brain parts with an electrode and ask me when I wake up what I experienced.  You can crash symbols at the exact moment I reach deep sleep and see if I was thinking anything at all.

However, a science of consciousness which attempts to completely bypass the subjectivity of it is just cheating.  You don't get to say "Well, the robot can see everything in the room, so it's conscious!" and then pretend you're not just conflating a new meaning with the study of subjectivity.  Or, even worse, you don't get to dodge the BOP: "Until you can prove otherwise, these 20 billion androids meet the US Scientific Standard™ for consciousness, so we must legislate to protect their rights."

[The Grand Nudger]

b-mine

I'm not sure why you think this is so.  Do you also think that we cannot objectively observe electrical current with a voltimeter?  That we cannot objectively observe temperature with a thermometer?  Time with a stopwatch?

You are exactly sure why I think so, since we've debated it at least a dozen times.  The issue is to what degree one will accept physical correlates of mind AS mind, and whether this relationship is true by definition, or something which bears the BOP.

If I'm dreaming about a magic unicorn, and you are watching my brain, you will probably know that I am dreaming, and you may eventually be able to know that I'm dreaming about a magic unicorn.  You will not be able to ride it with me.  That's because you aren't actually conscious of what I'm conscious of.  At least right now, we will get MUCH better results by teaching me to lucid dream, by getting me in the habit of writing in a little dream diary as soon as I wake up, and so on.

I can't ride an electrical current, a heat wave, or time either.  Yes, I've heard you try to explain why you make that claim - it's just never made sense to me from any angle, not even a word use angle divorced from any consideration of science you agree/don't agree with.  OFC we can objectively observe consciousness, just as we objectively observe electrical currents, temperature, and time...and just as we can objectively observe a person speaking spanish - even if we have no idea wtf they're talking about...not being a spanish speaker.

Now, you can definitely do physical science.  You can poke brain parts with an electrode and ask me when I wake up what I experienced.  You can crash symbols at the exact moment I reach deep sleep and see if I was thinking anything at all.

However, a science of consciousness which attempts to completely bypass the subjectivity of it is just cheating.  You don't get to say "Well, the robot can see everything in the room, so it's conscious!" and then pretend you're not just conflating a new meaning with the study of subjectivity.  Or, even worse, you don't get to dodge the BOP: "Until you can prove otherwise, these 20 billion androids meet the US Scientific Standard™ for consciousness, so we must legislate to protect their rights."

I'm unaware of any proposal that attempts to bypass the subjectivity of a human being?  Just about any explanation of a human mind will necessarily be bound up in the necessary subjectivity of the human organism.  My mind doesn't have access to your eyes, or anyone else's.  That I can see "everything in the room" isn't, either in human or robot parlance, any certification that I will see what you see.....nor is the ability to "see everything in the room" - so far as I'm aware, the bar of consciousness by any proposal for either myself or AI.

.......................?

Personally, I would suspect that any notions of AI rights would sound alot like notions of animals rights - wherein some compelling similarity between ourselves and animals -or- AI - that is fundamental to our own justification of our own right is pointed to by proponents as a bid for consistency. Good luck to them, on that count. They'll need it. I doubt that anyone in that scenario would seek to shirk the burden of proof..but, rather, to expound upon exhaustive proof and demonstration until the other person is sick of hearing their voice.

[bennyboy]

I can't ride an electrical current, a heat wave, or time either.

Don't see the difference, huh?

Consciousness isn't inferred as a physical explanation of other properties or observations. There was never a moment when a non-conscious agent thought, "Hmmmmm. . . why are these bundles of organic materials acting like that?"

There's no philosophical quandary surrounding electrical current: we know what it is and how to look for it. We have simple tests for determining its presence. We are not required to make a philosophical assumption in order to believe in it.

Consciousness, by which I mean the capacity to experience qualia, cannot be demonstrated. You SAY you can demonstrate it, but then you will trot out a bunch of physical correlates that wouldn't mean anything at all if we didn't already know what qualia were by our direct experience of it. This borders on religious evidence: we already "know" what it is, and then we start looking around for things that we will consider evidence of it.

This should be obvious in another sense-- nobody can really dispute that it's a hot day. That's because we all share access to the same observations. We can DEFINITELY dispute whether a particular physical system might experience qualia-- from "only me" to "everything is a giant mind" and everything in between, and nobody can be proven right or wrong through observation-- there is assumption, and nothing else.

---

I'm unaware of any proposal that attempts to bypass the subjectivity of a human being?  

No, I don't think you are unaware of that. We say a robot is conscious if it can process light and sound and interact meaningfully with its environment. We do not seriously attempt to establish whether it experiences qualia subjectively. But you have to seriously strain the meanings of several words in order to fit any concept of mind into your world view: awareness, conscious, mind, etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't see the difference, huh?

Perhaps that's because there isn't one?  It just might be that you imagine those other observations to be on more solid ground than any observation of consciousness - but they aren't.  Voltimeters don't actually observe an electricity, thermometers don't observe "heat", and watches don't observe time....at least not in the way you demand the word be taken in the case of consciousness.  Nevertheless, we do have tools available to us which observe consciousness just as any of those other tools measure their respective subjects.  

Consciousness isn't inferred as a physical explanation of other properties or observations.  There was never a moment when a non-conscious agent thought, "Hmmmmm. . . why are these bundles of organic materials acting like that?"

Consciousness is very much inferred, and on a constant bass.  You infer that I am conscious.  I infer that you are conscious.  Neither of us has actually run any tests on the other, or observed whatever process leads to our interactions here on these boards.  I'm willing to bet that you've never, in your entire life, cracked open a skull to observe consciousness...but that you nevertheless accept that the world around you is chock full of it.  

There's no philosophical quandary surrounding electrical current: we know what it is and how to look for it.  We have simple tests for determining its presence.  We are not required to make a philosophical assumption in order to believe in it.

We also "know what it is and how to look for it" when it comes to consciousness.  We have even simpler tests for determing the presence of consciousness than we do for determining the presence of an electrical current.  How do you feel today, Benny?  

Consciousness, by which I mean the capacity to experience qualia, cannot be demonstrated.  You SAY you can demonstrate it, but then you will trot out a bunch of physical correlates that wouldn't mean anything at all if we didn't already know what qualia were by our direct experience of it.  This borders on religious evidence: we already "know" what it is, and then we start looking around for things that we will consider evidence of it.

"Hur dur you're just like a religionist" cmon.  What I've told you is that we do, in fact, have tools to observe consciousness.  Tools -at least- as competent as any used to measure electrical current, temperature, and time.  Frankly, when it comes to consciousness we have less need of tools than we do with electrical current, temperature, or time.  

This should be obvious in another sense-- nobody can really dispute that it's a hot day.  That's because we all share access to the same observations.  We can DEFINITELY dispute whether a particular physical system might experience qualia-- from "only me" to "everything is a giant mind" and everything in between, and nobody can be proven right or wrong through observation-- there is assumption, and nothing else.

Noboday can really dispute...what..the actual fuck?  Not only do our bodies both represent and experience temperature in subjective ways - they do so only by inference and observation of physical correlates...and even in doing so have difficulty determining between the very hot or the very cold - nor can they give you the actual temperature with any reliability - and that;s assuming that you don;t have a fever or a chill.

 We're -much-....-much- better at at recognizing when some x in front of us appears to be conscious than we are at working out the sorts of simple information a thermometer provides. Our entire lives depend, meaningfully, upon it...so that;s not exactly surprising. For a human being, knowing that whats in front of you is a human being - for example, and not a rock..is of utmost importance to your survival.

No, I don't think you are unaware of that.  We say a robot is conscious if it can process light and sound and interact meaningfully with its environment.

Who says that?  Who is this we?

We do not seriously attempt to establish whether it experiences qualia subjectively.  But you have to seriously strain the meanings of several words in order to fit any concept of mind into your world view: awareness, conscious, mind, etc.

.......................?

[bennyboy]

We also "know what it is and how to look for it" when it comes to consciousness.  We have even simpler tests for determing the presence of consciousness than we do for determining the presence of an electrical current.  How do you feel today, Benny?  

If you think talking is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the subjective experience of qualia, then I have a Teddy Ruxpin doll who needs some SERIOUS reparations.

"Hur dur you're just like a religionist" cmon.  What I've told you is that we do, in fact, have tools to observe consciousness.  Tools -at least- as competent as any used to measure electrical current, temperature, and time.  Frankly, when it comes to consciousness we have less need of tools than we do with electrical current, temperature, or time.  

Observing conscious things is not observing consciousness, anymore than looking at a light bulb is observing electricity.

Noboday can really dispute...what..the actual fuck?  Not only do our bodies both represent and experience temperature in subjective ways - they do so only by inference and observation of physical correlates...and even in doing so have difficulty determining between the very hot or the very cold - nor can they give you the actual temperature with any reliability - and that;s assuming that you don;t have a fever or a chill.

So now you appeal to subjectivity? I thought we were talking about scientific things-- you know, things that can be observed and measured.


What, exactly, is the scientific value of any of this? What's the scientific distinction between a p-zombie and me? What if there's a new physical system that does really strange things in reaction to the environment-- how will I determine whether it can experience what things are LIKE?

[The Grand Nudger]

 
If you think talking is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the subjective experience of qualia, then I have a Teddy Ruxpin doll who needs some SERIOUS reparations.

Did you ever get the impression that Teddy was conscious?  Mine wasn;t in the habit of expounding upon how it felt in a convincing way - still loved that fucking thing though, lol.  Blast from the past man, well remembered.

Observing conscious things is not observing consciousness, anymore than looking at a light bulb is observing electricity.

Observing electrified things isn't observing electricity?  That's an awfully torturous usage of the word observe - and it also means that a voltimeter can;t be used to observe electrical current. That a thermometer can;t be used to observe the temperature, and a that a watch can;t be used to observe time.  In any case, you're probably aware that we aren't limited to just watching a person mill around in a room.  We have better tools than that for observing consciousness - though that one is useful.    

So now you appeal to subjectivity?  I thought we were talking about scientific things-- you know, things that can be observed and measured.

What do you mean "now" - human beings are necesarrily subjective agents with necessarrily subjective minds, I said as much in the post before last?  If you think we can;t observe and measure the subjectivity of human beings...then you're sorely mistaken.  In any case, you;re being very...very sloppy here.  Our ability to observe consciousness does not equate to any ability to understand it's subjective meaning to any given person - any more than our ability to observe a spanish person speaking does not equate to any ability to understand what subjective meaning those words have to that person.  I have ear, but I don;t speak spanish. Similarly, we have instruments, but we don't speak brain. In the same vein, but in reverse, that something is subjective in nature, or has a subjective component, does not prevent us from making observations of that thing - or even from making objective statements regarding those observations.

Hopefully, as with spanish, we can learn the language. There are conditions, however, that would make that a practical impossibility. What if every brain essentially writes it's own language, and correlates it's own mental postulates with others over time and through experience until it has a transfer? This would be just about the most horrifying prospect to anyone who wanted to learn the language of the brain, but it's well within the realm of possibility and..at least to some extent, it's practically expected.

What, exactly, is the scientific value of any of this?  What's the scientific distinction between a p-zombie and me?  What if there's a new physical system that does really strange things in reaction to the environment-- how will I determine whether it can experience what things are LIKE?

That's a good question.  If there's no distinction - then you're either a p-zombie or something is wrong with the p-zombie postulate, or both.  What do you think?  
(I think it's both)

I don't know, what is it doing, what kind of system is it?  Asking a person to solve a problem in a vacuum is pointless. It may ultimately be that you can't determine that.

---

Harkening back to your comments regarding AI right (and my own regarding animal rights)...as well as Teddy's hypothetical reparations....are you having difficulty in any of those regards?

Are you unsure of whether or not animals feel pain, for example...or whether or not Teddy did?  How about people? You're asking me how you might do these things...but I supsect that you have at least some idea. Enough, at least, to know that your doll wasn't conscious, people are, and that animals (despite acting "strangely" from our POV...ever seen them line up to be slaughtered..fucking weird) were -at least- somewhat conscious or conscious of some things. How did -you- determine any of -that-?

I think that you're on to something, and I think that you made observations and then leveraged those observations in inference - and even though your observations aren't as detailed, thorough, or methodically sound as the observations of nueroscientists - I think that they can be ascribed some measure of reliability. Just imagine how much more reliable they;d be if you had better tools (or accepted the validity of tools in observing phenomema in the first place...lol, wtf?)...like nueroscientists do, eh?

PS: we don't debate this issue, you and I. You say crazy shit, and I remind you of all the ways that what you've said is crazy shit.

[bennyboy]

Did you ever get the impression that Teddy was conscious?  Mine wasn;t in the habit of expounding upon how it felt in a convincing way - still loved that fucking thing though, lol.  Blast from the past man, well remembered.

lol I sometimes got the impression that Teddy was insincere, and that he might be plotting to kill me in my sleep. But that's just me.

electrified things isn't observing electricity?  That's an awfully torturous usage of the word observe - and it also means that a voltimeter can;t be used to observe electrical current.

I hadn't looked at it in that way, but technically we do not and cannot observe electricity directly. So +1 to you for pointing that out.

Nevertheless, since the theory of electricity is derived FROM observations, then we've established a context for truth-in-context: so long as my voltmeter gives appropriate readings, I can go ahead and hook up my cell phone or whatever, and predict that it will charge and continue to function.

The context of the study of mind is not established in this way, from external observations. It starts from what most would call a brute fact, and spreads out from there. In other words, it is a case of projection rather than one of inference.

Projection and inference cannot be equated in the way that you are trying to equate the study of mind and the study of electricity.

That's a good question.  If there's no distinction - then you're either a p-zombie or something is wrong with the p-zombie postulate, or both.  What do you think?  
(I think it's both)

I can't see any distinction between subjective awareness and the lack of it, physically speaking, and I don't believe in the soul. My best guess is that there is a LOT of consciousness, all over the place: maybe all quantum mechanics with the resolution of superpositions into discrete states or whatever. That doesn't mean I understand or endorse the OP view, but I do know about Penrose and philosophically speaking I like that position.

Human consciousness, in my view, would be the perfectly normal mental activity going on all around us, but attached to a specific context-- say, the senses and a name.

[ignoramus]

So in a nutshell, we as humans can never know if an advanced AI feels the same way about his aware state as we do, but you may say so what. What difference can the "feels" make if it's performing like a conscious entity. Not arguing there. Not even arguing about rights. We've had human slaves, we'll have robot slaves too. It's what we apes do ...because we can. And one day the robots may have human slaves because they can too!

My real question is do you think there can be a test which only a truly conscious entity can answer? Is there any sanctity in biological life at all? A free pass so to speak?
Or are we really just another walking talking human looking bot thing. Has our intellectual evolution made our physical evolution redundant?