evolution

[Angrboda]

That's the idea that what we do is more than what a minimally self aware machine does.  As I said, I agree with that.  Anesthesia works by interrupting nerve signals in your brain and body.

No, that's the idea that it is different. Do not mistake me for a naive sentimentalist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, I can go with that too? What we're talking about when we talk about our consciousness is both more than and different from what a minimally self aware machine is doing. It still remains the case that even a minimal self awareness -a machines minimal self awareness- has quantifiable advantages.

That we have self awareness -because- it's useful is a hypothesis.
That self awareness -is- useful is, as I've repeatedly stressed, not.

Just as the idea that we've evolved for selective advantage is a hypothesis. An extremely successful one, but still.
That we -have evolved - is not.

Theories and facts of evolution, theories and facts of self awareness. This should be a relatively uncontentious issue. I strongly suspect that we're pushing back as a prelude to foreclosing on an argument that will never come. The second items being facts does not, for example, mean that the first items are thus established as facts. That self awareness can be shown to be advantageous does not prove the theory of evolution to be a fact. It does not prove that control based theories are a fact. It does not establish as a fact that any given claimed ability of human consciousness is in set A.

Is there any particular reason that you think being able to attend to attention, clearly advantageous anytime and anywhere we care to look, is -not- advantageous to human reproduction and survival? How about possessing a self image? Do you think it might be possible or useful for a human being to be able to attend to the details of it's self image..and, where applicable, repair or improve our physical bodies in order to attract a mate? Is this not an ability A?

[Angrboda]

Sure, I can go with that too?  What we're talking about when we talk about our consciousness is both more than and different from what a minimally self aware machine is doing.  It still remains the case that even a minimal self awareness -a machines minimal self awareness- has quantifiable advantages.

Because they are different, consciousness in animals does not exist in machines, and consciousness in machines does not exist in animals. For the analogy to even get off the ground the two have to be at minimum species within the same class, and they are not. Thus any attempt to reason about one based upon the other is practically designed to fail.

Is there any particular reason that you think being able to attend to attention, clearly advantageous anytime and anywhere we care to look, is -not- advantageous to human reproduction and survival?  How about possessing a self image?  Do you think it might be possible or useful for a human being to be able to attend to the details of it's self image..and, where applicable, repair or improve our physical bodies in order to attract a mate?  Is this not an ability A?

Nothing you have presented gives us any more cause to believe it is in A than that it is in B. You've presented a false analogy and the suggestion that a person lacking consciousness would be less well equipped to survive a challenging environment. I think I can safely bet that experiment hasn't been done in addition to pointing out that we at present don't possess the science to perform said experiment. So you've presented a false argument and the results of an experiment that you not only haven't performed but can't perform. Am I supposed to be dumbstruck by your complete inability to make a cogent argument?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think a whole lot of what we're talking about when we discuss human consciousness and our experience of it is in B, as I said.

In what way is attending to the details of your self image and then improving your physical body with respect to that attention not an example of an ability A? Help me out here? It has an upline, and a downline. Misery, maybe it doesn't have a downline. Being able to attend to attention is useful for getting laid, but being sad in the first person about being ugly may not be (I'm zeroing out any suggestion that it's a pain avoidance issue).

[Angrboda]

I think a whole lot of what we're talking about when we discuss human consciousness and our experience of it is in B, as I said.  

In what way is attending to the details of your self image and then improving your physical body with respect to that attention not an example of an ability A?  Help me out here?  It has an upline, and a downline.  Misery, maybe it doesn't have a downline.  Being able to attend to attention is useful for getting laid, but being sad in the first person about being ugly may not be (I'm zeroing out any suggestion that it's a pain avoidance issue).

Can you give some reasons for concluding that it is in A rather than B aside from "it seems that way" or "it feels like it" or "it's obvious?"

[The Grand Nudger]

I mean, I feel like I'm giving the prospect of an all B brain serious consideration. To the point where I'm willing to provisionally categorize a great amount of human consciousness to the b side.

In all B brain, though, a minimally self aware machine possesses an ability A that we do not. Even though we seem to experience negative ideations about some item of our attention in a compelling 1st person perspective, and even though it seems like these negative ideations can be involved when we assume or alter a course of action, in mere reality (in the thought experiment) it's all not-that. Just an incredibly specific coincidence. You didn't really go to the gym because you felt fat. You didn;t put on makeup explicitly because you thought it would make you prettier. You didn't really stop smoking because you didn't want to die. You didn't actively remove "like, um" from your vocabulary because it made you uncomfortable around your more eloquent peers. Neither guilt nor shame were related to why we abandoned some horrendous ideology. You didn't notice you were hungry and wanted beef over chicken, and so, hauled your ass to the store.... and there's no actual connection between enjoying the smell of fresh cut cilantro being thrown into the pot so much that you then directed your hands to chop more and toss more in. Being able to direct your attention on your hand was in no way useful to employing the knife.

That, in short, the human brain is physically incapable of doing anything that a minimally self aware machine can do. With the understanding that any observation can be objected to with "maybe it only seems that way" - yes..that's what an observation is - how things seem to be.... since it's you, I'll bite. Sure, it seems like we possess at least some ability A, it seems like the ability to attend to and direct attention is an ability A - at least insomuch as you've described it. Self awareness is involved in directing physical behaviors. Physical events can influence mental events. Mental events can influence mental events, and mental events can influence physical events. We can see ourselves according to a standard of beauty, and we can take action to make our physical image (or mental image) more closely conform to that standard. We can even adjust for changes in that standard over time, and all of it premises an ability on our part to predict the attention of others, as well. As things seem....we have a great deal more abilities A than any minimally self aware machine.

...but, just as I started up above, I'm willing to entertain the idea that this is wrong. That things only seem this way, powerfully, uniformly, and quantifiably. In personal experience, in the results of lab trials, out in the field. I just don't know how I'd make that case. In the end (I think?) you and I are agreed that much of the apparatus and/or effect of human consciousness is of dubious reproductive and survival benefit.

[Angrboda]

It seems that this sensation is that of the presence of God. Good or bad argument?

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe that you can. I fact, I know that you can. Plenty of ink spilled on the ubiquity of the sense of the numinous in human beings. That's also a good candidate for an ability A, isn't it? A person can have a profound experience and that experience seems to be capable of influencing how they live their life from that point forward. Do you feel that I missed something in trying to consider an all b brain?

In essence, we'd be conceding that it is an ability a, but it's an ability a that can fail or be spoofed - that the inputs can be faulty that the parameters can be skewed, that it's capable of misrepresentation, even. Fully agree.

[Angrboda]

I believe that you can.  I fact, I know that you can.  Plenty of ink spilled on the ubiquity of the sense of the numinous in human beings.   That's also a good candidate for an ability A, isn't it?  A person can have a profound experience and that experience seems to be capable of influencing how they live their life from that point forward.  Do you feel that I missed something in trying to consider an all b brain?

Does that mean it's a fact that I am sensing God?

If you're having trouble with that, let's try something simpler. When I stick this pencil in water it seems to be broken. Does that mean the pencil actually is broken and when I pull it out it magically restores itself?

You're not stupid enough to mistake such naive empiricism as compelling evidence for a fact.

The list goes on, and at each point you'll be forced into ad hoc excuses to salvage your argument. Free will, access to objective moral truths, impartial ability to assess risks, you can go through almost the entire catalog of cognitive biases.

And at each point, you'll require a new ad hoc excuse.

Please. The fact that something appears to be in A does not mean it actually is in A. You know this for other things, you just don't want to let go of the reins of your hobby horse.

Regardless, naive "observations" are not a compelling argument.

Got anything else?

[The Grand Nudger]

No more than a persons self awareness and ideas about beauty, themselves, certify that the contents of their awareness or that particular standard is based on some aspect of factual reality.

Very beautiful people have been known to see themselves as incredibly ugly and it does seem like that influences some of the actions they take. Whether or not they are, in fact..ugly..just like whether or not there is..in fact, a god..is immaterial to whether or not a perception can influence mental and physical events. Whether it's an ability A.