No one has suggested the possibility of NY sewers being conscious, so that is just a strawman. — wonderer1

So it's impossible for certain conglomerations of plumbing to be conscious? Which systems of valves, pipes, pumps, etc. are possibly conscious and which aren't and how do you know?

I don't see any reason to think such a system couldn't in principle be conscious, but it would be an extremely low temporal resolution sort of consciousness, and would require an enormous input of energy to power the pumps. This is related to what I pointed out Kastrup showing ignorance about, with his claim that the relationship between fluid flowrate and pressure, is the same as the relationship between voltage and current expressed by Ohms law.

So your conciousness detector would need to be able to detect a consciousness, for which one of our years was but a moment. — wonderer1

This is where we disagree. I don't see a compelling reason to think the needle of the consciousness meter would move at all if we pointed it at a conglomeration of pipes, pumps, and valves. Science, so far, has not come up with a compelling reason why I should think there's something it's like to be New York City's sewer system. There's been plenty of research establishing brain-consciousness correlations (if one assumes materialism is true), but nothing so far on the causal front. I think Kastrup is clearly correct here.

It's also kind of head scratching that the same people who shout "Woo!" at the drop of a hat would entertain the notion that plumbing might be conscious.

When given the choice between a Democrat who won't police the border and a fascist who will, Americans will at least contemplate voting for the fascist. Or tell pollsters they're going to. I don't think Trump has a chance, though. What Americans are telling pollsters is the equivalent of a scream of rage at the incompetent Democrats. When push comes to shove, they won't bring themselves to vote for Trump.

Where do you stand on the possibility of consciousness emerging from collections of pipes, vales, water, etc.? Even I would grant that it's logically possible. But suppose we have an infallible consciousness meter, and (bear with me) someone has created a planet-sized system of valves, pipes, pumps, water, etc. that is functionally equivalent to a working brain. I would give astronomical odds that when we point the consciousness meter at the plumbing, it's not going to register anything. What kind of odds would you give?

Physicalism states that only physical things exist. My the past exists in minds. — AmadeusD

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say memories of the past exist in minds?

There's the difference between a house and a home, perhaps, to rub the point in.

Emergence, if it is to help us here, has to be akin to "seeing as", as Wittgenstein set out. So once again I find myself thinking of the duck-rabbit. Here it is enjoying the sun.

The duck emerges from the rabbit? — Banno

It seems obvious to me that there is no duck or rabbit until a mind observes the drawing and attaches meaning to it. This then leads me to think there is no information in a string of 1's and 0's unless a mind attaches meaning to the string of digits. For anyone who thinks information can exist independent of minds, where am I going wrong? IS there a duck or rabbit even when no one is looking at the picture? How does that work?

↪RogueAI I would agree. But I'm unsure parsimony is hte best way to answer questions about what already is. — AmadeusD

Well, it's the best way to put the consciousness issue to rest: there it no matter for consciousness to emerge from!

But why is it a simulation? If an artificial brain is inserted into an artificial body and let develop in the same temporal way a human develops, why wouldn't it develop the same way? — AmadeusD

It would. Functional equivalents to working organic brains should be conscious, no matter what they're made out of.

↪RogueAI Consciousness emerging from anything we currently know of, seems magical to me. — AmadeusD

Me too, which is why I think idealism is more parsimonious.

They don't want to entertain the possibility that there is no physical brain, that idealism might be the case. They're so opposed to idealism, they will seriously consider they might be zombies or "there is something it's like to be a sewer system".
— RogueAI

I don't see any issue with biting this bullet. I already bite the p-zombies one. — AmadeusD

We're kind of at first principles here. I don't see a good reason why I should entertain the possibility that consciousness can emerge from water and a bunch of pipes, valves, pumps (or ropes and pulleys as some have argued). Doesn't that seem kind of magical to you?

Although wonderer1 and Christoffer may disagree with me, I think it is not possible. And I think it is not possible because of the kind of history that is needed, specifically a biological history, for consciousness. — NotAristotle

So no machine consciousness then?

This is just an argument from incredulity and a wheat field's worth of straw manning.

It's unfortunate that so many who consider themselves to be critics of physicalism have nothing much more than cheerleading for their tribe. — wonderer1

Is it possible for any system of pipes, valves, and pumps to be conscious? Or for consciousness to emerge from such a system?

I think Kastrup is on the mark. Remember, he has PhD's in both computer engineering and philosophy of mind, he knows that of which he speaks. — Wayfarer

I think so too. I think the plausibility of my house's plumbing being conscious is about the same as the possibility that I'm a zombie: nonexistent. Yet, when you make Kastrup's point to materialists, they shrug and say, "Well, the brain is conscious, so I guess a bunch of pipes, valves and pumps could be conscious too". They don't want to entertain the possibility that there is no physical brain, that idealism might be the case. They're so opposed to idealism, they will seriously consider they might be zombies or "there is something it's like to be a sewer system".

You might like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE&ab_channel=TheoriesofEverythingwithCurtJaimungal

I think so.

For anyone that thinks computers are (or someday will be) conscious, what do you say to Bernardo Kastrup's argument here:

"You see, everything a computer does can, in principle, be done with pipes, pressure valves and water. The pipes play the role of electrical conduits, or traces; the pressure valves play the role of switches, or transistors; and the water plays the role of electricity. Ohm’s Law—the fundamental rule for determining the behavior of electric circuits—maps one-on-one to water pressure and flow relations. Indeed, the reason why we build computers with silicon and electricity, instead of PVC pipes and water, is that the former are much, much smaller and cheaper to make. Present-day computer chips have tens of billions of transistors, and an even greater number of individual traces. Can you imagine the size and cost of a water-based computer comprising tens of billions of pipes and pressure valves? Can you imagine the amount of energy required to pump water through it? You wouldn't be able to afford it or carry it in your pocket. That’s the sole reason why we compute with electricity, instead of water (it also helps that silicon is one of the most abundant elements on Earth, found in the form of sand). There is nothing fundamentally different between a pipe-valve-water computer and an electronic one, from the perspective of computation. Electricity is not a magical or unique substrate for computation, but merely a convenient one. A wooden tool called an 'abacus' also computes.

With this in mind, ask yourself: do we have good reasons to believe that a system made of pipes, valves and water correlates with private conscious inner life the way your brain does? Is there something it is like to be the pipes, valves and water put together? If you answer ‘yes’ to this question, then logic forces you to start wondering if your house’s sanitation system—with its pipes, valves and water—is conscious, and whether it is murder to turn off the mains valve when you go on vacation. For the only difference between your house’s sanitation system and my imaginary water-based computer is one of number—namely, how many pipes, how many valves, how many liters of water—not of kind or essence. As a matter of fact, the typical home sanitation system implements the functionality of about 5 to 10 transistors.

You can, of course, choose to believe that the numbers actually matter. In other words, you may entertain the hypothesis that although a simple, small home sanitation system is unconscious, if you keep on adding pipes, valves and water to it, at some point the system will suddenly make the jump to being conscious. But this is magical thinking. You'd have to ask yourself the question: how, precisely, does the mere addition of more of the same pipes, valves and water, lead to the magical jump to conscious inner life? Unless you have an explicit and coherent answer to this question, you are merely engaging in hand waving, self-deception, and hiding behind vague complexity."
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/01/ai-wont-be-conscious-and-here-is-why.html

The snowflake's symmetry emerges from sublimating water molecules, consciousness emerges form a neural network... — Banno

Can consciousness emerge from a computer running a simulation of a working brain?

If consciousness emerges from brains, then consciousness would emerge from something functionally equivalent to a brain, correct?

Thanks for the responses.

If you mess with it, you mess with consciousness. If you were to separate the head from the body and do it in a way that kept giving oxygen to the head, it will eventually die, but still be conscious with the same feeling of paralyzation from the neck down.

So far we've only asked a few short lived heads: — Christoffer

Yes, I understand that, but what is is about brains that makes them conscious? There must be something about brains that makes them necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness. What makes brains so special?

I would say that consciousness itself probably resides in the brain, but our identity and personality and emotions rely on all the hormonal balances, chemistry and functions in the rest of the body. — Christoffer

What is it about the brain that makes it the seat of consciousness?

Briefly, can you sketch out your reasoning for why consciousness emerges from brains and not, say, hearts? Or livers? And why are only some brain functions conscious? Do you think some information processing is required for consciousness to emerge?

Yes I did. The prospect of war was one of the reasons Bush refused to do it. It turns out he was wrong. — NOS4A2

You approve of assassinations of other country's generals, yet you have disdain for warmongers? Is that right?

But I sometimes see the neocons, warmongers, and Bushites in The Atlantic warning of a Trumpian future and find I am in good company. — NOS4A2

Did you approve of Trump authorizing the killing of Suleimani? Actions like that are straight out of the neocon playbook. It led to an Iranian airstrike on a U.S. air base. No soldiers were killed, but if some had been, we might have been in a shooting war.

States do not have morals, friends, etc. What they have are "interests" and they are intended to pursue those interests on behalf of their ["most valuable"] citizen groups. — BC

I used to believe this, but I don't think it's true anymore. A state is just a collection of people, and peoples have morals, friends, allegiances, etc. Take America and Britain, for example. The two peoples have a lot of shared history, they've helped each other throughout the centuries, and they feel a lot of good will towards each other. That's going to influence the policies of the countries. In practical terms, if America pursues a nakedly self-serving policy and screws over Britain in some matter, causing it to be harmed, the American people (and politicians) would be unhappy with that, and the policy might have to change.

"I cannot be wrong", that sounds extremely dogmatic. — goremand

Indeed, and yet a necessary condition for denying the existence of my mind is the existence of my mind.

I cannot be wrong about not being a zombie.
— RogueAI

"I cannot be wrong", that sounds extremely dogmatic.

Do you think you're a zombie?
— RogueAI

Sure, why not? At least it is worth considering. — goremand

If materialism requires one to be open-minded to the idea one is a p-zombie (or materialism somehow makes the idea that one is a zombie palatable), that is a giant red flag. Physicalism/materialism is in massive trouble if it can't find a way to get out of p-zombie open-mindedness.

You are, given a physicalist view of human beings. Insisting that you are not is just question-begging. — goremand

Then physicalism is wrong, since I'm not a zombie. I cannot be wrong about not being a zombie. Do you think you're a zombie?

I was indoctrinated in materialism for almost all my life. It's only recently that I've discovered it's incoherent. Materialism claims that we could be in a simulation. That would entail that all our feelings and imaginings and dreams and the essence of who we are are a collection of electronic switches. Doesn't that strike you as completely absurd? That the joy of playing with your children or the grief of losing a loved one can emerge if you take some switches, run some current through them, and turn them on and off in a certain way? Why on Earth should I believe such nonsense?

You could turn that around and say that given a physicalist understanding of human beings, the alien would conclude that you are a p-zombie, and it would be correct in doing so. — goremand

It would be wrong in doing so, since I'm not a p-zombie. Are you saying it would be correct in making the move to conclude from the purely physical description that I'm a zombie? Possibly, but only if it doesn't have mental states of its own. If the alien is not a zombie, it would know mental states cannot be expressed in purely physical terms. It would continue to have an open mind about whether I'm a zombie or not. In fact, it will never know if I'm a zombie or not. It will always wonder. No amount of brain scanning and physical descriptions would clue it in to the fact that I have a mind. It's Mary's Room all over again.

Accounting for your phenomenology would be not just impossible but also redundant. — goremand

There's the rub. I'm not a zombie, but it is impossible for me to conclusively prove that to anyone other than me. There is nothing I can say or do or write down that will convince anyone else that I'm not dead inside. It's a uniquely insolvable problem. The scientific method is useless. Only through some type of direct knowledge we don't have access to and can't really imagine can we really know if another is conscious or not.

If you don't believe these things are physical in origin, then what are they made of? Where did they come from? In what space do they reside? — Philosophim

Fictional characters and mathematical theorems and numbers are not physical. Picture Holmes in your mind right now. Is the Sherlock Holmes you're imagining physical? Is there a little physical Sherlock Holmes in your brain? Now, you might say neurons xyz are doing their thing when you think of Holmes, but that does not entail that Holmes IS a collection of neural activity and brain states. That would be a fantastical claim. Who lives at 221 Baker Street? A guy with a pipe and deerstalker hat? Or a neural/brain state pattern?

Fictional characters and mathematical theorems and numbers are mental objects. This is another reason I think idealism is more parsimonious: it nicely maps on to our intuition that the things we imagine and think of are mental things and not physical things.

Regarding red lights, suppose I'm full of rage and want to run a red light so's I can smash into a particular car because it belongs to the man who's cheating on my wife. Let's say you describe all that rage and red-light running in purely physical terms and then showed it to an alien who didn't know if humans were p-zombies or not. Could the alien figure out, from that purely physical description of my rage-induced red-light running behavior, that I am not a p-zombie? If no, then the physical explanation is not explaining everything. It's leaving out the fact that a mental state was involved in running the red light.

we have not discovered anything that exists apart from matter and energy. — Philosophim

Sherlock Holmes?* The Pythagorean Theorem?

*Holmes was invented, but someone could certainly read the book and "discover" Holmes, all the other delightful characters, and the fictional world they inhabit.

Physicalists accept this axiom because it is indeed all that's needed to account for everything known to exist - i.e. it's the most parsimonious ontology.

This is exactly what idealists claim, in favor of their own position. No one has ever observed the noumena, it's impossible. Every empirical observation ever has been phenomenal. No one has ever had an experience outside of subjective first person experience. Not one datumn has informed a scientific paper anywhere that wasn't experienced in the mind.

Thus, everything is mental. This is equally parsimonious, perhaps more because it doesn't need to explain why there seems to be a different sorts of stuff, mental life and physical stuff. Science, so the claim goes, is our empirical study of how mental stuff, phenomena, works. Nothing that is not mental has ever been observed. Claiming otherwise would be to claim that one has perceived something without their mind, seen without their vision, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I don't see how that position is anymore ad hoc. All the evidence that is used to support the claim that "everything that has been discovered to date is physical," could equally be used to support the claim that "everything discovered to date has been mental." What such evidence actually amounts to seems to be more a refutation of dualism than support for either position.

But the fact that such evidence can't decide the issue makes me question how useful the distinction is in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is an excellent post. I have always argued here that, in light of the Hard Problem, idealism is the most parsimonious theory. I think that that parsimony will only increase as science continues to fail at the Hard Problem and the question of machine consciousness takes on ever greater importance.

What's causing the religious extremism? — frank

That's a very good question. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions. I don't think it's had as much time to mellow. Also, the actions of colonial powers and the U.S. involvement in the region are a factor in pushing people towards extremism. The U.S. involvement has been nakedly self-serving, dishonest, and destructive. That would cause a lot of rage.

Hamas does it from hatred, sadism.
— RogueAI — Mikie

That's a misquote. Bitconnect said that. I don't entirely agree with what he said,

Religious extremism. What is yours?

I don't understand the point of this question. Could you spell it out? — frank

Why do Muslim terrorists rape women to death? Put on suicide vests and blow innocent people up? Fly planes into civilian buildings? Behead people and burn them alive, like ISIS? Why don't we see similar behavior from Jews? Why didn't the Jews in Europe do such things in response to the Holocaust?

So yeah, I think there is a deep mystery as regards to oxygen, gravity, mutations, liquidity, and virtually everything, on equal footing with consciousness. — Manuel

I disagree. The rise of Ai isn't going to compel people to think about "oxygen, gravity, mutations, liquidity". It's going to compel them to ask the very basic question: are these a.i.'s conscious? As the a.i.'s continue to improve, and achieve human level AGI, people are going to look to the sciences to provide answers to basic questions: are these AGI's conscious? What rights do they have? How should we treat them? These questions will then become the most outstanding problems in science.

Where do you disagree with that?

You didn't address this:

"Yet even Jews in actual concentration camps (Auschwitz, not Gaza) didn't end up mass raping German women or committing atrocities because of their "rage." Murder is condemned in all religions and the Hamas murderer-rapists will be accountable to God. Hamas does it from hatred, sadism. They are bred to be sociopaths in a culture which glorifies death and revenge. The Palestinians deserve better."

Muslim terrorists often strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up, taking as many civilians as they can with them. Orthodox Jews don't. Why is that?