A computer can process information in ways that a pencil cannot. Why think consciousness can exist without the occurrence of information processing?
— wonderer1
Same question then: What information can a computer possibly process that a pencil cannot? — noAxioms

A pencil is not an information processing system. A pencil may be part of an information processing system which includes a person and a pencil and piece of paper, but the brain of the person is playing the key role in whatever information processing occurs.

To answer your question, a pencil can't process the video file found here.

You both seem to balk at the paper/pencil thing, but what can a computer do that the pencil cannot? If you cannot answer that, then how is your denial of it justified? — noAxioms

A computer can process information in ways that a pencil cannot. Why think consciousness can exist without the occurrence of information processing?

This is a peculiar argument (to me), because it does not care about the truth at all. #1 is completely unjustified in the OP, and #2 is essentially saying that if one values leeway freedom then they should believe it exists even if they know it clearly doesn't--i.e., you are telling people to believe in illusions so long as they like that illusion, as opposed to giving them the truth. — Bob Ross

The argument commits an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.[1] This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

Bostrom's speculation has always smelled grossly unparsimonious, to me.

I’m actually sympathetic to this argument, but very carefully qualified. Let me ask you , to the extent that you think they’re onto something, would you agree that , since anything biology is capable of , it will do in many ways, it is reasonable to assume that a whole range of intermediate differences in functional brain organization are regularly produced? — Joshs

Absolutely. There is all sorts of evidence for that, along a variety of different spectrums.

This would give biological justification not only for binary differences in gender behavior , but also for gay and transgender identities. Of course, all this would be intertwined in complex ways with culture. — Joshs

Again. Absolutely.

And yet , he and she are but into all social interchanges. I suggest the reason for this is our tacit belief that our cultural assumptions concerning the roles and behaviors of maleness and femaleness of those we are interacting with is relevant. — Joshs

A recent paper suggests that it is deeper than culture:

Deep learning models reveal replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization

Significance
Sex is an important biological factor that influences human behavior, impacting brain function and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, previous research on how brain organization differs between males and females has been inconclusive. Leveraging recent advances in artificial intelligence and large multicohort fMRI (functional MRI) datasets, we identify highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network. Our findings advance the understanding of sex-related differences in brain function and behavior. More generally, our approach provides AI–based tools for probing robust, generalizable, and interpretable neurobiological measures of sex differences in psychiatric and neurological disorders.

Abstract
Sex plays a crucial role in human brain development, aging, and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, our understanding of sex differences in human functional brain organization and their behavioral consequences has been hindered by inconsistent findings and a lack of replication. Here, we address these challenges using a spatiotemporal deep neural network (stDNN) model to uncover latent functional brain dynamics that distinguish male and female brains. Our stDNN model accurately differentiated male and female brains, demonstrating consistently high cross-validation accuracy (>90%), replicability, and generalizability across multisession data from the same individuals and three independent cohorts (N ~ 1,500 young adults aged 20 to 35). Explainable AI (XAI) analysis revealed that brain features associated with the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network consistently exhibited significant sex differences (effect sizes > 1.5) across sessions and independent cohorts. Furthermore, XAI-derived brain features accurately predicted sex-specific cognitive profiles, a finding that was also independently replicated. Our results demonstrate that sex differences in functional brain dynamics are not only highly replicable and generalizable but also behaviorally relevant, challenging the notion of a continuum in male-female brain organization. Our findings underscore the crucial role of sex as a biological determinant in human brain organization, have significant implications for developing personalized sex-specific biomarkers in psychiatric and neurological disorders, and provide innovative AI-based computational tools for future research.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121 [Paywalled and I haven't read more than what I've quoted.]

:up:

With how vague you're being, can you truly blame me? — Echogem222

I'm not blaming you. I don't suppose you have libertarian free will.

I'm doing my best to understand what you're getting at, and yet the first time I mess up, you don't correct me, you instead just say I'm wrong... and that's all. Makes me wonder just how committed you truly are to this debate. — Echogem222

I'm not committed to debate at all. You might say I was investigating the degree to which you are open to learning. You thinking that you know what I'm assuming does not bode well I'm afraid. You see, there are patterns I've learned to recognize.

You're assuming that all faith is blind faith, but you see, true blind faith is when you no longer think you have faith in something, but instead think you know something is true, because when you think you know something, how can you then be wrong? It prevents people from thinking critically to have blind faith in things, it prevents people from desiring to learn more, after all, you already know so much, so there's no need to doubt what you already know. And this certainty in turn encourages others to no longer think they have faith in anything, but think that they truly know things, which is why so many people in this modern day believe in things that many people understand as being ridiculous. — Echogem222

You are remarkably confident in your beliefs about what I am assuming.

Also quite wrong.

Any why believe the brain even exists? Likely science, but why believe science is real? Evidence, I imagine, but why believe evidence is real? Etc. I think you get the point here. — Echogem222

To answer your questions... Reliable patterns to observations.

Yes there is more to our thinking than logic, but jumping from that to faith is missing out on a much more explanatory picture of what is going on.

Once you have faith in logic, it's consistent, but the system of logic itself is not logical, in that you can't prove it to be real with evidence, you have to rely on faith-based evidence. — Echogem222

Another way of explaining our trust in logic (without resorting to faith) comes with understanding the ability that neural networks in our brains have, to subconsciously perform pattern recognition. In learning to use language we develop at least a rudimentary recognition that logic works reliably. Subsequently we naturally expect the consistent pattern we have recognized to continue to hold.

So maybe "faith" isn't a particularly good way of understanding the situation?

Ok, is this still just ‘pop sci'?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ — Joshs

Unfortunately, Scientific American has been pop science for awhile now, and is ever more commonly becoming little more than people expressing their politics.

Or this?

the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities. — Joshs

That's rather sloppy political philosophy.

"...the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term..."

Many what? Many biologists? I seriously doubt it. Understanding sex is rather important in a lot of biological research.

And what are these "trans identities"? Is this a matter of science or of philosophical discussion?

I don't feel you were tactic hopping, I'm just trying to remain open on the subject cause it seems weird to me that sex was originally from Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate. It only became so entwined with "gametes" only near the turn of the 20th century. Only then did a biologist find something to apply their dualistic view of the concept to our body's functioning sex organs and reproduction system, narrowing it exclusively to something that fit their prejudice and say, "ah, the Gametes are core that determines sex. — Vaskane

Umm... You realize that biology is the study of all life, and for biologists it is a pretty reasonable thing to do, to recognize the significant distinction between sexes that they do. Right?

It's hard to completely get away from the fact that we just very recently left hunter gatherer tribes and got into modern society, so to speak. So some of these supernatural beliefs should be considered part of human nature. — Manuel

:up:

Morphic fields, and morphic resonance, even though generally (and angrily) rejected by mainstream science... — Wayfarer

You are projecting again. Scientists are pretty used to many people preferring woo.

For a biologist's take...

Again, I offer this for readers’ comments; they aren’t yet my own final definitions. I say this because the subject is touchy and though I want to be biologically accurate, I also want to be civil. And we should recognize that there are diverse definitions of the terms below, though nearly all biologists adhere to the gametic criterion for “biological sex.”

So, here goes:

Sex: Classes of individuals in a species that have the potential to fuse their gametes with those of individuals from a different class, producing a zygote.

Humans (like all mammals and most metazoans) fall into two classes:

Biological Male: Individuals having the capacity/biological equipment to make small, mobile gametes: sperm.

Biological Female: Individuals having the capacity/biological equipment to make large, immobile gametes: eggs.

Under this definition sex is based on gamete type, which nearly always (but not always) correlates with chromosome type or bodily morphology (e.g., secondary sex characters like breasts and body hair). For example, some individuals with Turner syndrome (XO females, lacking one X instead of the common XX females) can make eggs and become pregnant), while some males with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY rather than XY) have motile sperm, though most are usually sterile. Regardless, these individuals fit into the biological “male” or “female” categories above, and do not constitute new sexes.

Likewise, many individuals with ambiguous genitalia can nevertheless make viable sperm or eggs, and thus fit into one of the two classes above...

That all makes sense. And, although I know nothing about computers has the flexibility ol you are describing, what is it most analogous with? The difference between windows and iOS? Or the difference between C++ and Java? Or between phpBB3 and whatever is used at this site? Or some other level? I don't know nearly enough about all this stuff to even know what the possibilities are. — Patterner

I suppose the least bad analogy would be different CPUs. C code can be compiled to run on different CPUs, and yield the same user interface, although the details of the physical processes that occur in running the code would be different.

That was a standard claim I used to hear amongst New Age types. You don't see them because 'you're a crass materialist who lacks sensitivity' or 'you are a skeptic and so are nto receptive'. I think this romantic approach to occult matters is still popular. — Tom Storm

:up:

Do different brains have different operating systems, or logic gates, or chips (I don't know what the appropriate thing to ask is)? — Patterner

Different human brains have their neurons interconnected in different ways. (And this is just one dimension of variation in the brains of individuals.) Furthermore, interconnections between neurons get strengthened or weakened in the process of learning, so the strength or weakness of specific neural interconnections is a matter of both biology and environment.

4. Therefore, ancient peoples coherently talked about their brain states. — Leontiskos

They just didn't know they were talking about brain activity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_neuroscience:

Already in the 4th century BC, Aristotle thought that the heart was the seat of intelligence, while the brain was a cooling mechanism for the blood. He reasoned that humans are more rational than the beasts because, among other reasons, they have a larger brain to cool their hot-bloodedness.

Explain how you (we) know that "cooperation strategies are innate to our universe" and therefore that they are also "innate" in all human individuals. — 180 Proof

:up:

Some nontrivial percentage of individuals are psychopaths, and that has been investigated in a game theory context as well:

Abstract
Static networks have been shown to foster cooperation for specific cost–benefit ratios and numbers of connections across a series of interactions. At the same time, psychopathic traits have been discovered to predict defective behaviours in game theory scenarios. This experiment combines these two aspects to investigate how group cooperation can emerge when changing group compositions based on psychopathic traits. We implemented a modified version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game which has been demonstrated theoretically and empirically to sustain a constant level of cooperation over rounds. A sample of 190 undergraduate students played in small groups where the percentage of psychopathic traits in each group was manipulated. Groups entirely composed of low psychopathic individuals were compared with communities with 50% high and 50% low psychopathic players, to observe the behavioural differences at the group level. Results showed a significant divergence of the mean cooperation of the two conditions, regardless of the small range of participants’ psychopathy scores. Groups with a large density of high psychopathic subjects cooperated significantly less than groups entirely composed of low psychopathic players, confirming our hypothesis that psychopathic traits affect not only individuals’ decisions but also the group behaviour. This experiment highlights how differences in group composition with respect to psychopathic traits can have a significant impact on group dynamics, and it emphasizes the importance of individual characteristics when investigating group behaviours.

Do you understand that humans can become less wrong over a period of time? As a result of, among other things, paying attention to what we can be learned about the world we live in.

1. There is no valid logical inference there.

2. It seems to me that if we want to speak accurately, it would be more realistic to talk about mental events and neurological events, rather than talking about states.

3. Ancient people didn't have the opportunity, to become much better informed, that is available to us now. So what do ancient people have to do with the subject?

There is certainly an interesting way in which we approach science as a field superstitiously, endowing it with impossible attributes. — Leontiskos

What impossible attributes?

Yes, the insidious notion of the "elect", those who believe themselves favored in God's eyes. It is mind-boggling how long such childish delusions can survive. — Janus

Ugh! You reminded me of when I did some reading reading at https://www.puritanboard.com. Part of the atmosphere was browbeating people for showing normal human empathy. It was sad to see.

I see concern about the "fate of the immortal soul" as a sad state of delusion. I don't deny that for those who cannot see their way clear of such delusions that faith in salvation of some kind may indeed be their only way forward. — Janus

:100:

Unfortunately some also have a narcissistic need to believe themselves superior, and religions frequently feed such a need.

This kind of thinking in no way at all undoes or second guesses our general knowledge claims. It simply says that when you look closely, you find this absurdity that knowledge claims REALLY are pragmatic functions dealing with the world. — Astrophel

I don't see it as absurd myself. To me it seems awfully sensible, to see knowledge claims as pragmatic functions dealing with the world.

Those who live on the edge of time, in a rapidly evolving environment, such as a high risk occupation, or a professional athlete in a fast sport, are usually the ones who find the most purpose for superstition. In these situations a large part of a person's professional environment is completely unpredictable, and many of the happenings appear to be at the hands of fate, or chance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting observation. It makes sense that people who make their living off their ability to act effectively in the heat of the moment are used to being able to go with their intuitions successfully, and tend to do so even when critical thinking might serve them better.

What if the desire for coldness is just a way to mask the unappealing flavor of one's drink, as some Europeans would say with respect to American beer? Subconscious mitigation of unappealing flavor? :razz: — Leontiskos

Well that too. I tend to go for Guiness.

I tend to separate superstitious thinking "Hey, this red shirt is a lucky charm!" from OCD "I HAVE TO count the chairs in my row, or I'll be really uncomfortable." I have a habit, or mild compulsion, to rinse out my glass before I fill it with cold water from the tap. I find a wet glass more appealing. A plastic glass, on the other hand, can't be helped by rinsing it out first. Yuck. It's a non-functional behavior. I used to have more of these, but they have faded away. — BC

Is it superstition, or subconscious deep learning. By rinsing a glass, you can remove a substantial amount of heat from the glass. Without pre-chilling the glass, the heat in the glass would warm your drink and result in less enjoyment of the coldness of your drink.

Sounds like subconscious thermodynamics to me. :nerd:

There is considerable debate over whether plants are conscious and this, indeed, is an important question. Here I look at developments in neuroscience, physics and mathematics that may impact on this question. Two major concomitants of consciousness in animals are microtubule function and electrical gamma wave synchrony. Both these factors may also play a role in plant consciousness. I show that plants possess aperiodic quasicrystal structures composed of ribosomes that may enable quantum computing, which has been suggested to lie at the core of animal consciousness. Finally I look at whether a microtubule fractal suggests that electric current plays a part in conventional neurocomputing processes in plants." — RogueAI

Careful. That way lies crank magnetism or even worse, fractal wrongness.

Sneaky little things. — Patterner

Indeed.

Great card! :lol:

Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality". — Pez

I.e. we would need to find a homunculus?

There is no cognition in perception; the senses don’t think. — Mww

I suppose it depends on what one categorizes under "thinking", but I'd say there is ample evidence of perception and thinking being entangled.

Meaning that, we have a consensus view of the nature of reality, and that view is, at the end of the day, that the physical sciences are definitive, and that psychic phenomena and belief in higher planes of being can only be understood in subjective terms. — Wayfarer

Psi. (Pun intended.)

Yep. What we see is not an upside-down sense-impression created by the brain, but the things in the world.

But Michael now thinks there isn't an upside down and a right way up anyway, so the point is moot, so far as the thread goes. One can't nail jelly to the wall, the discussion hereabouts being the jelly. — Banno

From my perspective, the question of the thread looks like an attempt to address a complex subject (actually a diverse set of subjects) with a false dichotomy. Those arguing for direct realism seeming to have the pragmatic advantage, of being able to acknowledge common ground for discussion.

For there to be a "right way up" would seem to require something like absolute space and/or a preferred frame which I believe is at odds with modern scientific theory. — Michael

Ordinary language is tied to a frame of reference where the direction of the center of gravity of the Earth plays an important role. So it's not really a problem to translate, "Banno (in Oz) reached down to catch the cup falling off the table." to a frame of reference suitable for an accurate understanding of what happened.

So could there be a species in which half the population see the world upside down?

Wouldn't they "flip" the image in the way your paper describes, seeing the world right way up? — Banno

Yeah, a species in which half the population sees the world upside down doesn't seem scientifically plausible.

Yep. What does this tell us? — Banno

I'd say it tells us that our brains, given time, can adjust our perceptions so that we see things in a way that allows us to behave in a way consistent with the way the world is, despite an added layer of 'indirectness'.

One can imagine your creature's physiologist making the "discovery" that half the population sees things upside down, and their philosophers explaining carefully that no, they don't.
— Banno

The philosopher would be wrong. The scientist knows best. They're the ones actually studying how the world and perception works. — Michael

Some relevant science:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/nov/12/improbable-research-seeing-upside-down

The professor made Kohler wear a pair of hand-engineered goggles. Inside those goggles, specially arranged mirrors flipped the light that would reach Kohler's eyes, top becoming bottom, and bottom top.

At first, Kohler stumbled wildly when trying to grasp an object held out to him, navigate around a chair, or walk down stairs. In a simple fencing game with sticks, Kohler would rise his stick high when attacked low, and low in response to a high stab.

Holding a teacup out to be filled, he would turn the cup upside down the instant he saw the water apparently pouring upward. The sight of smoke rising from a match, or a helium balloon bobbing on a string, could trigger an instant change in his sense of which direction was up, and which down.

But over the next week, Kohler found himself adapting, in fits and starts, then more consistently, to such sights.

After 10 days, he had grown so accustomed to the invariably upside-down world that, paradoxically and happily, everything seemed to him normal, rightside-up. Kohler could do everyday activities in public perfectly well: walk along a crowded sidewalk, even ride a bicycle. Passersby on the street did ogle the man, though, because his eyewear looked, from the outside, unfashionable.