Really now, Garrett. Are you claiming transistors have nothing to do with computers?

At the heart of a computer is the microprocessor, which is a collection of transistors, which is to say that the heart of a computer is a bunch of tiny switches.

Hey, you're the one that said computer consciousness is possible.

Really now, Garrett. Are you claiming transistors have nothing to do with computers? — RogueAI

No, I'm claiming that you are not equipped for this conversation, mister transistor. The logical equivalent of your line of inquiry is asking me if I'm talking about heat-sinks, or circuits. It's nonsense, man. Let's move on. Make a real point and I'll be happy to address it, but I don't do detours of bullshit in an attempt to negate reality. You're going to have to find a magi for that, there's plenty here for you, if that's what you want.

Ok, let's move away from switches, since they obviously have nothing to do with computing :roll:

Check this out:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/505:_A_Bunch_of_Rocks

What part do you disagree with?

The logical equivalent of your line of inquiry is asking me if I'm talking about heat-sinks, or circuits. — Garrett Travers

"In the digital world, a transistor is a binary switch and the fundamental building block of computer circuitry."
https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/transistor#:~:text=In%20the%20digital%20world%2C%20a,or%20even%20billions%20of%20transistors.

What part do you disagree with? — RogueAI

Everything. This is an elaborate strawman of reality that does not take into acount anything to do with chemical reactions that take place within the context of natural laws, combinations, recombinations, replications, electricity, electromagnetic induction, nothing. This is complete nonsense from start to finish. You cannot have a computer without the things I just enumerated.

In the digital world, a transistor is a binary switch and the fundamental building block of computer circuitry." — RogueAI

Yep, I'm aware. You seem to be leaving out, oh I don't know, every single other part that plays a role in the operation of transistors within the context of computation electronics. Just like your sill strawman cartoon left out everything we know about the laws of the material universe.

I'm an immaterialist. I don't agree the comic, but I've had discussions with computationalists who do. Your position sounds like computationalism, but you seem uncomfortable exploring what a conscious computer would entail.

Let's talk about functional equivalents. Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious?

I'm an immaterialist. — RogueAI

No, you're not. You just say you are using instruments made out of material we both share. It's lie you all tell yourselves to hide from reality. A fabricated make-believe, you see. What you are is, like many people here, an anti-realityist. But reality doesn't care what you say you are, it will make you submit any way you cut the pie.

I don't agree the comic, but I've had discussions with computationalists who do. — RogueAI

That's because they're not thinking properly.

Your position sounds like computationalism, but you seem uncomfortable exploring what a conscious computer would entail. — RogueAI

I'm fully comfortable to do so. What I'm not comfortable with is entertaining the relegation of conscious computers to switches, that's called stupidity.

Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious? — RogueAI

No. There are many brains that lack self-awareness and concept generation. Now, we could probably assume that, were we successful, the entity could perhaps self-execute action. The problem there is, action, and consciousness for that matter, isn't something that is straightforward. Conceptual framework have to be provided to the entity in regards to the motivation behind action. In our case, you're looking at genetic coding that provides a framework of self-sustaining and self-replicating action, same as animals. With computers, such would have to be programmed into them via software.

Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious?
— RogueAI

No. — Garrett Travers

ETA: Scratch what I just said.

Gradual uploading: Here the most widely-discussed method is that of
nanotransfer. One or more nanotechnology devices (perhaps tiny robots) are
inserted into the brain and each attaches itself to a single neuron, learning to
simulate the behavior of the associated neuron and also learning about its
connectivity. Once it simulates the neuron’s behavior well enough, it takes the
place of the original neuron, perhaps leaving receptors and effectors in place and
uploading the relevant processing to a computer via radio transmitters. It then
moves to other neurons and repeats the procedure, until eventually every neuron
has been replaced by an emulation, and perhaps all processing has been uploaded
to a computer
http://consc.net/papers/uploading.pdf

What do you think would happen to your consciousness if you had that done to you?

What do you think would happen to your consciousness if you had that done to you? — RogueAI

Now, that, is interesting. I don't know. It's not something I can rationally formulate an opinion on just yet. I'll need time to integrate more data. Plus, we're no where near this kind of thing yet. With maybe the exception of neural link, but we won't have updates on that until later this year.

Fair enough. I enjoyed our conversation!

Fair enough. I enjoyed our conversation! — RogueAI

Me too, pal.

1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take?
— Harry Hindu
I don't know about them. Other people have to tell me about them. Same as everyone. — Garrett Travers

If you don't know about mental states, then doesn't that pull the rug out from under your arguments? How can you talk about something that you don't know?

I am not confined to my experience of my brain. Like I said, I don't experience my brain. I experience a sensory model of the world. I experience brains when looking at other people's mental states.
— Harry Hindu

This is mystical woo. You only ever experience what your brain produces for you as experience. Absolutely nothing else, ever. This sensory model of the world is actually data accrued and organized by the brain it recieved from the world. And no, you don't look at other people's mental states, that would be telepathic. What you experience is the presence of other humans WITH mental states just like yours, but to which each is exclusively bound to, respectively.

Experience: practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

This is not something applicable between mental states. This is the sensory data recieved by the brain to create that model of the world of yours. — Garrett Travers

Now I'm disappointed. I thought you were going to provide some links to the research of how brains produce mental states. Instead I get an ad hominem. Please don't let my name fool you into thinking that I'm a mystical woo person.

What is "you" and where is "you" relative to your brain?

The issue here is that you can't seem to explain how a physical brain produces mental states, or even clarify what you mean by such a statement. You aren't even sure that mental states exist because you claim to not know about mental states, yet assert that they are produced by the brain. In what way are they produced?

If you only experience what your brain produces for you to experience, doesn't that mean other people's brains? How do you get at the states of the world via what your brain produces (mental states)?

Personally, I think it is wrong to imply causality to brain and mental states, as in they are produced. Instead, it's more helpful to think of brains and mental states as the same thing - just from different views (one is viewed and the other is the view - viewing the view, or thinking about thinking, or knowing that you know are sensory feedback loops (cartesian theatres).

I believe the answers will come from an amalgam of neurosicence, quantum physics and process philosophy. QM needs to get it's grip on explaining the observer effect.

You claim that computer consciousness is a possibility, and you have an explanation for how computers might be conscious, but how would you verify whether that explanation is true or not? For example, you would claim that that computer over there is conscious because xyz, while I would claim that it's not conscious because abc. If both of our explanations are coherent, how do we determine who is correct?

1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take?
— Harry Hindu
I don't know about them. Other people have to tell me about them. Same as everyone.
— Garrett Travers

If you don't know about mental states, then doesn't that pull the rug out from under your arguments? How can you talk about something that you don't know?

I am not confined to my experience of my brain. Like I said, I don't experience my brain. I experience a sensory model of the world. I experience brains when looking at other people's mental states.
— Harry Hindu

This is mystical woo. You only ever experience what your brain produces for you as experience. Absolutely nothing else, ever. This sensory model of the world is actually data accrued and organized by the brain it recieved from the world. And no, you don't look at other people's mental states, that would be telepathic. What you experience is the presence of other humans WITH mental states just like yours, but to which each is exclusively bound to, respectively.

Experience: practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

This is not something applicable between mental states. This is the sensory data recieved by the brain to create that model of the world of yours.
— Garrett Travers
Now I'm disappointed. I thought you were going to provide some links to the research of how brains produce mental states. Instead I get an ad hominem. Please don't let my name fool you into thinking that I'm a mystical woo person.

What is "you" and where is "you" relative to your brain?

The issue here is that you can't seem to explain how a physical brain produces mental states, or even clarify what you mean by such a statement. You aren't even sure that mental states exist because you claim to not know about mental states, yet assert that they are produced by the brain. In what way are they produced?

If you only experience what your brain produces for you to experience, doesn't that mean other people's brains? How do you get at the states of the world via what your brain produces (mental states)?

Personally, I think it is wrong to imply causality to brain and mental states, as in they are produced. Instead, it's more helpful to think of brains and mental states as the same thing - just from different views (one is viewed and the other is the view - viewing the view, or thinking about thinking, or knowing that you know are sensory feedback loops (cartesian theatres).

I believe the answers will come from an amalgam of neurosicence, quantum physics and process philosophy. QM needs to get it's grip on explaining the observer effect. — Harry Hindu

Every bit of this is complete, whim-based, anti-scientific nonsense. You want sources, got your back. Thoughts don't exist, they're computational concepts of non-copreal nature that are produced by the brain. That's why I can't retrieve them if I cut you open. Brain states are mental states. This thread is complete bullshit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroeconomics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043598/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00359/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5586212/

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_03_p/i_03_p_que/i_03_p_que.html

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-functions/visual-perception

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542184/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10870199/

A good gish-gallop of sources showing you you're all full of shit.

Brain states are mental states. — Garrett Travers

Are you saying mental states are identical to brain states?

Brain states are mental states. — Garrett Travers

Imagine we have two ancient Greeks conversing about their mental states. They talk about being happy to see their kids grow up, and about the aches and pains of being old. You would agree they are exchanging meaningful information about their mental states with each other, right?

Now, let's stipulate that these ancient Greeks had no idea what the brain does. Even worse, they believe the function of the brain is to cool the blood. And yet, if mental states are brain states, and the two Greeks are meaningfully exchanging information about their mental states, it follows that they are also meaningfully exchanging information about their brain states. But that is clearly impossible, since they have no idea what brain states even are, and are clueless about what the function of the brain is.

Imagine we have two ancient Greeks conversing about their mental states. They talk about being happy to see their kids grow up, and about the aches and pains of being old. You would agree they are exchanging meaningful information about their mental states with each other, right?

Now, let's stipulate that these ancient Greeks had no idea what the brain does. Even worse, they believe the function of the brain is to cool the blood. And yet, if mental states are brain states, and the two Greeks are meaningfully exchanging information about their mental states, it follows that they are also meaningfully exchanging information about their brain states. But that is clearly impossible, since they have no idea what brain states even are, and are clueless about what the function of the brain is. — RogueAI

And?

This isn't a thought-experiment of any value. Awareness of the brain, or lack thereof, does not change the function of it. Brainstates are the source of mental states, period. Defer to the journals I left you, they explain it. Time to put this to bed.

A disappointing response.

Thoughts don't exist, — Garrett Travers

You never mentioned whether you take issue with this formulation:

There are thoughts, I experience thoughts, but thoughts do not exist.

A disappointing response. — RogueAI

Post something relavent.

There are thoughts, I experience thoughts, but thoughts do not exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's correct. The computational processes that give rise to recollections of, or abstractions from data exist, but the thoughts do not themselves. That's why if I cut your brain open, I only find your brain. And it isn't that "you" experience them, the brain is an experiential entity. Consciousness is itself an experience of the brain, not of this detached "you" that people in this thread keep referring to.

There are thoughts, I experience thoughts, but thoughts do not exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's correct. — Garrett Travers

And if I remove the second clause?:

There are thoughts, but thoughts do not exist.

There are thoughts, but thoughts do not exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The first clause is mistaken, as I have established. There are not thoughts. "Thoughts" is a word that has been applied to the experience of computational processes conducted by the brain, experienced by the executive function of the very same brain. It's why you can't know what I'm thinking, "thoughts" are brain relative because they do not exist. I posted a slew of neuroscience journals in a comment to Rouge AI's above, you guys really need to read those. Other wise, you're all just shooting out opinions, or irrelavent arguments on the subject.

I posted a slew of neuroscience journals in a comment to Rouge AI's above, you guys really need to read those. — Garrett Travers

Neuroscience is irrelevant here.

This is about how language is being used. When, to support your view, you say "there are no thoughts," it's a flagrant abuse of language.

Because - there are thoughts.

Neuroscience is irrelevant here. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Neuroscience is the ONLY thing that is relavent here. If you don't understand that, you do not have a place in this discussion. Thoughts are neuronal processes, period, end of story. In other words, either you agree to accept the truth of that, which is established science, or we stop talking about magic.

Neuroscience is the ONLY thing that is relavent here. — Garrett Travers

Everyone knows that things happen in brains in correlation to thoughts.

And everyone knows there are thoughts.

If you hope to be a philosopher, your language should reflect what everyone knows: there are thoughts.

Thoughts are neuronal processes, period, end of story. In — Garrett Travers

If thoughts are X it follows that there are thoughts.