Donald Davidson says rationality requires understanding the concept of truth. I don't see how an AI would do that.

Donald Davidson says rationality requires understanding the concept of truth. I don't see how an AI would do that. — frank

AI cannot understand anything since it does not have access to ideas; an idea is an irreducible mental event that is meaningful and is distinguishable from other ideas.

Could be

What do you mean? An AI does not have access to ideas.

An AI does not have access to ideas. — MoK

I don't know exactly what ideas are, but I think of them as something we're abstracting out of situations. They don't stand alone. I think some kind of reflexiveness (like turning back to be aware of oneself) is needed.

I don't know exactly what ideas are, but I think of them as something we're abstracting out of situations. — frank

I already defined an idea, so I repeat: An idea is an irreducible mental event that is meaningful and is distinguishable from other ideas. We have the ability to create new ideas given the situations we are therein. You are correct on saying: "I think of them as something we're abstracting out of situations". So you know what ideas are. :wink:

That is not how our brains work. Our brains are not binary.

If I tell an AI that 2 + 2 = 3, it would say that's not accurate. If I tell it candidate X said something during the debate, the AI can review the video or transcription, and say whether or not it's accurate. If it's not a situation where it can be proven, the AI can say it is unable to verify the accuracy. Isn't that what we do to verify truth?

There is an interaction between two substances. The mind is a light substance, so it affects the matter slightly. So it is difficult to measure the contribution of the mind in the process in the brain. — MoK

Yes, that's how I see it. (Although I'm on the property dualism side instead of substance dualism.)

Yes, that's how I see it. — Patterner

Cool! :wink:

(Although I'm on the property dualism side instead of substance dualism.) — Patterner

Mental events within the property dualism do not have causal power, so the property dualism is not acceptable.

Mental events within the property dualism do not have causal power, so the property dualism is not acceptable. — MoK

Unless you are wrong, and mental events within the property dualism do have causal power.

Our brains could be simulated by a binary computer. Would a simulated brain be conscious?

Unless you are wrong, and mental events within the property dualism do have causal power. — Patterner

Mental events are not substances, so they cannot have any physical properties to affect the brain.

Unless you are wrong, and mental events within the property dualism do have causal power.
— Patterner
Mental events are not substances, so they cannot have any physical properties to affect the brain. — MoK

Mental events are not substances, but the mind is?

Mental events are not substances, but the mind is? — Patterner

The mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

Our brains could be simulated by a binary computer. Would a simulated brain be conscious? — RogueAI

If you are speaking of a binary computer, no, it could not be conscious. It is mechanical. However, a quantum computer opens new possibilities. Can man create light? Can man create consciousness?

The mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. — MoK

My views are similar in ways, and different in others. I say consciousness is an irreducible property with the ability to experience and cause.

I think consciousness has the ability to decide free of the laws of physics. That is, we can make decisions for reasons other than succession of the arrangements of the particles in our brains. I don't know if it's entirely free, though.

The mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. — MoK

Like an invisible jellyfish floating inside the skull?

My views are similar in ways, and different in others. I say consciousness is an irreducible property with the ability to experience and cause. — Patterner

A property cannot have any ability.

Like an invisible jellyfish floating inside the skull? — frank

The mind is irreducible, but can be present in several places simultaneously. So, yes, like a jellyfish floating inside the skull.

So, yes, like a jellyfish floating inside the skull. — MoK

Ok.

A property cannot have any ability. — MoK

Consciousness is the property by which matter subjectively experiences. Just as mass is the property by which matter warps spacetime. (Not sure "by which" is the right phrase. Apparently the best I can do at the moment.)

Yes, i think that's probably the most accurate way to think about it. Exactly what properties substance/matter/reality/whatever intrinsically has is interesting, and i think consciousness has to be on that list.

Consciousness is the property by which matter subjectively experiences — Patterner

But only organic matter. Consciousness is what differentiates organic from non-organic matter. Agree or disagree

Consciousness is the property by which matter subjectively experiences. — Patterner

Correct. That is an acceptable definition of consciousness. Consciousness, given this definition, cannot be causally efficacious in the material world.

Edit. Didn't mean to post yet.

Consciousness is the property by which matter subjectively experiences
— Patterner

But only organic matter. Consciousness is what differentiates organic from non-organic matter. Agree or disagree — Wayfarer

Disagree. I mean, I'm the one saying particles subjectively experience, eh? :smile: I suspect you are talking about mental abilities. I think those are things humans are conscious of. We are not aware of anything non-organic that is anywhere near as complex as most forms of life, so nothing non-organic is experiencing what we experience. But no reason non-organic cannot be sufficiently complex.

Consciousness is the property by which matter subjectively experiences.
— Patterner
Correct. That is an acceptable definition of consciousness. Consciousness, given this definition, cannot be causally efficacious in the material world. — MoK

It can. It is. Here we are, after all.

It can. It is. Here we are, after all. — Patterner

No!

No! — MoK

Yes!

If you say so. Saying yes, however, does not make the claim true.