I believe your fallacy is that you feel a need to justify a non centrist view. You don't think that humans are special because to be so would seem... self centered. I agree that is how it seems, throughout history humans have had a tendency of thinking they are the center of the universe, figuratively and literally. However, completely disregarding that we could be special at all is absurd. We have very clearly defined differences from animals. We have complex architecture, we have many written languages, we have been to space. We have created art that may be indistinguishable from photographs because it's so good. We use electricity to power our lights and personal secretaries we carry on our phones. Humanity is certainly special. The mistake is thinking that we are biblically special. We have no divine purpose, and there is no evil to banish from the universe. We are here by coincidence, and what we have made out of our circumstances is what makes us special. That is what "separates us from the beasts" as I said earlier. We are special because of our luck, our intelligence, and our desire to improve.

Why, you experience the illusion of course. Self consciousness is the mind making sense of its world. There is no reason why your brain sees the color red as specifically that color. It could assign it any other shade, and in fact, it does often. Color blindness is the result of the brains inability to differentiate between two colors that to it seem the same, and to the rest of us, are different. Mental illness also interferes with self awareness. Seeing monsters that aren't real is just the brain playing tricks on the mind.

The things that you see are more or less accurate, but some things are chosen arbitrarily. Color is just waves of the light spectrum being reflected into your eyes. If you were able to see those particles outside of the human mind, they wouldn't be red or green or blue or yellow. Color is made up, but it is useful, and that's why we have it. Color is a very good example of the brain processing the illusion of consciousness for the mind to observe and decide what to do next. Imaginary shades of color seem so real to us, but simply don't exist outside our minds.

It has been proved that, according to known physics, a universal computer can emulate any physical system exactly. It's not odd, it's reality. — tom

What is a universal computer? I've heard of the Cosmology Machine and was taken aback at the level of hubris. It's amazing the "science" (pseudoscience) of meteorology continues to claim it can forecast, when all it does is update based on essentially current conditions. Don't meteorologists rely on computer simulations? Their computers, then, fail miserably in attempting to compute nonlinear conditions. Now, how in the world would I believe, if the weather forecast is always wrong for regions of our planet, it would ever be possible for a machine to simulate the physical conditions of the entire cosmos?

How does the brain depend on computations? — Anthony

What does that question even mean?

I've thought it, computations, the hammer of mathematicians which treats of everything in existence like its nails. — Anthony

Nails? Computational universality has nothing to do with mathematicians, or nails.

Even though many phenomena can be analyzed mathematically doesn't mean math was required to bring them into existence. — Anthony

You've lost me.

you and that other guy are arguing with yourselves. I have never denied that we are "unique." So stop thinking you need to persuade me that we are "unique." And now in addition to "unique" you are claiming that we are "special". Fine, we are "unique" and "special". We are "unique" and we are "special" and therefore. . . . . . . . . . . . WHAT? When are you going to fill in the therefore. . .? Your own examples are absurd. We are so good at art that we can paint a picture that looks almost as real as the machine we built to take pictures. We can go to concerts and listen to musicians play music that sounds almost as good as their latest studio album. Did it ever occur to you that we are so "unique" and "special" that we could actually create a being that is more "unique" and "special" than we are? We are "unique" and "special" and therefore WHAT??? Make a freaking argument!!

we could actually create a being — Arne

There's only one way known for humans to actually 'create another being', and that is by reproduction.

Computers are devices, by definition. They're manufactured artefacts that in essence are large arrays of switches that are able to emulate or model various cognitive and computational processes.

But I have never seen anything to persuade me that a computer is a subject of experience.

Computational universality has nothing to do with mathematicians — tom

Mathematicians are human computers...or mentats if you like. Once there was only the abacus for a computer.

What does that question even mean? — tom

You said, see below, that humans have a computationally universal brain. Maybe I'm one of those jugheaded laymen that needs an explanation here. Perhaps I'll look it up. Apologies.

Humans have something other animals do not - a computationally universal brain, and a self aware mind. — tom

I didn't know human brains differed that much from other mammal's brains, functionally? The human mind is what differs most patently, not the brain. As to why we are so self aware compared to other organisms is a question we should be very careful in limiting to any sort of computation.

Btw, I redacted my previous post.

Our brains cannot be more than computers, according to physics. — tom

Are algorithms physical? In what sense are you using the term physics to mean a scientific model of both hardware and software?

You can start with a Turing machine if you like.

I see the simple gate mechanism that switches the state of a symbol. I see the infinite length of tape on which those marks are recorded. I try hard not to mention the problems the second law creates for this imagined material device.

But then this machine needs someone to write it some rules, supply it some data, understand the results.

In what sense are you saying that all that rather mental stuff is reduced to the same materialistic physics used to imagine the hardware?

There's only one way known for humans to actually 'create another being', and that is by reproduction. — Wayfarer

Definition of being. 1 a : the quality or state of having existence.

Seriously, what am I, chopped liver.

and please define "experience".

I will wait here.

Definition of being. 1 a : the quality or state of having existence. — Arne

That is only a partial definition. Really, defining or coming to an understanding of the meaning of fundamental terms like 'being' and 'existence' are a basic task in philosophy. Many people - presumably including yourself - simply assume that it is obvious what the word 'being' refers to, and that computers and beings are pretty much the same kind of thing. But when you analyse such beliefs, they rest on many unjustifiable assumptions.

For instance, the word 'being', in this context, can be used either as a noun, i.e. 'human being', or as the present participle of the verb 'to be'. What I'm saying is that computers are not 'beings' in the sense conveyed by the former. And in fact we don't refer to them as such. If you were standing outside a burning building, and were to ask, 'is there anyone in that building'? you wouldn't be asking 'are there any computers in that building?' If you said (although it would be a strange turn of phrase) 'are there living beings in there?', then it could be taken to be asking: are there humans, rats or pigeons in there?

So, the definition of 'being' as 'something that exists' doesn't capture something distinctive about living beings. And in fact, I am of the view that the words 'to be' and 'to exist' are not strictly synonymous, but I will leave that aside for now. But part of the meaning of 'being' in this context is precisely that beings are 'subjects of experience'. It can be said of humans, rats and pigeons, but not of artefacts or devices.

Many people - presumably including yourself - simply assume that it is obvious what the word 'being' refers to, and that computers and beings are pretty much the same kind of thing. — Wayfarer

Seriously, you are going to presume that I have a shallow understanding of being?

You are the one whose understanding of being was shallow to the point that you presumed that by being I meant human being.

If you want to give it another try, I will continue to wait here.

Being is that upon the basis of which human being renders intelligible the always already existing world into which it is thrown. And that is my definition.

your 19 minutes is up. Going forward, I do believe it would be a bit more philosophical if you were to ask some questions regarding my understanding of something rather than presume my understanding is shallow.

read Heidegger...
There seems to be something special about it if one can make a difference between "a human" and "a human being". What is it that gets emphasized? This is not to say your definition was wrong nor that I'd think this should really make a difference in this context (aside for the sake of the argument).

I do believe it would be a bit more philosophical if you were to ask some questions regarding my understanding of something rather than presume my understanding is shallow. — Arne

My entry was simply based on the post that I was commenting on.

Being is that upon the basis of which human being renders intelligible the always already existing world into which it is thrown. And that is my definition. — Arne

I wouldn't disagree, but it is a very broad definition which raises further questions. But in relation to the question at hand, what does it say about the question of whether computers are conscious subjects of experience? Because I take that question to be central to the OP.

I guess the Turing-test is much too technical. Over the procedure the main point is forgotten: There is no self-conscious AI until it proves itself to be one.

you and that other guy are arguing with yourselves. I have never denied that we are "unique." So stop thinking you need to persuade me that we are "unique." And now in addition to "unique" you are claiming that we are "special". Fine, we are "unique" and "special". We are "unique" and we are "special" and therefore. . . . . . . . . . . . WHAT? When are you going to fill in the therefore. . .? Your own examples are absurd. We are so good at art that we can paint a picture that looks almost as real as the machine we built to take pictures. We can go to concerts and listen to musicians play music that sounds almost as good as their latest studio album. Did it ever occur to you that we are so "unique" and "special" that we could actually create a being that is more "unique" and "special" than we are? We are "unique" and "special" and therefore WHAT??? Make a freaking argument!! — Arne

Well, to start, I don't really know who you mean by the other guy. I guess someone else found the fallacy as well.

The point to us being special is that, yes we have self awareness, and yes, anything we make that has it as well is also special.

Therefore, yes, we have self awareness, yes, machines can be self aware, and no, animals are not self aware. That was my argument from the beginning and it seems that is the argument I will have at the end as well. You are simply being unreasonable at this point. While it seems wrong, we are special, we are different, we are self aware, and animals are not. To be frank, you should have more pride in being human. We have built every civilization on this planet and made all of its scientific breakthroughs. If you really don't think we are aware of ourselves, you are sorely mistaken.

what does it say about the question of whether computers are conscious subjects of experience? Because I take that question to be central to the OP. — Wayfarer

I disagree for two reasons:

1. The original post posits self awareness as the issue rather than conscious[ness]. And I have no reason to presume the poster chose his terms carelessly. And though one could carelessly consider them synonymous, that would be a tough argument to make. All reasonable people would agree that my dog and I are both conscious beings. Yet I doubt all reasonable people would agree that my dog has a sense of self awareness. And if all beings who are conscious are not necessarily self aware, then conscious and self-awareness cannot be synonymous. So absent a reason to believe the original poster meant something other than what he said, it would be anti-philosophical to presume the central issue is other than self-awareness; and

2. It is where "human" stands on the spectrum of self-awareness relative to the computer that is the central question. As the poster clearly asks "Would we be closer to the computer or being x?" Again and with all due respect to the poster, it would be anti-philosophical to suggest a different question is "central to the OP."

……………………………………………………..? <---- HUMAN ----> ?

Rock --------------------------Computer---------------------------------------------------------------Being X

And in an attempt to advance the issue, I suggest that Human is closer to the Computer. However, I suspect that Human is unlikely to move significantly (if at all) closer to Being X but that the Computer certainly will move closer to Being X. If that is the case, then the deeper issue becomes whether Computer will move past Human on the spectrum of self awareness.

Further, self-awareness rather than consciousness strikes me as an interesting twist to this now age old debate. In order for there to be self-awareness, there must be awareness. If we call awareness "AL1" (Awareness Level1) and self awareness "AL2" (Awareness Level2) and awareness of self awareness "AL3" (Awareness Level3), are we not already at AL3? And at what AL(x) is Being X?

Finally and most important of all, is this simply a more grown up version of the "I know" game?

I know
I know you know
I know you know I know.

I am aware
I am self aware
I am aware that I am self aware

Because that is the way it feels every time contemporary programming achieves that which yesterday's learned skeptics said it will never achieve. If we ever had a working definition of "conscious" (which we do not) and coders were able to represent it, you can bet your bottom dollar we would promptly change the definition.

Well, to start, I don't really know who you mean by the other guy. I guess someone else found the fallacy as well. — TogetherTurtle

Wrong.

You may rest assured that the others guy's mistakes are not as "unique" and "special" as yours.

How fallacious of me to expect people to actually make arguments in support of their claims.

When will I ever learn?

I doubt all reasonable people would agree that my dog has a sense of self awareness — Arne

I agree that animals aren't reflexively self-conscious to the same degree that humans are. But I still say that a dog is a subject of experience.

Actually, your post made me go back and read the OP again - when I jumped in previously, it was in respect of a general view of the question of the difference between computers and sentient beings prompted by this remark:

Did it ever occur to you that we are so "unique" and "special" that we could actually create a being that is more "unique" and "special" than we are? We are "unique" and "special" and therefore WHAT??? — Arne

So my point was simply that, 'beings' are of a different order to 'devices', including computers. And that furthermore, there is no instance of humans ever having 'created a being' other than by the act of procreation, if that counts as 'creation'. So you're correct in saying I wasn't really addressing the OP. And going back to the OP again, I would single out this paragraph:

Now imagine a being x who is completely self-aware in every respect from the atomic realm to the macroscopic world we're familiar with. Such a being is what I call truly self-aware. — TheMadFool

I think this is problematical, as I think that 'complete self awareness' of that kind is a logical impossibility. So the hypothetical 'being X' is not something that could ever exist, which renders the entire OP rather pointless, in my opinion. So, nothing further to add, at this point.

Now imagine a being x who is completely self-aware in every respect from the atomic realm to the macroscopic world we're familiar with. Such a being is what I call truly self-aware. — TheMadFool
I think this is problematical, as I think that 'complete self awareness' of that kind is a logical impossibility. So the hypothetical 'being X' is not something that could ever exist, which renders the entire OP rather pointless, in my opinion. So, nothing further to add, at this point. — Wayfarer

Perhaps you and the poster have a different understanding of imagine. It never occurred to me that imagination must be limited to the logically possible. Oh well.

I am going to bed now.

To be frank, you should have more pride in being human. — TogetherTurtle

Seriously? Perhaps you should place your pride in who you are rather than what species you were born into. The former depends entirely upon your choices while the latter has absolutely nothing to do with anything you have ever done.

Seriously? Perhaps you should place your pride in who you are rather than what species you were born into. The former depends entirely upon your choices while the latter has absolutely nothing to do with anything you have ever done. — Arne

Quite to the contrary. The species I was born into is the whole reason I can be who I am. The human intellect is unmatched. If I was a dog, I would not be here typing this I assure you. In fact, I just asked my dog if she would like to defend herself. She met me with annoyed silence, as she was trying to sleep. I won't go as far as to blame my dogs lack of sleep on you, but I will tell you this. You have a distinct smell of arrogance around you and your posts. I refuse to go to name calling, and despite how hostile you may respond I will not. However, I will give some examples of your assholery.

Wrong.

You may rest assured that the others guy's mistakes are not as "unique" and "special" as yours.

How fallacious of me to expect people to actually make arguments in support of their claims.

When will I ever learn? — Arne

This one is interesting because you still never explain why you thought I saw someone else's argument against you, you continue to ignore the fact that everyone who has responded to you is trying to explain your arguments faults and is making an argument, and you decide to add a sarcastic stinger on the end. If this was "Snarky Teenager Forum" I would applaud you. However, this is not such a place.

Perhaps you and the poster have a different understanding of imagine. It never occurred to me that imagination must be limited to the logically possible. Oh well.

I am going to bed now. — Arne

I don't think the writer ever implied that imagination had to stay within the realm of logic. Again, you like to end your posts with some kind of statement meant to irritate and provoke. It's almost as if you want attention?

I am done. I can be no clearer. — Arne

You mean someone doesn't understand your idea? That couldn't be evidence that you are spouting nonsense and refuse to reason could it?

and please define "experience".

I will wait here. — Arne

He of course meant the experience of living, of seeing, feeling, hearing, touching, tasting. Have you ever heard of the term "I experienced ____". It's really the only way you can take that. If I'm wrong I would gladly take an alternate explanation, but I know you wouldn't, so I'll stop here. If anyone reads this far, this man is a lunatic. Give him no more attention, he only thrives on it.

Quite to the contrary. The species I was born into is the whole reason I can be who I am. The human intellect is unmatched. If I was a dog, I would not be here typing this I assure you. — TogetherTurtle

the fact that you take pride in your ability to type only proves my point. Your standards are too low. And stop with the type/token stuff. The human intellect may be unmatched, but it is clear that cannot be said of your's.

.

This one is interesting because you still never explain why you thought I saw someone else's argument against you — TogetherTurtle

because the only difference in your equally ridiculous arguments is that he used the word "unique" while you used the word "special". Another mystery solved.

He of course meant the experience of living, of seeing, feeling, hearing, touching, tasting. Have you ever heard of the term "I experienced ____". It's really the only way you can take that. If I'm wrong I would gladly take an alternate explanation, but I know you wouldn't, so I'll stop here. If anyone reads this far, this man is a lunatic. Give him no more attention, he only thrives on it. — TogetherTurtle

Listen to Mr. Fallacy talk about wanting attention. You may rest assured, I would more than happy with a little less attention from you. And how wonderfully philosophical of you to speak for others and to direct them how to respond to me. I am sure they appreciate that.

Dude, this ain't facebook.

I know I said I was done but I just think it's really funny how you didn't respond to this

I am done. I can be no clearer.
— Arne

You mean someone doesn't understand your idea? That couldn't be evidence that you are spouting nonsense and refuse to reason could it?

I believe it is customary to tell you that I'm "Going to bed now"

Also if I ever talk to you again, I'm calling you "Mr. No Clearer"

Are algorithms physical? — apokrisis

I argued in another thread that algorithms are not physical - they are logical. Of course, their instantiation must be physical, but given that this is arbitrary, the instantiation and the algorithm are different things. An identical algorithm may be instantiated on Babbage's analytic engine or on a, yet to be constructed, quantum computer. The instantiations will be subject to quite different physical laws, one effectively classical, the other quantum, but the algorithm itself is not subject to the laws of physics.

In what sense are you using the term physics to mean a scientific model of both hardware and software? — apokrisis

Usually when I use the term "physics" I am referring to that body of knowledge relating to the fundamental structure of reality.

You can start with a Turing machine if you like. — apokrisis

Why would I do that? Turing machines don't exist, they are mathematical abstractions.

In what sense are you saying that all that rather mental stuff is reduced to the same materialistic physics used to imagine the hardware? — apokrisis

Pretty sure I made no such claim.

Therefore, yes, we have self awareness, yes, machines can be self aware, and no, animals are not self aware. That was my argument from the beginning and it seems that is the argument I will have at the end as well. — TogetherTurtle

Did you give an argument that animals are not self aware, or did you just assert it?

I argued in another thread that algorithms are not physical - they are logical. — tom

So we agree that physics doesn’t account for that part of the structure of reality that is an algorithm?

Great.

Now what is it that says an algorithm is logical as such? The universe of randomly produced rule sets would be infinite. What would select among all those to create ones we would call a logical system?

Then I guess your algorithms have to have data to work on. Again, how would the input get selected so that it had physically relevant meaning?

My argument is that animals are not self aware because they simply aren't aware of themselves. Many animals are smart, and most have emotions, but they don't ask why they are smart or why they have emotions. That is the primary distinction between humans and animals, asking why. They lack the mental capacity to ask why things happen, only to investigate what something was or where it is. I don't know if you own any pets, but from every pet I've ever owned, it is clear that they lack this ability. My cat has a frequent problem with going to the bathroom on dirty clothes. If he had asked, "Why am I doing this?" I would like to think he wouldn't do it. It would be much easier on him and me if he had just gotten my attention and allowed me to take him outside. I dearly love my cat, but I understand that there is a difference between the inquisitive man and the curious cat.

My argument is that animals are not self aware because they simply aren't aware of themselves. — TogetherTurtle

That's not a particularly convincing argument.