What makes a neuronal network conscious but not a silicon network? Sounds like biological bias to me.
Also, this seems to be 3rd person view of understanding. What is the 1st person view of understanding or consciousness or perception. I know I'm conscious, understanding and perceiving by different means than you would know I'm conscious, understanding and perceiving. Why? — Harry Hindu
That's true. We assume other people are conscious because they look like us, and are biological organisms, like ourselves. But we don't know for sure. How can we? — RogueAI
...so he has understood ChineseIf he internalizes all the rules in his head(brain) then effectively he is learning and understanding chinese.... — debd
...so he has not understood ChineseMemorizing all the rules does not allow me to answer questions like "How do you feel today?", "What are you grateful for today?".
You didnt answer my question. What makes some string of scribbles nonsense? What makes some string of scribbles a joke? I understand English but didn't find that string of scribbles funny.The problem is more that "A nice derangement of epitaphs" could not be translated into Chinese without losing the joke. Hence, there are aspects of language that are not captured by such an algorithmic translation process. — Banno
What makes some string of scribbles nonsense? — Harry Hindu
Because consciousness had been in the domain of religion as the soul for so long. Science seems to want to dismiss it as an illusion, but then consciousness is what is used to observe the world and theorize about what is observed. If consciousness were an illusion then so are all scientific theories as they are based on what is observed via consciousness.That begs another question: why don't we have an agreed upon scientific definition of consciousness yet? Maybe 100 years ago that would have been asking too much, but at this stage in the game? It's remarkable we still can't define what consciousness is, and yet another sign that the phenomenon is outside the "realm" of science — RogueAI
We can look inside our brains and see. Consider my brain and yours. We undergo fMRI and EEG scans when we are awake and find both of us have similar fMRI and EEG patterns. Now for a given brain state as represented by fMRI and EEG patterns, if I consider myself to be conscious, why shouldn't I consider the same for you when you too have a similar fMRI and EEG pattern as me?
Putting idealism aside, yes, we have indirect evidence other people are conscious because they have brains like our own, but there's no way to know for sure if they're conscious. How do I know that there's not something unique to my brain, some little unnoticeable difference, that makes me (and me alone) conscious? How would I begin to even test such a theory? — RogueAI
With advances in technology we will have a far more detailed picture for comparing. Hence the gaps in which this uniqueness can hide will become smaller. For example, magnetoencephalography provides a much more detailed spatial map of our brain than EEG. But sure you can always argue that there is "some little unnoticeable difference". Similarly I can say that consciousness is due to a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere with no way to disprove it but that's not a very helpful way to go about it.
Before you can claim consciousness depends on matter, you have to clearly define matter and conciousness. Science has not defined either adequately. It doesn't know what we are looking at, nor what is looking.
This is plainly obvious for all to see.
As far as we can tell, its impossible to know anything about objective reality. Science has not revealed a single objective truth as of yet, only subjective observations (repeated observations sure. But no amount of subjective observation will change the fact that its subjective) — debd
So you are saying that the Chinese room is a brain with one neuron... as the man is analogous to the neuron. Yet you proved it that one neuron does not a brain or consciousness make.You don't just jump from "a single neuron" to "full human consciousness" like that.
— Outlander
Yes, I agree. I am trying to draw an analogy in which a neuron is the man in the chinese room and our whole brain is the room itself. Both the man and the neuron have no understanding of chinese yet the brain will understand chinese, hence the room should too. — debd
Like i said, it will require a change in the way we think about reality - like abandoning dualism, materialism and idealism. Everything is relationships, or information.I think that if science was going to solve the Hard Problem, it would have made some progress by now. But we're still just as clueless about how non-conscious stuff can produce consciousness as we were during Descartes' time. — RogueAI
But then you have to explain how neurons cause consciousness, or changes in consciousness. Is it a temporal or spatial change? How does something physical cause a change in something non-physical?Well it can certainly be proven that atleast our consciousness is due to the activity of neurons. Destroy enough of them and we cease to have consciousness. — debd
And we use scribbles to communicate. Think I've said that before.Use. What you do with that string of scribbles. Think I've said that before. — Banno
Yes, I believe the superorganism that would be the Chinese room will pass the Turing test. If it is possible to construct then it would be a true AI. — debd
At this point I'd like you to consider the nature of consciousness — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.