Haha, then why are you using a word that you don't know what it means. You literally don't know what you are talking about.
[...]
Then why do you use terms that you don't what they mean? That is ludicrous. — Harry Hindu
What does it even mean for "an unpleasant subjective experience that follows activation of specific regions of the parietal lobe, usually (not always) preceded by stimulation of nociceptors of the nervous system"? How do subjective states follow from physical states? — Harry Hindu
You assume that other humans have it because they claim it, and don't assume it if a pzombie or computer claims it. You assume IT exist in humans without even knowing what IT is. You're losing me. — Harry Hindu
All this started from me suggesting that your argument was a subtle shift of the burden of proof.
Call me naive, but I honestly expected a simple response like "oh, you're right, let me rephrase that" or "I don't believe it is, because..."
But instead of that we get this bizarre freakout of you claiming I don't know what "pain" means.
Well I just gave a definition of pain, in the very post you are replying to.
But, since pain sensation was a core part of my postgraduate degree I can actually talk a lot about it. At the end of that, would you respond to the point? — Mijin
I didn't claim to know what pain is, — Mijin
You keep contradicting yourself. You go back and forth between knowing what pain is and not knowing what pain is. You call it a subjective experience and then claim to not know what a subjective experience is. You aren't being very helpful.That's all I know about it. If you'd like me to break down what a subjective experience actually is, well I can't, and nor would any neuroscientist claim to be able to at this time. — Mijin
I'm not playing "Gotcha". The fact that you think that I am just shows how you aren't even attempting to think about what you are saying. I am simply trying to get you to clarify the terms that you are using.Nobody knows. There is no scientific model (meaning: having explanatory and predictive power) for that part. If this is a "gotcha" consider yourself, and every other human, "got". — Mijin
Then all I have to do is program a computer to produce some text on your screen, "I have subjective states" and you would assume that the computer has conscious states?Possibly I am losing you because you don't read my posts? I just said I could believe that a computer could experience subjective states if it were to claim it i.e. the exact opposite of the thing you're accusing me of saying. — Mijin
Yet, you claim that no one knows what subjective experiences are. :roll:But on p-zombies, think through what you're saying. You're suggesting that I am wrong to assume p-zombies don't have subjective experience? Their definition is that they do not have subjective experience. — Mijin
You keep contradicting yourself. You go back and forth between knowing what pain is and not knowing what pain is. You call it a subjective experience and then claim to not know what a subjective experience is. You aren't being very helpful. — Harry Hindu
Then all I have to do is program a computer to produce some text on your screen, "I have subjective states" and you would assume that the computer has conscious states? — Harry Hindu
You're suggesting that I am wrong to assume p-zombies don't have subjective experience? Their definition is that they do not have subjective experience — Mijin
Yet, you claim that no one knows what subjective experiences are. — Harry Hindu
If you can't tell me what pain is then how do you expect to tell me how it works? Can you use a word when you don't know it's meaning?What pain is, how pain sensation works, what we mean by subjective experience and how much we (don't) know about how exactly subjective experience works. — Mijin
You haven't provided a consistent method of determining what type of system is conscious and which type of system isnt.And I note that you still haven't said why your argument is not a shift of the burden of proof. i.e. The whole reason you and I are in this exchange in the first place. — Mijin
What were those conditions?I said that under certain conditions I could gain belief that a computer was experiencing pain, and I mentioned what those conditions were. Does the program PRINT "Ouch!" fulfill those conditions?
If you read what I wrote, you would know the answer to this. — Mijin
No. If a pzombie is defined as having no subjective experiences and you can't define subjective experiences, then You haven't properly defined P zombies much less subjective experiences. How can you use words when you don't know what they mean?This response is a complete non sequitur. — Mijin
If you can't tell me what pain is then how do you expect to tell me how it works? — Harry Hindu
I already said that its information.Don't you already know what pain is? Are you one of those rare individuals who can't feel pain? What's that like? — Marchesk
If you can't tell me what pain is then how do you expect to tell me how it works? Can you use a word when you don't know it's meaning? — Harry Hindu
You haven't provided a consistent method of determining what type of system is conscious and which type of system isnt. — Harry Hindu
What were those conditions? — Harry Hindu
With regards to computers, yes, if an AI were able to freely converse in natural language, and it repeatedly made the claim that it felt pain, despite such sentiments not being explicitly part of its programming, and it having nothing immediate to gain by lying...then sure, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't know that it felt pain, but I'd start to lean towards it being true. — Mijin
If a pzombie is defined as having no subjective experiences and you can't define subjective experiences, then You haven't properly defined P zombies much less subjective experiences. How can you use words when you don't know what they mean? — Harry Hindu
You said:I defined pain. I've answered all your questions about pain. I've told you I can elaborate on the mechanisms of pain as much as you like, because it's a topic I've studied at postgrad level.
The only one of your questions I couldn't answer, was how physical mechanisms within the brain give rise to subjective experience because no-one can.
So drop this nonsense about me not knowing what pain is, unless you also mention that you're defining "knowing pain" in such a way that no living human knows what pain is. — Mijin
Then you said:I didn't claim to know what pain is — Mijin
I feel pain. — Mijin
So what you seem to be defining pain as is a unpleasant subjective experience, and then go on to say that you don't know what a subjective experience is. If pain is a subjective experience and you don't know what a subjective experience is, then you don't know what pain is. You aren't saying anything useful about pain by asserting that pain is a subjective experience and you don't know what a subjective experience is. It's really that simple.What I know about pain is that it is an unpleasant subjective experience, following activation of specific regions of the parietal lobe, usually (not always) preceded by stimulation of nociceptors of the nervous system.
That's all I know about it. If you'd like me to break down what a subjective experience actually is, well I can't, and nor would any neuroscientist claim to be able to at this time. That's the hard problem that we'd like to solve. — Mijin
My response was a question trying to confirm what you had said. I often paraphrase what people say, and they often recant what they said because the paraphrasing gives them a different look on what they said. But this is beyond the point. The point being that if you don't know what subjective experiences are, then you aren't in any position to make judgements about who, or what has them, or not. It's like saying a blind person doesn't know what polka-dots are, but then they can pick out what has them and what doesn't have them. It's illogical.Your response to that post, was to then say I would not believe an AI could be conscious even if it claimed it was i.e. the exact opposite of what I said. — Mijin
What do you mean, "not explicitly part of its programming"?With regards to computers, yes, if an AI were able to freely converse in natural language, and it repeatedly made the claim that it felt pain, despite such sentiments not being explicitly part of its programming, and it having nothing immediate to gain by lying...then sure, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't know that it felt pain, but I'd start to lean towards it being true. — Mijin
Where did I say that? I have only been questioning your use of the phrase, "subjective experience" because you use the phrase without knowing what it means. Why use terms that you don't know what they mean, especially if there are alternative ways of describing pain with words we do understand? :chin:You were saying I was wrong to assume p-zombies don't have subjective experiences. This showed that it is you that do not understand what a word (p-zombie) means. — Mijin
So what you seem to be defining pain as is a unpleasant subjective experience, and then go on to say that you don't know what a subjective experience is. If pain is a subjective experience and you don't know what a subjective experience is, then you don't know what pain is. — Harry Hindu
What do you mean, "not explicitly part of its programming"? — Harry Hindu
Where did I say that? — Harry Hindu
You assume that other humans have [subjective experience] because they claim it, and don't assume it if a pzombie or computer claims it. — Harry Hindu
I quoted you:I said no such thing — Mijin
:roll:What I know about pain is that it is an unpleasant subjective experience, following activation of specific regions of the parietal lobe, usually (not always) preceded by stimulation of nociceptors of the nervous system.
That's all I know about it. If you'd like me to break down what a subjective experience actually is, well I can't, and nor would any neuroscientist claim to be able to at this time. That's the hard problem that we'd like to solve. — Mijin
That's part of the problem - dualism. You're left with the impossible task of explaining how physical processes cause subjective processes.you were asking me about the mechanism by which physical neurology causes subjective experience. That's what we don't know. — Mijin
No one has ever observed dark matter. Dark matter is just an idea to account for the observed behavior of real matter, just like how subjective experiences is an idea to account for the observed behavior of human beings.It's like I am saying we don't know exactly what dark matter is, and you're repeatedly saying "If you don't know what dark matter is, how can you use the word?". The word still has meaning in referring to a specific phenomenon, even if we have no concrete scientific model yet. — Mijin
You were programmed (learned to) to say, "Ouch" from copying the actions of those around you. If you were born in another country with a different language, you would have been programmed differently. Your genetic code is a program defining the limits of your behaviors and logic defines the limits of your ideas.Well the program PRINT "Ouch!" has an exclamation of pain as part of its programming, so does not fulfill the requirements. — Mijin
My point was that you had already claimed to not know what a subjective experience is, yet you go on to claim that you know what has it and what doesn't. I already went over this in my last post, which you ignored. I'm done going back and forth with you.You assume that other humans have [subjective experience] because they claim it, and don't assume it if a pzombie or computer claims it.
— Harry Hindu
Note that this single quote from you has two issues: firstly chastizing me for assuming that p-zombies don't have subjective experience, when this is true by definition. But also secondly, saying I would not believe a computer that claimed to have subjective experience, when the post you are quoting actually says the precise opposite. — Mijin
That's part of the problem - dualism. You're left with the impossible task of explaining how physical processes cause subjective processes. — Harry Hindu
No one has ever observed dark matter. Dark matter is just an idea to account for the observed behavior of real matter, just like how subjective experiences is an idea to account for the observed behavior of human beings. — Harry Hindu
You were programmed (learned to) to say, "Ouch" from copying the actions of those around you. — Harry Hindu
I'm done going back and forth with you. — Harry Hindu
Daydreams could very well be simulated subjective experiences, or views of some process or event. The only difference between daydreams and nightdreams is that you don't have the real world imposing itself on your senses. Daydreams are like an overlay of the real world subjective experience. When sleeping, there is nothing but the simulation so the mind assumes it is reality.All these arguments over consciousness might as well take place inside a simulation. — Marchesk
You said that you are able to determine that something has subjective experiences by its behavior - by exclaiming, "Ouch!", yet now you are saying that the word or exclamation is completely irrelevant. If they exclaimed, "Yippee!", would you say that they are having a subjective experience of pain?You were programmed (learned to) to say, "Ouch" from copying the actions of those around you.
— Harry Hindu
The specific word or exclamation here is obviously completely irrelevant. We don't need to be taught to experience pain. — Mijin
You said that you are able to determine that something has subjective experiences by its behavior - by exclaiming, "Ouch!", yet now you are saying that the word or exclamation is completely irrelevant. If they exclaimed, "Yippee!", would you say that they are having a subjective experience of pain? — Harry Hindu
The problem is that this approach explains nothing. What are footprints in the sand? Information. What is consciousness? Information. What is memory? Information. — Daemon
Sure it does. It explains that everything is information. The problem is that you just don't like the idea because you haven't been able to supply a logical argument against it. — Harry Hindu
Then I would assume that you would also assert that everything is "physical" doesn't explain anything either.I don't like it because it doesn't explain anything. What we need is to find the differences between things. Waves on the sea, footprints on the beach, a piano, a digital computer, a biological brain. — Daemon
I've already asked numerous times, what makes the brain special in that has feelings and consciousness and other things can't. When you look at an image of someone's brain, do you see feelings and consciousness, or a mass of neurons? What about when you look at a computer - any difference in seeing a mass of circuits?It isn't like the machinery in a computer. If we wanted to make a conscious machine, we would need to make something with the same capacities as a brain. — Daemon
I have no idea what this means. How do brains feel? When you look at brains do you see feelings?The fact that we can feel is what makes meaning. — Daemon
Who said the beach is bothered by someone walking on it? It could be that the beach likes being walked on.You don't worry about hurting the beach by walking on it — Daemon
Then I would assume that you would also assert that everything is "physical" doesn't explain anything either. — Harry Hindu
You do realize that different causal relations would be different information? Of course you would if you had been paying attention to anything I have said. — Harry Hindu
I've already asked numerous times, what makes the brain special in that has feelings and consciousness and other things can't. — Harry Hindu
The fact that we can feel is what makes meaning. — Daemon
I have no idea what this means. — Harry Hindu
Who said the beach is bothered by someone walking on it? It could be that the beach likes being walked on. — Harry Hindu
Then we at least agree on something.Then I would assume that you would also assert that everything is "physical" doesn't explain anything either.
— Harry Hindu
That's correct. — Daemon
I've already asked numerous times, what makes the brain special in that has feelings and consciousness and other things can't.
— Harry Hindu
— Daemon
So your answer to the question: "What makes brains special from other things that allows it to possess feelings?" is that the brain is the most complex thing that we know? I don't think this is a very good answer to the question, if you don't mind me saying.It just seems like crazy talk Harry. You must know something about the complexity of the brain, it's the most complex thing we know about. And you must know something about the highly specific, highly sensitive mechanisms that make it work, and how they can be affected by injury, disease. I sometimes think you young people nowadays don't take enough drugs. — Daemon
Instead of "information", what if I said that everything is causal? — Harry Hindu
For instance, isn't the universe the most complex thing we know? — Harry Hindu
:confused: Saying that a dog or a cat is a pet isn't saying that they aren't different, only that they share a property of being a pet.None of these "everything is X" explanations are any good Harry. As I said before, an explanation needs to tell us what is different about different aspects of the world. Suppose you want to explain vision. A good explanation will tell us that it uses rods and cones on the retina, and so on. Suppose you want to explain hearing. A good explanation will tell us that it uses hair cells in the cochlea, and so on.
If we take your approach, all we can say is "vision is causal, hearing is causal". — Daemon
No. It's just logic and the principle of Occam's Razor.I do wonder what motivates you to think of things in this way. Are you a fan of Fritov Capra, like Pop? Is it mysticism? — Daemon
No. It's just logic and the principle of Occam's Razor. — Harry Hindu
Since Occam's Razor ought to be invoked only when several hypotheses explain the same set of facts equally well, in practice its domain will be very limited…[C]ases where competing hypotheses explain a phenomenon equally well are comparatively rare. — Kent Holsinger
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.