It's this point that I believe makes computer consciousness a logical impossibility — Daemon

We don't need arguments for that. Just point at the impossibility to create even a single neuron from scratch.

Chalmers invented a weird game. He proposed that if you replace each neuron with a tiny computer computing the right exit signals based on the input, you wouldn't notice that your whole brain was replaced by this procedure...

He proposed that if you replace each neuron with a tiny computer computing the right exit signals based on the input, — Hillary

That seems to presuppose that neurons operate in this kind of linear fashion. They don't. The idea is scientifically naive.

I totally agree! There is no calculation going on in neurons in the first place. No written program. Even if you could compute non-linear processes, it would still be a programmed simulation of a neuron. Not really a fresh wind blowing into your brain!

Even if AI can create new things it is only on account of the fact that we have programmed them to do so, which means it is really us creating the new things utilizing the AI to augment our creativity — Janus

No, it learns and is not just repetative.

if not a materialist, how do you see consciousness? — GLEN willows

As a process. Not merely a function of the physical.

Note that consciousness, in humans, or dogs, is not an observer-dependent phenomenon. Whether you (or your dog if any) are conscious is not a matter of interpretation by an external observer. — Daemon

Not necessarily. It is perfectly consistent to adopt an anti-realist stance regarding the existence of other minds, where the existence of other minds is considered to be ontologically dependent on the perceptions of the observer.

This position has the advantage of being able to refute skepticism regarding the existence of other minds, in identifying the recognition of another mind as partially constituting the very definition of said 'other' mind.

No, it learns and is not just repetative. — Jackson

AI is programmed. It appears to understand, learn, be creative, feel, think, or be intelligent because of a programmed series of hyperfast operations on collections of data.

AI is programmed. It appears to understand, learn, be creative, feel, think, or be intelligent because of a programmed series of hyperfast operations on collections of data — Hillary

Same with humans. Not being sarcastic. Most humans are not creative. Most don't have awareness of their feelings.

As a process. Not merely a function of the physical. — Jackson

Consciousness is not the process itself. Its the content

Same with humans — Jackson

The brain processes are not programmed. There is a free rolling process going on. Only connection strengths are varied.

Consciousness is not the process itself. Its the content — Hillary

Both.

I think perhaps you are mistaking the status of the "observer" in "observer-relative". None of this is closely related to the (pseudo-) Problem of Other Minds.

The brain processes are not programmed. — Hillary

Human processes are programmed. We don't cause our brain to have thought.

Most don't have awareness of their feelings. — Jackson

What an idiotic remark! Have you actually met and interacted with humans?

What an idiotic remark! Have you actually met and interacted with humans? — Daemon

Goodbye.

You will have to elaborate as to why you consider functions to be observer dependent, but not the existence of other minds.

After all, we recognise the existence of other minds in terms of behavioural stimulus-responses we relate to, which are in turn correlated to the ability of said body to perform computation. How is it consistent to regard the computation to be observer-dependent, but not the existence of said 'other' mind?

Also consider borderline AI cases. Suppose that 50% of the population believe an artificial agent to be conscious, but the other 50% disagrees. A realist regarding the existence of other-minds will conclude that half of the population is right and that the other half is wrong. But there is no reason to assume the existence of a transcendental fact of the matter concerning the consciousness of the agent, that is above and beyond the observable behaviour. An anti-realist can simply conclude that the agent is 50% human-like in it's observable responses as judged by aggregated public opinion.

You will have to elaborate as to why you consider functions to be observer dependent, but not the existence of other minds. — sime

I still think you are misinterpreting the meaning of "observer-dependent" as I'm using it.

Money and marriage are observer-dependent phenomena, in that something is only money or a marriage because we say so. Whether an abacus or a PC are carrying out computation is observer-dependent in this sense.

Metals, mountains, molecules and minds are observer-independent. Something is a metal and acts as a metal does regardless of what any external observer may say or think about the matter. And a conscious entity is conscious (has experiences, feels stuff) regardless of the views of external observers.

No, it learns and is not just repetative. — Jackson

But has A.I. solved the frame problem yet?

But has A.I. solved the frame problem yet? — Joshs

What is the frame problem?

Thank you.

I’m not a fan of Kuhn or Feyerbend, who said that science is no better at predicting the future than astrology. I’m not a realist, I’m an empiricist really, so I don’t think that we’re limited to knowing only what our sense perceptions tell us.

But does anti-realism deny that even just as a “pragmatically useful” way of understanding consciousness, it’s important to learn about the process?

As for AI most of the arguments are based on what computers can do now, not what they can do in the future, ex. quantum computers.

Sometimes I find philosophers (not all) get mired in realism/anti-realism arguments, while scientists just keep working on new ideas. I’m not anti-philosophy or blind to all of sciences flaws, I just think a lot of philosophy of science tends to dismiss the strides made in - for example - neuroscience. It’s seems to be mostly about poking holes - in my opinion.

I know this is a simplistic perspective, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I’m definitely not as accomplished a philosopher as many of you here. But I do think it would benefit academia and probably the world if the disciplines could work together on these major issues. And some are coming around to that conclusion.

I admitted right in my first post that this whole discussion is speculative. No one here KNOWS what consciousness is, so none of us can predict whether it will be something that can be explained with neuroscience, or created and put into a robot or computer.

This “I don’t believe consciousness could ever be…etc” just seems like circling the philosophical wagons and a lack of imagination.

Thanks for the comments

but how does the process come into existence? This is what has yet to be explained.

As for AI most of the arguments are based on what computers can do now, not what they can do in the future, ex. quantum computers. — GLEN willows

:up: ... or advanced neural nets (post von Neumann systems).

This “I don’t believe consciousness could ever be…etc” just seems like circling the philosophical wagons and a lack of imagination.

:clap:

As for AI most of the arguments are based on what computers can do now, not what they can do in the future, ex. quantum computers. — GLEN willows

:up: ... or advanced neural nets (post von Neumann systems). — 180 Proof

Do they deal with the argument I raised about the observer-dependent nature of digital computation?

How?

No one here KNOWS what consciousness is, so none of us can predict whether it will be something that can be explained with neuroscience, or created and put into a robot or computer. — GLEN willows

But it isn't the case that we know NOTHING about what consciousness is, we have gained a vast amount of knowledge about it in my lifetime and that knowledge is growing at an accelerating rate. We know enough about consciousness to know what can't cause it, and the observer-dependent nature of computation means that computation can't be the cause.

Don't you think it is now being explained by neuroscience?

Most humans are not creative. Most don't have awareness of their feelings. — Jackson

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on how you know this? Do you think there's anyone on the forum here who doesn't have awareness of their feelings? All the children I know have been creative from an early age, creating drawings and imaginative stories, and they all have clearly had awareness of their feelings. If most humans are not creative and don't have awareness of their feelings, have I just been incredibly lucky with the humans I've met?

Here are children's drawings from around the world: https://multiculturalkidblogs.com/2015/08/12/wordless-wednesday-kids-drawings-around-world/

Ok I will say the observer dependence argument is above my philosophical pay grade. I will study it…be ready for my next class :lol:

But let me ask you: is there any reason, according to this argument, that it’s impossible to learn about the interrelation between the brain and consciousness? And how we might get insights into the process through neuroscience?

just to be snarky, what inroads has philosophy made into consciousness? It seems to be referred to in philosophical circles as the “hard problem,” and one that we’ll never understand.

No, if anything it's the opposite. The argument aims to show that computation can't cause consciousness because computation is an observer-dependent phenomenon, whereas the brain (and body) and the consciousness they produce are observer-independent phenomena. They are what they are and they do what they do regardless of what external observers think and say.

The argument seems relatively simple and clearly decisive to me, which is one reason I have had a long-term interest in the topic. Another reason is that it is very widely believed that computation could some day cause consciousness, and I feel that I know it can't. In the same way that I know a weather simulation on a computer can't cause rain. It intrigues me that so many people don't see this.

I would like to know who thinks computation can cause consciousness. Is that a pan-psych argument? That a thermometer has a small level of consciousness. That’s definitely not my argument.

Can you answer my questions?