no human can be known to be sentient. — 180 Proof

One human at least is known to be sentient: ourselves. Other humans are very likely sentient, being very like us. Just as LaMDA is very likely insentient, being very like every other insentient program.

Other humans are very likely sentient, being very like us. — hypericin

This is just not true. You have no data at all on which to assess probability. Unless you know what property of our brains causes sentience, you don't know what properties you are looking for commonality over. You're just assuming that those properties are visible, biological features, but that assumption begs the question.

:100:

Or both possibly insentient ... — 180 Proof

The Other doesn't belong to this category. The Other is sentient.

You know this. And you're certain of this. Solipsism is a parlor game.

You know the Other is sentient.

And you're certain of it.

Solipsism is a parlor game.

You know the Other is sentient.

And you're certain of it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

So your argument has deteriorated into "I'm right therefore any contrary position must be merely ludic"...

It takes a rare ego to be so convinced of one's own acumen that one believes all contrary positions to be lies.

Not exactly.

My position is: anyone who chooses to deploy solipsism to defend his position has ceased to do serious philosophy.

anyone who chooses to deploy solipsism to defend his position has ceased to do serious philosophy. — ZzzoneiroCosm

As far as I can tell, you're the only one who has even mentioned solipsism.

To my view our discussion here ventures into the realm of the dishonest so I'll take my leave. Again: it was good chatting. :smile:

To my view our discussion has transitioned into the realm of the dishonest — ZzzoneiroCosm

Uh huh, so I wasn't wrong the first time then.

Uh huh, so I wasn't wrong the first time then. — Isaac

I completely agree with your assessment.

You don't need to make any such assumptions. It is just statistics.

Identical objects have a 100% chance of sharing every one of their property. Objects which are 99.99999% identical are overwhelmingly likely to share their properties. We are overwhelmingly like each other, especially relative to chimps, and lead boxes.

Identical objects — hypericin

And how do you decide which two objects are identical?

Objects which are 99.99999% identical are overwhelmingly likely to share their properties. — hypericin

What property corresponds to what % loss of identicalness?

Take a computer which is on and a computer which is off. Are they similar or dissimilar?

What about a computer which is on but large, and a computer which is on but small. Are they more or less dissimilar than the pair which were on/off?

Is a lawnmower more like a scythe than a car because they both cut grass, or more like a car than a scythe because they both have engines?

I'm not interested in this pedantic nitpicking and hand waving.

What is relevant is that we are similar in the ways we believe are causative and correlative of consciousness: similar genetically, and so similar neuro-anatomically. Similar behaviorally, expressively, similar in our language use.

Do you believe us humans are all likely conscious? If so how do you justify this belief?

we are similar in the ways we believe are causative and correlative of consciousness — hypericin

'We' do not believe that. You do.

Personally, I believe memory logging of higher order Bayesian (or Bayesian-like) inferences is what causes consciousness. In that sense I'd be alike to a machine which had those functions and unlike a human who (for some reason) didn't.

If your personal belief is that consciousness has something to do with the actual wetware, then obviously you're going to see similarity in wetware as significant.

For those who believe consciousness has more to do with cognitive function then we're obviously going to see similarity in cognitive function as significant and similarity in wetware less so.

Personally, I believe memory logging of higher order Bayesian (or Bayesian-like) inferences is what causes consciousness. — Isaac

I thought you believed that such memory logging is consciousness.

I thought you believed that such memory logging is consciousness. — bongo fury

Yes. That's right. I suppose it would be more accurate to have said that the presence of such logging functional components plus the inputs cause consciousness.

You must have a very good memory to have recalled my previously mentioning that. I'm genuinely impressed.

'We' do not believe that. You do. — Isaac

Oh, you don't believe consciousness originates in the brain? You don't believe the behaviors I mentioned are correlative at all with consciousness?

If your personal belief is that consciousness has something to do with the actual wetware, then obviously you're going to see similarity in wetware as significant. — Isaac

I believe consciousness is an informational process, not a physical one. But this process has only been instantiated in human wetware, as far as we are certain.

I suppose it would be more accurate to have said [...] cause consciousness. — Isaac

Why?

you don't believe consciousness originates in the brain? — hypericin

That's not what you asked. You said...

Other humans are very likely sentient, being very like us. — hypericin

We were talking about measures of likeness, not of qualification. The question is what it is about a brain which qualifies it as likely to be conscious, not whether brains do indeed qualify.

this process has only been instantiated in human wetware, as far as we are certain. — hypericin

And? The question is whether it has been instantiated in anything else, how to tell, and what to do about the possibility. I don't see how pointing out the status quo answers any of those questions.

Why? — bongo fury

Consciousness is an event. When we talk about the cause of an event, we often refer to the combination of latent potential and a trigger of some sort.

If I say 'a race' is lots of runners all starting simultaneously and aiming for the same line, then an answer to the question 'what causes a race?' might be "a load of runners, a finish line, and a starting pistol going off". Put those three things together, you'll have a race.

If I say 'a race' is lots of runners all starting simultaneously and aiming for the same line, then an answer to the question 'what causes a race?' might be "a load of runners, a finish line, and a starting pistol going off". Put those three things together, you'll have a race. — Isaac

But you said what a race is. Have you said what consciousness is?

anyone who chooses to deploy solipsism to defend his position has ceased to do serious philosophy.
— ZzzoneiroCosm

As far as I can tell, you're the only one who has even mentioned solipsism. — Isaac

:sweat: :up: ... Poor silly, Zzz

Have you said what consciousness is? — bongo fury

You reminded me of that very thing not two posts back. Perhaps your memory is not so good afterall.

I thought you believed that such memory logging is consciousness. — bongo fury

... Poor silly, Zzz — 180 Proof

A rose by any other name....





I should have guessed you would eventually resort to insults. That's disappointing.

You reminded me of that very thing not two posts back. — Isaac

But you retracted.

So, anyway. You do believe (that it is accurate enough to say) that

such memory logging is consciousness. — bongo fury

?

And my point was just that neuro-physiologists are unwitting dualists when they quite unnecessarily call a spade the cause or correlate of a spade.

I think you demonstrate that it *is* a technical question. The questions must be, what processes give rise to consciousness? and then, does the software instantiate these processes? — hypericin

But consciousness is a process.

But you retracted. — bongo fury

Where?

So, anyway. You do believe (that it is accurate enough to say) that

such memory logging is consciousness. — bongo fury


? — bongo fury

Yes. Consciousness (in the sense of self-awareness it's being used here) is the process of logging to memory higher order inferences. When you see a cup, numerous inferences are made at increasing hierarchical levels which conclude (at a given point in time - it's a continual process) that what you're seeing is a cup. The conclusion takes the form fo connections firing between object recognition centres and things like action, speech, images etc all related to the object's being a cup. These links are then rehearsed in order to remember them (memory is simply the tendency to re-fire the same links). That rehearsal is self-awareness - you're repeating to yourself "that's a cup". You then re-tell that story as if it all happened at once (yet we can be fairly sure that it didn't, it played out over a few milliseconds).

This all being just one model, of course, and bearing in mind that consciousness (as in "knocked unconscious") is different from consciousness as in "I'm conscious of how difficult this might sound..." That our folk understanding might see them as the same doesn't have any bearing on the matter.

So...

neuro-physiologists are unwitting dualists when they quite unnecessarily call a spade the cause or correlate of a spade. — bongo fury

Positing a thing over and above that which we observe it to be is unnecessary. I can't see how, if consciousness seems to be reported (or indicated) when parts A and B of the brain are active, then the simplest explanation isn't just that consciousness just is parts A and and B of the brain. As I said with 'a race'. If every time there's a race it's just runners all trying to reach a finish line from the same starting point, then we conclude that that's just what 'a race' is. We don't say that the runners and the start/finish just happen to correlate with some other entity that is 'a race'.

What are the latest developments in this story? Has the US government managed to hush it up like the Roswell incident (1947)? Good job US government! Good job!

I'm just waiting for Mr. Blake LeMoine to be diagnosed as a schizphrenic, delusional thoughts and all that jazz?