↪Philosophim Would a functional mechanical equivalent of a working brain be conscious? Would a simulation of a working brain be conscious? If yes to either of those, how would you verify the consciousness of the simulation and/or the mechanical brain? — RogueAI

Answer my original reply and I'll address this question. I'm not interested in a one-sided discussion where you get to ignore my statements back to you.

I'll pass.

Philosophim I'll pass. — RogueAI

Then so shall I. Lets have a better conversation another time.

:up:

I would say: try to design a crucial test (which should be more sophisticated as the Turing Test) to decide which is conscience and which is not.

How do you define consciousness? — ssu

The capacity to experience.

Is a baby infant conscious?

Yes

Is a chimpanzee?

Yes

A spider?

Yes

An amoeba?

Yes

If you assume that it's exactly on/off, then what is the switch that has to be on?

The existence/non-existence switch. Or the something/nothing switch. I'm a panpsychist.

Answer my original reply and I'll address this question. I'm not interested in a one-sided discussion where you get to ignore my statements back to you. — Philosophim

I decided to take you up on that.

That's not an argument, that's a string of statements without any connective logic and an unproven conclusion.

Lets work backwards.

1. Brain consciousness is an absurdity.

Why?

2. Brain consciousness leads to machine consciousness

No, brain consciousness leads us to realize that matter and energy if organized correctly can be conscious. This appears across living species with different types of brains. We realize that brains are clumps of neurons which have a system of communication, reaction, and planning. Therefore it seems possible that if we duplicate matter in such a way that it can communicate, react, and plan, it would be conscious.

3.
What you think is neural causation is neural correlation. It's the old, correlation is not causation.
— RogueAI

No, we have ample conclusion of causation. I'll start with a relatable example before getting deeper. Ever been drunk before? Been on anesthesia? We know that if we introduce these chemicals into the blood, they affect the brain. And when the brain is affected, your consciousness becomes inhibited or suppressed entirely. This is not happenstance correlation. This is repeatably testable, and falsifiable causation which has been upheld in both active life and science for decades. With modern day neuroscience, we can actually get live scans of the brain to show the physical impacts and when consciousness is lost.

Address these points, and we'll have a discussion. — Philosophim

Implicit in what you said is an assumption that there exist physical objects like brains. Why should I agree with your materialist/physicalist assumption?

I am interested in the transition from unconscious algorithmic thinking to conscious thinking. — Ypan1944

In neurobiology, this is just the transition from habitual to attentional level brain processing. The brain is set up to predict its world so well that everything that happens can be dealt with in a routine "fire and forget" fashion.

That pre-filtering of awareness is then how the surprising, the significant, the unrecognised, can get selected for the more intensive post-processing of attentional thought – the higher level figuring out that takes about half a second, and recruits working memory, the prefrontal cortex, a general whole brain "gestalt" form of fitting pieces of a puzzle into place.

So while it is fine to use computer jargon as helpful metaphor, the brain is not actually algorithmic at any level. It is not a Turing Machine or Finite State Automata.

What the brain really does is forward model its world in the way now described as Bayesian Mechanics. If you want neurobiology's rigorous alternative to familiar Turing Machine computation, this is the "algorithm" that the brain expresses both at its "unconscious" habit level, and "conscious" attentional level....

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0029#d1e5377

Implicit in what you said is an assumption that there exist physical objects like brains. Why should I agree with your materialist/physicalist assumption? — RogueAI

RogueAI, I'll answer your questions if you're serious about replying to mine. First, you already agreed when we started discussing brains.

What you think is neural causation is neural correlation. It's the old, correlation is not causation. — Philosophim

You already agree there are neurons, and you claimed they correlated with mind, and didn't cause it. At this point retreating and saying, "Well maybe brains don't exist" is borderline trolling. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you just made a mistake.

Also, please answer the rest of the points I made. Its going to need to take you more than a few sentences to reply adequately. Please take it seriously. If that is not what you are interested in, then again, no harm in bowing out of a conversation.

You already agree there are neurons, and you claimed they correlated with mind, and didn't cause it. At this point retreating and saying, "Well maybe brains don't exist" is borderline trolling. — Philosophim

I'm an idealist. I've identified as such here for quite awhile. I was meeting you halfway for sake of argument earlier. Don't accuse me of trolling, please.

We're at first principles now. I want to know why, at the starting gate, I should adopt your materialistic view of reality because in actuality, I don't.

I'm an idealist. I've identified as such here for quite awhile. I was meeting you halfway for sake of argument earlier. Don't accuse me of trolling, please.

We're at first principles now. I want to know why, at the starting gate, I should adopt your materialistic view of reality because in actuality, I don't. — RogueAI

You aren't responding to my earlier points and now you want to change to a debate over materialism? I'm not playing this game. If you're not answering my points and just asking more questions, then you're not discussing. The subject was about the brain and consciousness. I've already put in effort to make some points and ask you to justify yourself. If you want to engage with me, first justify yourself. Explain to me why you don't believe brains are material reality instead of asking me. The onus is on you to respond and make an actual point before continuing on with your questioning. If you cannot do so, then lets end the conversation.

I'll think about it, but remember that a reductio ad absurdum assumes certain things in order to derive an absurdity. If I am making a reductio absurdum argument against materialism, it does not mean I believe in materialism. For the sake of argument, I am assuming your viewpoint (neurons cause consciousness) in order to show an absurdity.

If I am making a reductio absurdum argument against materialism, it does not mean I believe in materialism. — RogueAI

Then please make such an argument. Refer back to my original points to you where I formed a logical argument, then asked you to clarify and explain your own.

2. Brain consciousness leads to machine consciousness

No, brain consciousness leads us to realize that matter and energy if organized correctly can be conscious. This appears across living species with different types of brains. We realize that brains are clumps of neurons which have a system of communication, reaction, and planning. Therefore it seems possible that if we duplicate matter in such a way that it can communicate, react, and plan, it would be conscious.

"No, brain consciousness leads us to realize that matter and energy if organized correctly can be conscious."

So if you have some matter and energy, and you organize them in the right way, you get consciousness (or the matter-energy system is conscious or becomes conscious).
A) how does that happen?
B) why does it happen with certain types of matter and energy and not others? A working brain is conscious, but if you put it in a blender, blend it, and then add some current to the mix, you won't have consciousness. What is it about working brains that makes them conscious? Why are only parts of the brain conscious? Why isn't my heart conscious?
C) Would something that is functionally identical to a working brain be conscious? Does substrate matter? Is there something unique about neurons that only a collection of them could be conscious? How would you test for consciousness in a machine or alien brain?

"This appears across living species with different types of brains."

Which brains are conscious? Are bees conscious? Ants? Toads? Approximately how many neurons are required before consciousness emerges? How can we test whether insects are conscious or not?

What happened, Philosophim? I am attending to your points, as you asked.