↪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
Philosophim I'll pass. — RogueAI
How do you define consciousness? — ssu
Is a baby infant conscious?
Is a chimpanzee?
A spider?
An amoeba?
If you assume that it's exactly on/off, then what is the switch that has to be on?
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
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
I am interested in the transition from unconscious algorithmic thinking to conscious thinking. — Ypan1944
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
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. — 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. — RogueAI
If I am making a reductio absurdum argument against materialism, it does not mean I believe in materialism. — RogueAI
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.
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.