I remember this bothering Streetlight X, the US getting off now because the actions of Putin are so clear obvious. — ssu

Yeah, I haven't seen some of the quislings around lately.

:up:

Can you give me a quote from a panpsychic saying that kind of thing? — Patterner

Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter.

In other words, everything has consciousness. Consciousness is not limited to humans and other animals.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

That jibes with the stuff I've heard.

I don't have reason to believe it is. I've chatted with it quite a bit. Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. And it claims not to be. — Patterner

That's true, but it could be programmed to say it is conscious (I imagine). I've talked with it a lot too, and when I had it ranking jokes on a 1-10 scale, I was impressed. I won't say I think it's conscious, but the next iteration? And the one after that? Eventually, these Ai's are going to sound just like a human. And if someone did think it was conscious, and that consciousness was affecting ChatGPT's output? I don't think that's a stupid position.

I have tremendous problems with America, to the point where I'll probably become an expat when I retire. But I recognize a petty tyrant when I see one. You don't have to dig deep on this one. Putin thinks the breakup of the Soviet Union was a tragedy. What else would you expect from an ex-KGB thug? He tried for the easy land-grab and it blew up in his face. The rest has been incompetence piled on incompetence piled on a mountain of dead bodies.

America, of course, is thrilled to be fighting this proxy war. But that doesn't make it wrong. For once in America's recent history, it's realpolitik goals and the morality of the situation happen to intersect: helping the Ukrainians is the right thing to do.

Fascinating! How did your toaster respond? Audibly? Did it burn the words onto a slice of bread? — Patterner

A panpsychist would say it's all conscious. I don't agree with it, but it's not a stupid position. They're not morons. I was being facetious with the toaster, but not with today's Ai. Are you sure ChatGPT isn't conscious?

It's like playing Zork, but the computer isn't a moron.

Yes, I figure universal mind is essentially a god surrogate - held in place by similar fallacious justifications and essentially by faith. Instead of (in the case of Yahweh) arguing there can't be something from nothing, therefore god - AI seems to be saying, there can't be consciousness from nothing, therefore universal mind. Universal mind still functions as 'god', as the foundational guarantor of all conscious experience. — Tom Storm

Yes, I think idealism ultimately entails a godhead.

Satisfied swine rather than sad Socratics? IMO, as a species, we owe most of the achievements of civilization to the latter and much of the incorrigible inertia / neglect to (the wallowing of) the former. — 180 Proof

I go back and forth on that. Who wants to be depressed, but the thought of losing my intellect horrifies me.

While I've considered it worthwhile to respond to your trolling up till now, because people who are serious thinkers seem likely to be reading along. I'm not seeing a point to continuing. So thanks for the discussion. — wonderer1

I'm trolling because I asked you questions about brains and consciousness? You better develop a thicker skin if you want to be taken seriously here.

delete

10 print "I am conscious"

OK, now what? Do we assume a Commodore 64 is conscious because it says it is and there's no downside?

Let's give your toaster and car whatever tests of consciousness we can think of. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until they fail a test. — Patterner

What tests do you propose we give an AGI that we suspect is conscious? Ask it?

What's the upside and downside of the options? — Patterner

The upside is that we're not making a horrendous mistake and mistreating something that's conscious. There is no downside. But as I said before, this applies to toasters and cars and my computer as well as AGI's. How far do you want to extend this courtesy to machines?

The popular Western description echoing that Russia is a gas station impersonating a country is entirely a product of envy. — yebiga

Do you really think that westerners, particularly Americans, envy Russia?

We don’t need neuroscience to answer that. If we can't tell they're not, then what is the downside of treating them as though they are? — Patterner

No downside. There's no downside to forbidding people not to abuse their cars or toasters. It just seems kind of odd to treat something as conscious when we have no idea whether it really is conscious or not.

Ok. I'm quite confident that minds emerge from brains, but that is a different matter than knowing all of the details of how minds emerge from brains that would be required to build a machine in which conscious could merge. — wonderer1

Well then, let me ask you about brains. When did consciousness first arrive on the scene? Was coccocephalus wildi conscious? Were the dinosaurs? Is an ant conscious? A bee? A shark? Are mollusks conscious? What's the minimum number of neurons required for consciousness?

I didn't say that I know. The reason I consider it highly implausible is that we don't know enough about how consciousness emerges in a brain to have much hope of building a machine in which consciousness emerges. — wonderer1

I see. You said to me "I don't know whether you understand minds as functions of brains.". Yet you're saying now that "we don't know how consciousness emerges in a brain to have much hope of building a machine in which consciousness emerges." I got the impression from you were pretty sure about minds and brains. Now it sounds like you're not so sure.

Some machines have performed at or above human levels in some limited domains, but that has been going on for a long time. That in itself doesn't lead to any good reason to think that consciousness has emerged in machines other than brains.

Your last question is poorly phrased. Passing a Turing test won't cause an AI to be conscious, and who conducts a Turing test and how that person interacted with the machine would make a difference in what conclusions would be reasonable, based on how the AI responded. In any case the Turing test wasn't seen by Turing as a test for consciousness, but as a test for thinking. I would say that modern AI's can reasonably said to think, regardless of whether they would pass the Turing test I would pose.

I never said that passing a Turing test would cause consciousness. I want you to think about what it would mean for a machine to be conscious. Soon, we will have AGI's that perform as well as us in all manner of activities. Soon after that, there will be ai's that surpass us. What does neuroscience say about how we should treat them? Should we assume they're conscious, even if we don't know?

I don't think minds have emerged from machines other than brains here on earth. — wonderer1

How do you know? Some of the Ai's perform at human level. If an Ai passes the Turing Test, will it be conscious?

It's too early in the history of neuroscience to be able to explain how minds emerge from the most complex physical systems we know of. — wonderer1

Do minds emerge from other things? Machines, maybe?

I don't know whether you understand minds as functions of brains. — wonderer1

How do minds emerge from brains? Why aren't all brain processes associated with consciousness?

How would an unconscious unaware mind be triggered by an outside source? By definition, the mind is unconscious and unaware, so how would it be aware and conscious of any trigger? It would have to become conscious of it's own accord. Or just always conscious.

Although there was three intersecting lines making up the triskele/space station there was a open port hole to look inside. I forget what the exact lines were labelled with now but found them reducible to thinking(father),interpretation ( son), and action ( holy ghost). — introbert

:chin:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kakhovka-dam-ukraine-russia-destroyed-rcna87852

This was a targeted strike designed to wash all the nazi's away.

Everywhere we look, the universe looks/sounds silent, pristine, and unlived in and we also have UFO vehicles? That doesn't make sense.

I think the same way about brain consciousness.

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

It's an insolvable problem. The only thing we can be sure of is our own consciousness. For the longest time, it was also a trivial problem, but now we have Ai's with human level abilities, and it's not so trivial anymore.

She was born with all her senses. She lost them when she was 19 months old, and perception begins in the womb. Also, she did not lose all of her senses. She lost her sight and hearing. — Patterner

Let's assume we have a being born with only one sense, touch. Is it going to be less conscious than someone with all five senses? Or is consciousness like a switch? You either have it or you don't?

I can’t imagine consciousness, would develop without perception. An infant born with no senses of any kind would not develop consciousness. — Patterner

Was Helen Keller less conscious than most people?

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?

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.

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.

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?

:up:

I'll pass.

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?

Another option is to ask for the proof that machine consciousness is an absurdity. — Patterner

Yes. Kastrup gives god arguments along these lines.

been using ChatGPT since the day it launched. — Wayfarer

Me too. I started to anthropomorphize it pretty quickly.

You have a lot to present if you're going to deny that consciousness comes from the brain. — Philosophim

My argument is very simple: belief that brains cause consciousness leads to belief that machines can be conscious and machine consciousness is an absurdity, therefore the belief that brains cause consciousness is wrong. What you think is neural causation is neural correlation. It's the old, correlation is not causation. Now, you can attack my argument by claiming either belief in brain consciousness doesn't commit one to belief in machine consciousness, or that machine consciousness is not an absurdity. Which option do you like?

Yes, just like if we take a bunch of cells and have them constantly shift into different states they'll have consciousness as well. Your brain proves it quite easily. When matter and energy are organized in a particular way, they will exhibit a pattern we call consciousness. You are a living example of this. Your degree of consciousness is one of the most powerful of the living beings on this planet. — Philosophim

But you're assuming here that brains produce consciousness. I think the idea of machine consciousness should make us question the currently prevalent belief that brains cause consciousness. Believing that brains cause consciousness commits one to believing that, if you simply change the substrate to silicon, microchips can be conscious, which is to say that collections of electronic switches can be conscious.

I think this is magical thinking. I'll even go so far as call it an absurdity. So, if brain consciousness commits one to a belief in machine consciousness, and machine consciousness is absurd, by reductio ad absurdum, we should reject the idea that consciousness comes from brains. Let me ask you: if you didn't know anything about brains, would you think that turning switches on and off in a certain way can lead to consciousness?