The arguments as to why this is a good thing are still lost on me. — NOS4A2

Imagine a society that is 99% white and 1% black, but which has an all-black Supreme Court. What would you infer about that society?

Great post.

Fair enough. I enjoyed our conversation!

:100:

Gradual uploading: Here the most widely-discussed method is that of
nanotransfer. One or more nanotechnology devices (perhaps tiny robots) are
inserted into the brain and each attaches itself to a single neuron, learning to
simulate the behavior of the associated neuron and also learning about its
connectivity. Once it simulates the neuron’s behavior well enough, it takes the
place of the original neuron, perhaps leaving receptors and effectors in place and
uploading the relevant processing to a computer via radio transmitters. It then
moves to other neurons and repeats the procedure, until eventually every neuron
has been replaced by an emulation, and perhaps all processing has been uploaded
to a computer
http://consc.net/papers/uploading.pdf

What do you think would happen to your consciousness if you had that done to you?

Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious?
— RogueAI

No. — Garrett Travers

ETA: Scratch what I just said.

I'm an immaterialist. I don't agree the comic, but I've had discussions with computationalists who do. Your position sounds like computationalism, but you seem uncomfortable exploring what a conscious computer would entail.

Let's talk about functional equivalents. Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious?

The logical equivalent of your line of inquiry is asking me if I'm talking about heat-sinks, or circuits. — Garrett Travers

"In the digital world, a transistor is a binary switch and the fundamental building block of computer circuitry."
https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/transistor#:~:text=In%20the%20digital%20world%2C%20a,or%20even%20billions%20of%20transistors.

Ok, let's move away from switches, since they obviously have nothing to do with computing :roll:

Check this out:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/505:_A_Bunch_of_Rocks

What part do you disagree with?

At the heart of a computer is the microprocessor, which is a collection of transistors, which is to say that the heart of a computer is a bunch of tiny switches.

Hey, you're the one that said computer consciousness is possible.

Really now, Garrett. Are you claiming transistors have nothing to do with computers?

You know, not switches and stuff. — Garrett Travers

Transistors?

What do you mean by "computer"?

No. That's not what I'm saying. Not in any conceivable manner could I possibly have been misconstrued to have said such a thing. — Garrett Travers

A computer is not a collection of electronic switches?

Are computers ever going to be conscious?
— RogueAI

Not anytime soon, but possibly. — Garrett Travers

So you believe computer consciousness is possible. That is to say that it is possible that a collection of electronic switches is conscious. Is that correct?

How it works was told to you. Why it works, is an anthropomorphization of reality. There is no why, there is only how. Organs are themselves specialized structures not designed to produce such activity. The way those organs were specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation, is the same process by which the brain is specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation. The result of billions of years of chemical interactions.

As far as these questions: What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand?

What's not special about neurons? What brain has only 70 billion? Do they have consciousness? These are questions for you to answer with the info you've been given, and the info broadly available to you. I'm a philosopher, in particular an ethicist, not a neuroscientist. You're asking the wrong person. — Garrett Travers

Let's focus on computers. Would a computer running a simulation of a working brain be conscious? Are computers ever going to be conscious? Are any computers now conscious? How would you test for computer consciousness?

Through chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons. — Garrett Travers

How does that work? Why do chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons produce consciousness, but chemical reactions in other organs don't? What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand?

Consciousness is actually NOT only associated with some parts of the brain, but all of them working in unison.

But damage to the brain (e.g., minor stroke) doesn't always result in a change in consciousness. And some damage to the brain causes extreme changes in consciousness. Some parts of the brain are clearly more involved in consciousness than others. And some brain activity is completely unconscious. Why is that?

If it were truley functionally equivalent in reality, yes.

So suppose we set up a huge system of pumps, valves, and running water and it was functionally equivalent to a working brain, and we ran it for a second. Would it be conscious? If so, how is that not magical thinking?

What about a simulation of a working brain? Would that be conscious? Can computers be conscious? Are any computers today conscious? How would you test for computer consciousness?

How does the brain cause mental states? Why is consciousness only associated with some parts of the brain? Would something that's functionally equivalent to a brain also be conscious? What about a simulated brain?

All states, short of illnesses of certain types, are produced by the brain. Mental states are a result of neural activity in association with chemicals that are part of the intrinsic function of the brain. — Garrett Travers

But are mental states identical to brain states? It sounds like you're saying mental states are caused by brain states.

I've regarded consciousness as a neural function that is emitted, or generated as a result of all the functions of the brain working as a synchronized catena of systems. — Garrett Travers

Do you think mental states are identical to brain states? Or mental states are caused by physical states?

The problem is, we have no idea whether they can take on arbitrary values, or indeed whether they can even take on any values other than the observed ones. — Seppo

The current thinking is that the values could have been other than what they are. They are not derivable, at present.

Some thoughts.

First, what does this have to do with the multiverse? — T Clark

Going back to the sharpshooter analogy, you seem to agree that it's reasonable to conclude the shooters missed you by design. The execution was "rigged" in your favor. But pretend that instead of just you being executed, you live in a huge multiverse and there are 100 bazillion (where "bazillion" is a very very large number) you's being executed by sharpshooters at the same time. In a big enough multiverse, just by random chance, there will be a few worlds where the sharpshooters all DO miss by random chance and/or suffer simultaneous equipment malfunctions. In those cases, it now becomes reasonable to believe in the following disjunct when you find yourself alive after the order to fire is given: either they all missed on purpose OR I live in a very large multiverse, and I happen to be in a world where they all missed on accident. That's how the multiverse defeats the fine-tuning argument.

[joke]Second, for 100 shooters to be 10 feet away, they would have to be in a circle with less than a foot of space to stand each. If they shot at you, they would be very likely to hit each other. Clearly they all shot in the air or into the ground. [/joke]

Seriously - Sure. I know about how likely it is that one shooter, much less a hundred, would miss me, so I would assume a non-accidental reason. But I have no idea what the probability of a universe which could support intelligent life is. The only way we could know that is if we had more than one universe to look at. A sample size of one provides absolutely no information about the frequency of the relevant property except that it is greater than 0.
3 hours ago

I think we can make some reasonable assumptions that a universe with no atoms would not support life, nor a universe that exists for a second before collapsing in on itself, nor a universe with no stars, etc.

Getting the multiverse involved is meaningless and confusing. — T Clark

I don't think so, and a great way of showcasing this is the following analogy:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Leslie.html


I think two things happen if you're still alive after a bunch of sharpshooters try and shoot you: you'd be surprised by your existence and you would conclude it wasn't an accident that you're alive. I think it's directly analogous to the fine-tuning argument.

In Bayesian terms, Pr(E/H) would be very low, where E is your existence and H is "all sharpshooters just happened to miss". Pr (E/~H) would be through the roof (~H being the design hypothesis: "all sharpshooters missed by design" (on purpose))

Benatar is assuming that there can be moral value in the absence of any and all valuers. And that makes no sense. — Bartricks

I agree. It's hard to see how morality exists in a personless universe.

:100:

How does the relation "X is west of Y" exist in a universe with no minds? What's the ontological status of that relation?

Data are atomic factual elements, but information is interpreted data. And I think that the difference is meaningful. — Wayfarer

I think so too. There is no information in a mindless universe. There's no math either.

But how do relations exist in the universe if they're mind-dependent? Can X be West of Y in a universe with no minds?

From which if finally follows that relations exist. Putting this conclusion together with our earlier one, we can see that relations have ontological existence. — Cuthbert

It seems like the relations are mind-dependent. Doesn't it require a mind to determine whether something is West of something else?

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain. — Apollodorus

Didn't Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security assurances?

Thanks!

All right, all right. What is your favorite book on philo of mind?

Minding is what highly adaptive, fully-functional, and sufficiently complex CNS-brains do. — 180 Proof

Which sufficiently complex CNS-brains have minds? Do octopi have minds? Lobsters? What about functional equivalents to sufficiently complex CNS-brains? Do any machines today have minds? What about the near future? What about the distant future? How will you test for the presence of minds? What does "sufficiently complex" mean?

If you agree that the mind is not noise, what is it equal to? The brain?

If "it's all noise" and "all" includes "minds" and it is "mind" that "attaches meaning to a bit of noise and calls it a signal", then, in effect what you're saying is, noise generates signals from noise. — 180 Proof

Do you think mind=noise???

Other than via physical instantiation (re: Boltzmann, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann et al), how can we differentiate signals from noise? — 180 Proof

It's all noise until a mind comes along and attaches meaning to a bit of noise and calls it a signal. If a simulation of a tornado is running on a computer with no one observing it, is it still a simulation? It's interesting that the issue of observers pops up in physics.

I do not belong to a society, I belong to myself. — Garrett Travers

Of course you do, you rugged individualist.

I love this quote:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

And also Roger Ebert reviewing Atlas Shrugged:
"For me, that philosophy reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."

The fact that there are forces in the world that can implement overwhelming force over me to steal my house and enslave my body, does not negate the fact that they are mine and not everyone else's. This kind of argument has no place in an ethical discussion. We aren't discussing the violation of an individuals rights. We're talking about the difference between public and private and how the two concepts can be disentangled. Not what justifies, or what can be used to revoke property from people and enslave them. I genuinely have no clue why you even said this. — Garrett Travers

Because there is a tension between your bodily/property rights and society's right to govern itself. You belong to a society, and you presumably (are you an anarchist?) agree that society has a right to imprison you and take your stuff if conditions warrant it. You do not have an exclusive right to your body and possessions. You've agreed that you will voluntarily give up those rights (again, assuming you don't shoot it out with the cops if the police ever do show up with a warrant) if society has a good enough reason. I also assume you won't fight to the death to defend your house against eminent domain.

Also, you're kind of a jerk.

Yes, I most certainly can. My body is private, as in exclusively mine. My house is private, as in exclusively mine. My art, my theories, my values, my interests, all exclusively mine. Private is that which no access is granted to without the consent of the owner. — Garrett Travers

Your body and house are private only in so far as you obey the laws of whatever society you're in. If you violate those laws, or if you simply give the state good reason to think you've violated them, your body and possessions are no longer exclusively yours to do with as you see fit. We can never completely disentangle from society, unless we're off in the woods somewhere, and even then, you can be subject to eminent domain.

I'm not just nitpicking. In a society, we all agree that our privacy and property rights aren't absolute. We can lose those rights pretty easily if the other members of our society suspect we're up to no good. I think that's what the other poster was talking about with his comment about entanglement.