Thread: An Artificial Brain

It's very simple. There are trillions of blue clams so if you were given a random pearl you'd expect it to be from a blue one. However given that it actually came from a red one, in statistical terms, it is sensible to assume that the blue clams contain no pearls, which nullifies what would otherwise be an unbelievably massive coincidence.

That is a pretty good explanation

Originally Posted by Xei

It's very simple. There are trillions of blue clams so if you were given a random pearl you'd expect it to be from a blue one. However given that it actually came from a red one, in statistical terms, it is sensible to assume that the blue clams contain no pearls, which nullifies what would otherwise be an unbelievably massive coincidence.

*Nods head*

Interesting... but the beluga whales and plankton still holds more value. You can do better than clams and pearls you coward.

Hmmm but belugas and plankton don't have anything 'special' hidden in them.

I thought I was being quite artistic.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's very simple. There are trillions of blue clams so if you were given a random pearl you'd expect it to be from a blue one. However given that it actually came from a red one, in statistical terms, it is sensible to assume that the blue clams contain no pearls, which nullifies what would otherwise be an unbelievably massive coincidence.

First of all, this is the same way you said it before. Second, it still doesn't apply to the concept of consciousness.

Let me try to explain it to you. You say you are "given" a pearl; as in, a solid object was removed from one of these creatures and handed to an outside observer. In the case of consciousness, what is the object? Who is the outside observer? There is no answer to either of those questions. The very fact that you are a human being instead of a bit of bacteria (or a red clam as opposed to a blue clam) could be considered a famously unlikely coincidence in itself. The fact that you are standing on the one known planet to contain any life at all among trillions could also be considered to be one hell of a coincidence. The fact is though, its not signifigant, and its misleading to use statistics in this way.

Your example assumes consciousness can be taken out and examined, but so far, it can't. We have a lot of very logical sounding guesses as to what it might be, but when it comes right down to it, I can't even be completely sure that you are conscious.

Like I said before, in your example; its not a situation of finding a pearl in a red clam, its a situation of being a red clam and having a pearl. Given that information, you can wonder all day long about how amazingly coincidental it is that you are among the tiny minority, but what you can't do is apply that knowledge to what the majority may or may not possess in terms of valuable milky spheroids, especially if you can't even see your own little spheroid to get a better idea of what one might look like.

Otherwise, I'll go back to my previous statement. I am the only being in the world that is quite like me, and I know I'm conscious. I don't know for sure whether or not anything else is conscious, but I do know I'm a minority of 1 against what might possibly be an infinite amount of other 'things' so for me to be conscious is extraordinarily unlikely given the chances. I guess I'll have to assume then that I am the only conscious thing in the universe.

Like I said before, in your example; its not a situation of finding a pearl in a red clam, its a situation of being a red clam and having a pearl.

No, the whole point is that these two are analagous. I said at very the beginning that you might as well say that you 'are' the pearl inside a clam instead of 'having' it, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, the statistical argument is exactly the same.

Given that information, you can wonder all day long about how amazingly coincidental it is that you are among the tiny minority, but what you can't do is apply that knowledge to what the majority may or may not possess in terms of valuable milky spheroids

But you can. And I have.

I see no reason why the (purely mathematical) argument does not apply, and you haven't supplied one.

Originally Posted by Xei

No, the whole point is that these two are analagous. I said at very the beginning that you might as well say that you 'are' the pearl inside a clam instead of 'having' it, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, the statistical argument is exactly the same.

But you can. And I have.

I see no reason why the (purely mathematical) argument does not apply, and you haven't supplied one.

The reason why the argument doesn't apply is that you are making a purely subjective differentiation between what is like and what is dislike the thing that has consciousness (yourself). You assume yourself to be among an extreme minority only because you've decided that being a human is fundamentally different from being a bacterium, or any other life form, or even any other physical thing. For all you know about the nature of consciousness, there really may be no signifigant difference.

None of the things you are saying have any bearing upon the mathematical argument. None of them are assumed, nor are they particularly relevant to the issue at hand.

Humans beings are different from bacteria. They have neural networks.

Perhaps there is something special about the human neural networks in relation to every other animal species on the planet which is necessary for consciousness. Perhaps a few animal species have consciousness. It is impossible to tell because the statistical argument does not apply to this situation where there are similar population numbers.

What is possible to tell (still) is that it is very unlikely that bacteria (bacteria is an objective category of organisms by the way, as is human, not subjective) have consciousness because of their vast numbers.

I think I disagree, Xei.

Maybe because a unique conscious entity would use the same argument with respect to humans. It seems a bit arbitrary. Maybe I'm just lucky I'm not a bacterium. Maybe you are too, though from my perspective it was inevitable that "you" would be, since you exist.

Sometimes I wonder if this differentiation of consciousnesses into indivisible entities "I", "You", etc. is something that we should give up on. There isn't even really any reason to assume consciousness is continuous within yourself. The only evidence you have that you are the same person you were yesterday is your memories, but obviously you would still have them even if you aren't the same person you were yesterday. Ahhh, philosophy is confusing and I don't think this is even directly related...

Anyway. going off on a tangent. And too many long words...