Thread: How are we not a computer?

Originally Posted by Xei

Huh? I asked you to explain your point. Somehow this ended up with me explaining what I meant by embedded and you saying 'well then'; clearly I know what embedded was supposed to mean because I had also used the term. I was asking you to explain what 'silicon consciousness requiring consciousness to be embedded' means.

I never said that and you didn't ask that! You asked if I could explain what I meant before, but it was only an implication towards your own statement. I was expanding on the issue by saying that consciousness doesn't need to be 'embedded', therefore it can't be 'embedded'. It simply exists, but not 'because' of something and not 'put' there. That is a misconception, and it separates it into something that is transitory.

Are you saying that, because conscious beings build the computer, this somehow renders the situation different? It certainly sounds to me that there is a large explanatory gap there. Also you'd have to explain how humans are any different; you realise humans require conscious beings to come into existence also? They're called 'parents'?

We know humans arise throughout evolution, and yes we have biological parents. You can't say computers therefore can have similar parents, especially if they are, by comparison, non-computers (human beings). The fact that evolution is the way consciousness has helped a species grow is to suggest that it only exists in the living, because it is essential to life itself. The real gap is in the argument that a human being can create another conscious being that is still a computer. What is the purpose and why do you think there is inconsistency? I have yet to see a computer that can impose its own ideas, meaning and awareness upon things, instead of simply directing and sorting incoming data like a brain, however complex and advanced it does so.

As with the many other great points discussed earlier in this thread, you should consider that even the human brain - the metaphor for computer - does not fully determine or demonstrate actual human consciousness. Consciousness is, again: the context, capacity and virtue to know and experience above all of such externalized phenomena that is detectable in the physical world. You cannot "make" a non-physical realm of consciousness by mirroring what the brain does. Your argument is essentially that we can create a computer that knows that it knows, and what it knows. Until WE actually comprehend the real meaning of that, it is all scientific fantasy.

Originally Posted by Mario92

We created synthetic life from scratch. The entire DNA molecule, using only four bottles of chemicals. Why the hell shouldn't we eventually be able to create sentience from scratch? With synthetic life, we will ultimately be able to create human genomes from scratch, and give rise to sentient humans. So, why can't we create electronic sentience? Living microchips, so to speak.

Synthesizing life, playing with cells, cloning and such things are not to do with sentience. Can you explain how somebody can create sentience? Because nothing suggests it is possible, whether technology is more advanced or not. I wonder if this answers my questions to do with reviving a dead corpse, if that's what you might say it does? Sentience, as it exists, is essential to life and is thusly cannot be created nor destroyed. It is intangible and not subject to time and space. If it cannot be proven as it is, how are you going to prove that it can be man-made?

A computer game is inanimate, carrying out a strictly defined program by sending electrons on a specific path. Sentience is not inanimate...it learns, grows, evolves, adapts, makes progress, and whatnot. If I had a working brain in a robot, I'd consider it to be alive. If I had an AI unit on my computer that I would converse with, I'd consider it alive. As for the purpose and cause of consciousness, I hold that it is caused by the brain itself, and the purpose is a question that may very well never be answered satisfactorily. Who knows? Is it some great cosmic mistake? Do we have a purpose? Until shown otherwise, my answer is that we don't have some grand purpose that we should be working toward or meddling with. If we do, then great. But if we do, then how should we know what we should be working toward? Perhaps artificial intelligence is part of this great plan? I vote we march onward.

Are you also the one to suggest that a Tamagotchi is alive? Then what do we have to discuss? You must already be assuming that computers are conscious.

Could be. Then again, I could be some lonely ice cream cone in an alternate dimension bestowed with intelligence (as all ice cream cones are in this dimension), and dreaming that I'm a human. Without any evidence of this, though, why should I accept it? Same can be applied to any sort of outside source of consciousness. I continue to hold that it is 100% internal, and until shown otherwise, shall not waiver.

I don't know how serious you are with this whole analogy here. The main reason why this does not concern evidence, is because evidence is something that stems from the things that are seen and tangible. Consciousness is verifiable but not provable. Be careful, because the paradigm in which you're looking may never come across a chance to be proven otherwise. It is like looking in the wrong place to start. Consciousness, as it is (not 'could be'), is verifiable as beyond causes and conditions. It is a matter of understanding what it is, and science truly will not show you.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I understand this, I do. But at the same time it srikes me as some sort of solipsism, which is totally unpragmatical for a person who decides to try and entertain all aspects of the experienced reality to form some world view. For example, If there is an objective reality which you decide to take as fact, then you cannot continue to take consciousness as the source which is beyond causes. That would make it illogical and some sort of religious mysticism taken on faith. So you either go full blown conscious centred philosophy, or you go with science. If we go with science, that's where the tools, logic and computers are, which we can then use to explain reality. So you see, there really isn't any controversy regarding the possibility of AI on this level exactly. The problem only exists where it emerges, that is on the border between the internal and the percieved external reality.

If you decide to center your view on how you subjecitvely experience your existence, then you can only be sure of your own consciousness.
If you decide to center your view scientifically, than you can only work with everything in existence, which must include the possibility of synthetic consciousness.

Mashing those two views creates and impossible world full of paradoxes. It is the way most religious people see reality (whispy souls attached to material, determinism and no determinsim at the same time, etc.) and that's why you can never even hint on any kind of "deeper" philosophy with them, because of course any existing common sense "logic" of their beliefs break down.

If you're seeking the truth, it's up to you to decide what you're going to focus on. It's possible that either view has explanations for the other one. Personally I'm inclined to see objective reality as the basis, what that really means is up to science.

Interesting explanation. I think you've found the source of the controversy. To a degree yes, you could say it is solipsism. But there is a lot more truth to find of it than at first glance. It is wiser to realize the limitation of the actual basis for objective reality, and only then will a greater understanding of both one's mind and own consciousness be apparent. Because however tacit is the belief in objective reality, it is still vulnerable to question. It is then not seen as a giant leap of faith to search one's own consciousness, but more of a more mature awareness of life itself. It is understanding that what one's consciousness is, in its purest form, is not different than the consciousness of other living beings.

Spurious and presumptive, are words I'd use to describe finding consciousness in the world, especially to suppose that it could be created. As pure subjectivity, the first-hand witnessing of all phenomena; the first-hand of all knowledge, is already with you and essentially unchanging. Could an electronic device that emerged out of the purposes of the world have any firm ground to teach what it means to be alive and conscious, more than our own inner knowing?

Originally Posted by really

Interesting explanation. I think you've found the source of the controversy. To a degree yes, you could say it is solipsism. But there is a lot more truth to find of it than at first glance. It is wiser to realize the limitation of the actual basis for objective reality, and only then will a greater understanding of both one's mind and own consciousness be apparent. Because however tacit is the belief in objective reality, it is still vulnerable to question. It is then not seen as a giant leap of faith to search one's own consciousness, but more of a more mature awareness of life itself. It is understanding that what one's consciousness is, in its purest form, is not different than the consciousness of other living beings.

Yes it is wise to see the limitation and I never denied it. I'll assume that in some form you are living in the objective reality (speaking from your perspective). If this is so, then I see it as sort of hypocritical to deny this reality you actually live in and acknowledge through your actions... unless of course you're leaving for a cave in some Asian mountains or jungles to live out your existence as pure consciousness. Ok putting aside this cheekiness: just because you acknowledge your existence doesn't mean you should let it bleed into other areas of perceived reality as the absolute state everything comes back to. I think therefore I am may be a powerful revelation, but by taking it in fully, you might inadvertently close yourself to the possibility that I, itself, can be an illusion.

Originally Posted by really

Spurious and presumptive, are words I'd use to describe finding consciousness in the world, especially to suppose that it could be created. As pure subjectivity, the first-hand witnessing of all phenomena; the first-hand of all knowledge, is already with you and essentially unchanging.

...Finding consciousness. How do you find it? As I said in another post. Consciousness is what we define a set of mental activities perceived introspectively and inferred objectively onto other creatures due to our similarities, essentially based on scientific fact and/or some evolved instincts.

Putting that beside, I have no idea, no reason to acknowledge your consciousness. There is only one consciousness that exists, which is mine. I can't place it in space or time, because both are qualia that ultimately help to form this "entity" in the first place.

So finding consciousness, or creating consciousness, just means that we will replicate the biological activity we see as a precursor to these immaterial states of being we all separately experience. Scientifically, that will constitute creating the same consciousness everything else experiences. Will this mean that the robot experiences himself subjectively? I refer to my previous paragraph. If we do our best to imitate biological brains, down to the nanometre, what exactly is it stopping it from being like us on all levels? Yes the subject of subjective existence is deep, the deepest IMO... so can we really ever decode its limits? If, for now, some sort of computation is the limit, then synthetic computers should be able of consciousness.

Originally Posted by really

Could an electronic device that emerged out of the purposes of the world have any firm ground to teach what it means to be alive and conscious, more than our own inner knowing?

Purposes of the world... Well we come back to the question on whether we're going to be solipsists or have faith in external reality. In the first case, it really doesn't matter. According to the second stance, as I see it of course, purpose is a by-product of evolution, which likely emerged by the inclination of our primate ancestors to use their brains to survive. If a concept of purpose enables humans to tie a stone and stick together to make a spear, then it will stick (lol pun?). It may just be a curse that our intellectual evolution has grown to a point at which "it" can consider its own existence. Because of our nature, the first question is of course that of purpose: "Why are we here?". It may be a good question, but I have my doubts of it's actual essence, if purpose is just an intellectual appendage which evolved like the sharp teeth of a shark... do we really want to let "stupid evolution" continue it's hold on our intellect, or better yet, do we even have a choice?

Ok sorry about that... on what basis would a consciousness of an electronic device, built with a purpose to imitate consciousness, be any less philosophically significant than a consciousness which is a result of more directly "natural" (biological) evolutionary design? Other than your inclination to stand by your own consciousness to describe everything?

Originally Posted by really

Synthesizing life, playing with cells, cloning and such things are not to do with sentience. Can you explain how somebody can create sentience? Because nothing suggests it is possible, whether technology is more advanced or not. I wonder if this answers my questions to do with reviving a dead corpse, if that's what you might say it does? Sentience, as it exists, is essential to life and is thusly cannot be created nor destroyed. It is intangible and not subject to time and space. If it cannot be proven as it is, how are you going to prove that it can be man-made?

We create a human sperm and egg from scratch. It grows into a human. Guess who just made a conscious being? But more to the point, as I stated, humans do the "impossible" all the time. I see no barriers beyond current technological limits that inhibit us from creating a fully-functional AI unit.

Your claims about consciousness being essential to life, exempt from the laws of time and space, blah blah blah, are nothing but assertions. They are fantastical, unfalsifiable claims. I can claim that there is a teakettle in the asteroid belt, but that claim cannot be proved or disproved. I can tell you that there is a flying spaghetti monster, and that claim cannot be proved or disproved. But, without the proper evidence, why the hell should you believe me? My claims are assertions...statements made without evidence. So, my question is this: why should I believe that YOU have it all figured out? That you know where consciousness comes from, what it is, and why humans can't create it? Why is sentience essential to life, when it isn't? Unless you're suggesting that the pepper plants on my front porch are aware of their existence, as is every last plant, animal, and unicellular organism in the universe?

Now, for the corpse. If you can reanimate a brain to think, feel, and resume conscious thought, then yeah, it's alive. Even better if you can get it to continue cell division, and better still if the entire corpse can be controlled by the brain. Congrats! You've just made a zombie, also known as the living dead. If it thinks, if it moves about on its own, if it replicates or reproduces on some level, I'd call it alive. If you had a purely electronic brain, it may not be alive in the "conventional" sense, but I'd consider it living nonetheless. By definition, it is something that evolves, adapts, does its own thing. That's good enough for me.

Are you also the one to suggest that a Tamagotchi is alive? Then what do we have to discuss? You must already be assuming that computers are conscious.

You are not reading my posts. Tamagotchi is a program, carrying out a predefined set of instructions. Artificial intelligence would be able to totally rearrange itself, invent completely new ways of thinking and behaving, and would be able to go above and beyond any sort of conventional programming. Computers run programs...the programs don't have a choice. If something goes wrong, it's because a file was missing or corrupt, or there was a hardware failure, but not because the computer just "didn't feel like it." Computers don't exhibit intelligence or any quality of life. They are basically sophisticated hammers; tools that humans use.

I don't know how serious you are with this whole analogy here. The main reason why this does not concern evidence, is because evidence is something that stems from the things that are seen and tangible. Consciousness is verifiable but not provable. Be careful, because the paradigm in which you're looking may never come across a chance to be proven otherwise. It is like looking in the wrong place to start. Consciousness, as it is (not 'could be'), is verifiable as beyond causes and conditions. It is a matter of understanding what it is, and science truly will not show you.

I'm dead serious. I can observe my life, the world, and the universe, but I can't prove that it exists. I could be hallucinating vividly. I could be dreaming. I could be a delusional glazed confection in a frozen wasteland for all I know. I could be debating my own mind, rather than another human being. Or, you could be a three-tentacled alien. BUT, without evidence to support any of these claims, why the hell should I accept any of them? I can observe consciousness, the planet, the universe. I can experience them. Evidence already exists that shows consciousness seems to be wholly derived from the brain itself, though much research has yet to be done. Evidence that consciousness is anything other than the product of the human mind does not exist. It contains far too many variables, is an assertion in its finest form, and there is no reason whatsoever to hold that particular belief to be true. You can go ahead and believe it if you like. Science has shown us more about consciousness and how it works than your pseudo-philosophical assertions. Now, could you be right? Certainly. But, without a single shred of evidence to back up your claims, why should I believe for one second that you are? I have seen similar arguments from creationists: "Well, I can't possibly even imagine how all of this may have come to be...it's just too complicated/unbelievable for me. So, I'm gonna come up with something else with no evidence to take the strain off my brain." Science has the ability to reveal to us what the source of consciousness is...your claims get us absolutely nowhere.