Thread: How are we not a computer?

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?