DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:40 pm**

Isaac A. Gallegos
intro to Philosophy, T 6:00
Dialogue

This is biased on a conversation that did happen at the start of the spring semester at ACC in 2006. It’s between me and the leader of “Christian Students of ACC.”

Isaac:
Hi what are you guys doing here.

CS:
We’re here to tell you about a meeting the CS is going to have. If you’re interested in hearing the word of god, then you can stay and visit. Would you like a cookie or some lemonade?

Isaac:
Sure.

CS:
Look at this brochure.

Isaac:
Okay.

CS:
We meet on these days and all you have to do is sit and listen. We also have activities.

Isaac:
It reminds me of my old church back at home.

CS:
What church was it?

Isaac: Catholic. Im half Mexican and Irish… that’s about as catholic as you can get. No?

CS:
Ha ha… I guess so.

Isaac:
But I stopped going after a while because I stopped believing in religion. Don’t get me wrong: I believe in god and I do agree with the morals, but I don’t think it or any religion has the right idea of what god is or what IT wants.

CS:
That’s fine. Do you have a moment?

Isaac:
I suppose I do. It’s not every day I get to talk about this.

CS:
Do you know these prayers. Read this short one and tell me what you think.

Isaac:
…..ok finished.

CS:
How do you feel now? Did that have any meaning to you?

Isaac:
It’s a very pretty piece of literature. I don’t think it’s right, but I do think it’s very nice.

CS:
You don’t think there’s an afterlife then?

Isaac:
Till recently, no.

CS:
Then what do you think you’ll experience when you die?

Isaac:
I could tell you simply what I think, but you won’t think I have a valid point, unless I explain how I thought of it. Do you have a minute?

CS:
Of course. Go ahead.

Isaac:
Great! Have you ever played the game called boggle?

CS:
Yes. I like it.

Isaac:
You put wodden cubes into a plastic container. Each cube has six letters. You shake the container and try to find words the letters make. Tell me: What are the chances of finding the same word twice in the span of one game.

CS:
Not too bad, if it’s a small word.

Isaac:
Okay. So lets say instead of finding one word, you were just going to write down every square, facing up.

CS:
Why would you do that?

Isaac:
Then you would mix the container and read the letters. What are the chances of it being exactly the same as your last mix of letters?

CS:
I wouldn’t expect it. It would be almost impossible.

Isaac:
Say after ten times shaking and checking?

CS:
Well the chances would be better but I don’t think I would get the exact combination of letters I wrote down.

Isaac:
Now listen closely to what I say and tell me what you think. What if you were to keep shaking and checking for a whole year with out rest. Would you find that exact combination of letters, from the page, then?

CS:
Maybe. Yes. I think that would do it.

Isaac:
Now lets make it harder. And I promise that I’ll show you were im going with this in a second.

CS:
I’m okay. Continue.

Isaac:
Lest say you were to shake the container and write down your combinations, ten times in a row. In a year, of shaking/looking, do you think you would run into the same ten patterns in a row?

CS:
ha ha, I don’t think so.

Isaac:
What about in a decade?

CS:
It’s hard to say.

Isaac:
Ok how about in ten thousand years?

CS:
yes. I think it could take about that long.

Isaac:
I bet you see a pattern here. No matter how many combinations we write down, to find and because time is infinite, we know for a FACT that they will reappear. We could record every pattern we find for the first year, and that exact combination, of that whole year, will be found again because time is infinite. Am I right?

CS:
I see what you’re saying, but what dose it have to do with the after life?

Isaac:
This: Instead of boggle cube imagine atoms. And instead of a container, know that the gravity of every atom is infinite…. Weak but infinite. Think now about every atom in existence. You know that time in infinite, right?

CS:
yes. I see where you’re going with this. Your flaw is that something could fly out into space and never come back, because space is infinite.

Isaac:
Again, gravity is infinite. It will be pulling back to other objects till it comes back and crashes.

CS:
I’ll take your word for it.

Isaac:
What im saying is: Because we know that time is infinite it would be impossible for the arrangement of atoms that makes up the earth, as we know it, to not occur again.

CS:
Hmmm… I’m not sure.

Isaac:
Lets say the “big bang” theory is the equivalent to us shaking the boggle container.

CS:
Okay.

Isaac:
Lets say after trillions and trillions of big bangs, what are the chances of having another planet poplulated with humans, like on earth.

CS:
Good I guess.

Isaac:
Now what are the chances the exact atoms that make up you and me, being put back exactly as they are now after centillions and centillions of ‘big bangs’ have occurred.

CS:
I’m not sure.
Isaac:
Well know that time is infinite and ‘big bangs’ will keep happening, isn’t it impossible that you and me wont be having this conversation again?

CS:
Heh. That’s something to think about.

Isaac:
If I’m correct, I think death would be experienced like this: You die, then awake again when the atoms realign. You wouldn’t even experience being dead. You would just be alive when the exact atoms were realigned. Now I hope there’s a heaven I can go to, because the thought of it is great. But I’ll have to go with my theory because it works with simple logic.

We debate on the subject for a while. We also debated on what god is and what it want’s, but in the end we both agree to disagree about everything. I think we both had fun.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:12 am**

Your central premise seems to be:

1) if you have an infinite number of \"retries\" you'll eventually duplicate what we have here, and
2) we have an infinite number of retries

1 is correct, provided everything in the universe is physical (that is, there are no \"outside\" influences that would be absent in future universes.) 2 is questionable.

While gravity acts over an infinite distance, and will continue to act as long as mass exists, there's no guarantee it will eventually pull the universe back together. Given enough starting velocity / energy, the universe would continue to expand in spite of gravity, and there's a fair bit of evidence to suggest that's the case with this universe. (See this article, and search this article for \"critical density\" and read from there.) In other words, this may be the universe's last shot -- gravity may be insufficient to reverse the universe's expansion.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:19 am**

Technically, premise #1 isn't even necessarily correct.

Even with an infinite number of \"retries\", there's no statistical 100% guarantee that the same result will occur.

Take an utterly simple example like flipping a coin: I could get Heads the first time, and then nothing but Tails thereafter for infinity. (Granted, the odds of this grow infinitesimally small, but it's logically possible.)

It's the same with an uncomprehendingly complex system like our physical universe. Even if there are an infinite number of retries (which is debatable, as Lothar said), there's no 100% guarantee that the \"exact same universe\" will reoccur.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:39 am**

But is what makes us US just a specific arrangement of atoms? What if i change it just a little, am i still me or am i someone else?

ie: what if i have brain damage... am i still me? my atoms are different.

I think what i'm saying is that there isn't just one single \"ME\" pattern, i've been many many patterns, and i'll continue to be many many patterns until i die.

And the pattern doesn't have to be perfect for it to be \"ME\": i can still be ME if i don't have an arm. I can even still be ME if sections of my brain are fiddled with or removed. So the definition of ME is loose. If the universe ever rearranges my atoms to form ME, how will it be ME? In creating ME, how will it draw the line between failure and success - where exactly is the line crossed when a \"close enough\" ME is considered a ME?

MOAR THEORISING IT FEEDS ME!!!

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:48 am**

Well, it's too hard to answer that because the entire thing that makes you you is your mind, not your body. The problem there is that I believe that the mind is more like a soul that uses the brain as a device, rather than being the brain itself.
So the first question to ask is \"What is the mind?\"

Incidently, if I can get my time machine up and running, I may be able to find out if animals have the same type of minds as humans. (However I'm having a hard time trying to an ohmmeter connected to a computer and programmed adequately. And I dont expect the machine to work without it.)

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:16 am**

Great topic. More on the \"what makes me me\" issue:

Have you ever thought about one incredibly unusual quality we have, that is, self awareness? It's NOT bizarre that you can THINK. It's bizarre that you are AWARE of thinking. Nothing in physics can explain this phenomenon (although many scientist have tried).

Lets start with the \"Chinese Room\" thought experiment. Imagine that someone wrote a program that could hold a conversation in Mandarin Chinese. You pass in a message written in Chinese symbols, and it responds with Chinese symbols. Further, Imagine that this program is so complex that it could pass a Turing Test That is, that the program was so good that you could not tell whether you were talking to a computer or a person. It is argued that since the program responds like a person, it must be intelligent just like a person. That it IS a person. And that isn't so hard for many of us to imagine. This computer converses in Chinese, it ACTS like it is self aware, it must BE self aware in the same way that we are.

BUT, now lets do the experiment a different way. ANY program is just a set of instructions. Lets replace that computer with a large room of people following instructions. It's a thought experiment, so we can assume we have near infinite numbers of people available, and a near infinite amount of time for them to work, and that they are VERY meticulous and accurate people.

We take the program that the computer was running, and turn it into a program that the people can run. It will be a HUGE library of very complex instruction books, and a lot of paper pads to write numbers on. (infinite pencils and erasers here too folks!)

Now then, this room is now running the SAME program that the computer was. (VERY SLOWLY, but that's not important) If you pass in a series of Chinese characters, they will be broken down into pixels by people, lots of numbers will be written down, manuals will be pulled down in the proper sequence, manual 3,578,291 may say \"If the number on pad 25,576,102 is less than 5000, AND the number on pad 55,632 is 1, then go to manual 2,100,543 and follow the instructions on page 678.\"

Oh, one more detail. NO ONE in the room speaks or reads Mandarin. They follow the instructions, which, as you can see from the above example, is not going to tell them ANYTHING about Mandarin. Nevertheless, if you send Chinese characters into the room, the people will follow all of the instructions, and an answer will come back out, JUST like with the computer, only a LOT slower.

The \"Chinese Room\", ignoring the issue of speed of response, passes the turing test, just like the AI computer did, because it is running exactly the same program. BUT, there is NO ONE in that room who understands Mandarin. WHO exactly is doing the talking? Would you believe that, somehow, the Chinese room experiences self awareness? And if it does, where does that self awareness exist?

Now then, the POINT of the Chinese room is just that it makes clearer what is true of the computer, AND OF YOUR OWN BRAIN. They are both just a collection of atoms. Those atoms may interact in very complex ways, but there is NOTHING in the laws of physics that could explain why there should be any such thing as \"self awareness\" hiding in there. To each atom, it's just bumping around. Where does this strange \"self awareness\" come from? We can explain why you can see, why you move, walk, talk, and interact, but we can NOT explain where the \"YOU\" comes from that is AWARE of all this happening.

Heck, you can't even prove that anyone besides yourself is self aware. For example, say you talk to your buddy one day. The sound of your voice stimulates neurons in his ears that send signals to the neurons in his brain. Those neurons make other neurons fire, and because of the way all the neurons fire, he responds, probably signals go to HIS mouth and something typical of your friend comes out.

It's easy to assume the \"BRAIN\" as a whole is self aware because its one big unit. But the brain is identical to the Chinese room. Its just a collection of parts that don't \"KNOW\" what is going on with the whole. For example, what if we pulled your friends brain apart, neuron by neuron. Now we have EVERY neuron from his brain, alive, but separate, and all wired up, each to it's own little computer that can stimulate any of the dendrites. The Neurons will have no way to tell they aren't still part of a connected brain, and when their dendrites are stimulated, they will fire just like they would have when your friends brain was still in one big grey lump in his skull.

NOW, we send the same signal that went into the brain when you talked to your intact friend. The little computers fire and stimulate the right dendrites. When each of the neurons fire, the right little computers connected to the other neurons fire just as if the signal had actually come from another Neuron, the entire brain responds JUST like it did when it was really together and connected, and the exact same signal is sent out to make the mouth talk. Is this collection of separated Neurons self aware?

If you still think it is, then lets change the experiment a little bit. now we fire each neuron EXACTLY like we did before, but out of order. We can reproduce the sequence backwards, or in completely random order. It's all the same to the neurons. When stimulated, they fire. They aren't REALLY connected to any of the other neurons in this experiment, so to each Neuron, its response is IDENTICAL to the response it gave when the brain fired in the proper order. Is THIS brain self aware? The Neurons can't tell the difference, WHO does? WHO would be the \"I\" that experiences these scattered neurons firing? And how is this ANY different if the neurons are actually connected inside your skull?

Where does self awareness come from? Why do you EXPERIENCE what you do? Unless you are willing to go beyond the physical universe, there IS no answer to this question.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:40 am**

so similar to what i talked about in a previous thread: collections of atoms, make collections of cells, make collections of animals, make collections of species, make planets, make etcetc. If we as individual animals (collections of cells) are self-aware... could any of those other smaller lifeforms (our individual cells) or bigger collections of lifeforms (the whole planet) possess their OWN selfawareness?

i like your chinese room experiment.

all of this make me wonder if perhaps consciousness is just an abstract idea. That we as individual consciousnesses don't even really exist. Have you ever seen a tv show that explores the question of characters in dreams - when you wake up, do they \"die\", and what if we ourselves were just figments of someone else's dream and they could wake up any minute?
So considering all what's been written so far... i think that our consciousnesses are really just the collective DREAM of our cells. Our very existance as individuals is just an abstract notion, a fleeting idea that our cells had. We don't even exist!

and then that would make your chinese room experiment lifeform just a collective dream of humans, which inturn are collective dreams themselves.
dreams dreaming. how big can it get? can our medeclorians dream up the consciousness of each cell, and then each cell dream up the consciousness of us as people, and then us as people dream up the consciousness of the earth, which then with other planets dreams up the consciousness of the milkyway... which itself is just a cell. dreams apon dreams apon dreams apon dreams. we're so not here lol

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:49 am**

Kilarin wrote:Great topic. More on the "what makes me me" issue:

Have you ever thought about one incredibly unusual quality we have, that is, self awareness? It's NOT bizarre that you can THINK. It's bizarre that you are AWARE of thinking. Nothing in physics can explain this phenomenon (although many scientist have tried).

Lets start with the "Chinese Room" thought experiment. Imagine that someone wrote a program that could hold a conversation in Mandarin Chinese. You pass in a message written in Chinese symbols, and it responds with Chinese symbols. Further, Imagine that this program is so complex that it could pass a Turing Test That is, that the program was so good that you could not tell whether you were talking to a computer or a person. It is argued that since the program responds like a person, it must be intelligent just like a person. That it IS a person. And that isn't so hard for many of us to imagine. This computer converses in Chinese, it ACTS like it is self aware, it must BE self aware in the same way that we are.

BUT, now lets do the experiment a different way. ANY program is just a set of instructions. Lets replace that computer with a large room of people following instructions. It's a thought experiment, so we can assume we have near infinite numbers of people available, and a near infinite amount of time for them to work, and that they are VERY meticulous and accurate people.

We take the program that the computer was running, and turn it into a program that the people can run. It will be a HUGE library of very complex instruction books, and a lot of paper pads to write numbers on. (infinite pencils and erasers here too folks!)

Now then, this room is now running the SAME program that the computer was. (VERY SLOWLY, but that's not important) If you pass in a series of Chinese characters, they will be broken down into pixels by people, lots of numbers will be written down, manuals will be pulled down in the proper sequence, manual 3,578,291 may say "If the number on pad 25,576,102 is less than 5000, AND the number on pad 55,632 is 1, then go to manual 2,100,543 and follow the instructions on page 678."

Oh, one more detail. NO ONE in the room speaks or reads Mandarin. They follow the instructions, which, as you can see from the above example, is not going to tell them ANYTHING about Mandarin. Nevertheless, if you send Chinese characters into the room, the people will follow all of the instructions, and an answer will come back out, JUST like with the computer, only a LOT slower.

The "Chinese Room", ignoring the issue of speed of response, passes the turing test, just like the AI computer did, because it is running exactly the same program. BUT, there is NO ONE in that room who understands Mandarin. WHO exactly is doing the talking? Would you believe that, somehow, the Chinese room experiences self awareness? And if it does, where does that self awareness exist?

Now then, the POINT of the Chinese room is just that it makes clearer what is true of the computer, AND OF YOUR OWN BRAIN. They are both just a collection of atoms. Those atoms may interact in very complex ways, but there is NOTHING in the laws of physics that could explain why there should be any such thing as "self awareness" hiding in there. To each atom, it's just bumping around. Where does this strange "self awareness" come from? We can explain why you can see, why you move, walk, talk, and interact, but we can NOT explain where the "YOU" comes from that is AWARE of all this happening.

Heck, you can't even prove that anyone besides yourself is self aware. For example, say you talk to your buddy one day. The sound of your voice stimulates neurons in his ears that send signals to the neurons in his brain. Those neurons make other neurons fire, and because of the way all the neurons fire, he responds, probably signals go to HIS mouth and something typical of your friend comes out.

It's easy to assume the "BRAIN" as a whole is self aware because its one big unit. But the brain is identical to the Chinese room. Its just a collection of parts that don't "KNOW" what is going on with the whole. For example, what if we pulled your friends brain apart, neuron by neuron. Now we have EVERY neuron from his brain, alive, but separate, and all wired up, each to it's own little computer that can stimulate any of the dendrites. The Neurons will have no way to tell they aren't still part of a connected brain, and when their dendrites are stimulated, they will fire just like they would have when your friends brain was still in one big grey lump in his skull.

NOW, we send the same signal that went into the brain when you talked to your intact friend. The little computers fire and stimulate the right dendrites. When each of the neurons fire, the right little computers connected to the other neurons fire just as if the signal had actually come from another Neuron, the entire brain responds JUST like it did when it was really together and connected, and the exact same signal is sent out to make the mouth talk. Is this collection of separated Neurons self aware?

If you still think it is, then lets change the experiment a little bit. now we fire each neuron EXACTLY like we did before, but out of order. We can reproduce the sequence backwards, or in completely random order. It's all the same to the neurons. When stimulated, they fire. They aren't REALLY connected to any of the other neurons in this experiment, so to each Neuron, its response is IDENTICAL to the response it gave when the brain fired in the proper order. Is THIS brain self aware? The Neurons can't tell the difference, WHO does? WHO would be the "I" that experiences these scattered neurons firing? And how is this ANY different if the neurons are actually connected inside your skull?

Where does self awareness come from? Why do you EXPERIENCE what you do? Unless you are willing to go beyond the physical universe, there IS no answer to this question.

Firstly, your "Chinese Room" doesn't prove anything, other than that humans are capable of acting like a computer. You may be saying that the people were like barts of your brain, and they were given instructions, but those instructions were most likely given by another person, that can speak Chinese. Simply put, it means that parts of your brain may have been given instructions by other parts of your brain.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:52 am**

roid wrote:

so similar to what i talked about in a previous thread: collections of atoms, make collections of cells, make collections of animals, make collections of species, make planets, make etcetc. If we as individual animals (collections of cells) are self-aware... could any of those other smaller lifeforms (our individual cells) or bigger collections of lifeforms (the whole planet) possess their OWN selfawareness?

i like your chinese room experiment.

all of this make me wonder if perhaps consciousness is just an abstract idea. That we as individual consciousnesses don't even really exist. Have you ever seen a tv show that explores the question of characters in dreams - when you wake up, do they "die", and what if we ourselves were just figments of someone else's dream and they could wake up any minute?
So considering all what's been written so far... i think that our consciousnesses are really just the collective DREAM of our cells. Our very existance as individuals is just an abstract notion, a fleeting idea that our cells had. We don't even exist!

and then that would make your chinese room experiment lifeform just a collective dream of humans, which inturn are collective dreams themselves.
dreams dreaming. how big can it get? can our medeclorians dream up the consciousness of each cell, and then each cell dream up the consciousness of us as people, and then us as people dream up the consciousness of the earth, which then with other planets dreams up the consciousness of the milkyway... which itself is just a cell. dreams apon dreams apon dreams apon dreams. we're so not here lol

Mabye they are!
But chances are equally as good as every proton in an atom being made up of very tiny flamingos held together using superglue, and were made by invisible elves.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:59 am**

I like where you're going Roidy but let's break it down even more.

Your brain is a complex molecular structure.
These molecules are composed of atoms.
Atoms are composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons.
These particles are composed of quarks.

And so on...

1. Do quarks think?
2. If not, how can electrons, protons, and neutrons think?
3. If not, how can atoms think?
4. If not, how can molecules think?
5. If not, how can your brain think?

This seems silly at first glance until I thought about it.

We are our memories. We do things based on what we've done before, seen before.

We are state machines.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:04 am**

SuperSheep wrote:I like where you're going Roidy but let's break it down even more.

Your brain is a complex molecular structure.
These molecules are composed of atoms.
Atoms are composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons.
These particles are composed of quarks.

And so on...

1. Do quarks think?
2. If not, how can electrons, protons, and neutrons think?
3. If not, how can atoms think?
4. If not, how can molecules think?
5. If not, how can your brain think?

This seems silly at first glance until I thought about it.

We are our memories. We do things based on what we've done before, seen before.

We are state machines.

None of those do think, but they do react to things. These reactionsare put in such a way that it is referred to as thinking.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:16 am**

1. Do quarks sing?
2. If not, how can electrons, protons, and neutrons sing?
3. If not, how can atoms sing?
4. If not, how can molecules sing?
5. If not, how can you sing?
But we can sing, so reductio ad absurdum quarks can sing.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your argument, this is textbook fallacy of division. A property of a system does not necessarily extend to its parts.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:16 am**

I think, therefore I am.

The converse is not necessarily true.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:37 am**

Kilarin wrote:It's easy to assume the "BRAIN" as a whole is self aware because its one big unit. But the brain is identical to the Chinese room. Its just a collection of parts that don't "KNOW" what is going on with the whole. For example, what if we pulled your friends brain apart, neuron by neuron. Now we have EVERY neuron from his brain, alive, but separate, and all wired up, each to it's own little computer that can stimulate any of the dendrites. The Neurons will have no way to tell they aren't still part of a connected brain, and when their dendrites are stimulated, they will fire just like they would have when your friends brain was still in one big grey lump in his skull.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding your arugment, but it also seems like fallacy of composition. It's not required for any specific part of the brain to be self-aware for the brain itself to be self-aware. Why can't self-awareness emerge from the composition of the brain's parts?

Kilarin wrote: It's bizarre that you are AWARE of thinking. Nothing in physics can explain this phenomenon

Just because science has not yet provided a thorough explanation of self-awareness does not mean that it's impossible for science to provide such an explanation. I think it's obvious that we are only beginning to understand the brain and that we can only expect further breakthroughs in the field, which I suspect will some day include explaining self-awareness.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:49 am**

You're right Kilarin. And on top of that, some people call the brain a pattern finding/loving machine. Everything from music to playing video games, we experience joy from finding and using patterns. If you were going to make an intelligent robot, you'd have to structure the brain in a similar way. It might be possible then to make a self aware robot, but who say it's not alive.... There's already an Isaac that's written enough on that subject though.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:00 pm**

TIGERassault wrote:Simply put, it means that parts of your brain may have been given instructions by other parts of your brain.

All the "Chinese Room" thought experiment does is make the computer big enough that we can look at it and question where the self awareness comes in. Do you believe that the Chinese Room would actually be self aware, or conscious?

Jeff250 wrote:Unless I'm misunderstanding your argument, this is textbook fallacy of division. A property of a system does not necessarily extend to its parts.

Jeff250 wrote:It's not required for any specific part of the brain to be self-aware for the brain itself to be self-aware. Why can't self-awareness emerge from the composition of the brain's parts?

A system can certainly have properties that no single part of the system has. BUT, we can define those properties. The fact that a brain brings in input, and produces output, is easy to explain in terms of atoms. but it requires NO CONSCIOUSNESS to do this. The system will behave EXACTLY the same, with or without self awareness.

Our brains are, in principle, NO different than the Chinese Room thought experiment. Do you believe that the Chinese Room would suddenly have this "magical" self awareness appear? Physics can explain exactly why the Chinese Room would be able to read Chinese symbols and produce answers. How can Physics explain this magic self awareness idea? It's not necessary to the systems operation, it is not a result of any of the systems operations. WHY should self awareness emerge when the Chinese Room is producing rational sentences, but NOT emerge if the Chinese room is given a bad program and produces irrational responses?

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:29 pm**

Kilarin wrote:Do you believe that the Chinese Room would suddenly have this "magical" self awareness appear?

Kilarin wrote:Physics can explain exactly why the Chinese Room would be able to read Chinese symbols and produce answers. How can Physics explain this magic self awareness idea?

Well, of course, if you are already assuming that self-awareness is a "magical" property, you'll conclude that a brain, as a collection of atoms, cannot produce self-awareness. Similarly, you'll conclude that Physics won't be able to explain it. But whether or not self-awareness is a magical property is the very thing in question!

Kilarin wrote:The fact that a brain brings in input, and produces output, is easy to explain in terms of atoms. but it requires NO CONSCIOUSNESS to do this.

This still looks like fallacy of composition to me. Let's use the singing example except in your case.

The fact that a voicebox brings in input and produces output is easy to explain in terms of atoms. But it requires NO SINGING to do this. (Of course, I'm simplifying the process of singing for this example, which also involves lungs, a tongue, etc., but it doesn't invalidate the example.)

Now, if you're suggesting that we could somehow remove self-awareness from a brain and that its physical goings-ons will still be the same, you'd be once again already assuming that self-awareness is some magical property that can be removed like that instead of it being an emerging property from parts of the brain.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:20 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:1. Do quarks sing?
2. If not, how can electrons, protons, and neutrons sing?
3. If not, how can atoms sing?
4. If not, how can molecules sing?
5. If not, how can you sing?
But we can sing, so reductio ad absurdum quarks can sing.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your argument, this is textbook fallacy of division. A property of a system does not necessarily extend to its parts.

How do you know quarks don't sing? We don't posess the tools necessary to hear them.

The point was this inert specialness with which we posess to have that nothing else has is in fact nothing special.

And, complex systems have complex interactions, simple systems have simple interactions. This magical thought and self-awareness that we supposedly have is simply a complex interaction. The basis for thought is that it somehow falls outside of the realm of science.

The fact that it is not within sciences capability to sufficiently explain it does not mean it is somehow some mysterious phenomenon. It simply means that the system is too complex to understand.

You can sing.
The vocal chords can vibrate.
The molecules can contract due to chemical signals.
The atoms exist, as do the particles that compose them.

The chemical signals traveled from the brain which sent them due to another chemical signal, and so on.

Whales sing too.

The "think" I refer to is the abstract idea of thought. That somehow we have thoughts, unique and unbiased. I agree the brain has chemical reactions and these chemical reactions give the impresssion(illusion) of thought but merely a reaction to a state, not some mystical force yet to be discovered.

And for kicks, how do we know dogs don't have self-awareness, how about a tree? You don't. Only the organism knows if it has this "special" ability and you are merely an observer.

We are meat with language, or complex state machines. Take your pick.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:35 pm**

SuperSheep wrote:I like where you're going Roidy but let's break it down even more.

ah yeah, "the little man who lives in your head" problem. i was reading about this a few weeks ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus <-- see it's even Descent on-topic!

if you get to the point where you explain every consciousness by saying "oh, there's this little man who lives in my head and controls everything".... but then does he also have a little man in HIS head? When everything is controlled by something inside, it never ends, viscious circular logic.
Not that there's anything wrong with that

SuperSheep wrote:We are state machines

logic states that i gotta agree, but it still doesn't give closure to the question of how REAL our thoughts and feelings feel. We keep telling ourselves "surely machines can't feel life like this"... but maybe they do.

It's just that i havn't been able to find anything that can gives kudos to the amazingness that is just BEING. Just being alive... the feeling... the sensation that your thoughts exist somewhere, where? somewhere! amongst your neurons? But the thoughts and the sensation of life still exists, and even though it's the byproduct of a distributed neuronal machine we still feel (or percieve) ourselves it as a SINGLE entity.

Only a few of us experience consciousness multiplicity. They give our stable sense of "singlular self" such a shakeup and scare that we lock them away in institutions. We try to "reintegrate" them, because the establishment finds the notion of anything other than a SINGULAR self unacceptable.

Kilarin wrote:A system can certainly have properties that no single part of the system has. BUT, we can define those properties. The fact that a brain brings in input, and produces output, is easy to explain in terms of atoms. but it requires NO CONSCIOUSNESS to do this. The system will behave EXACTLY the same, with or without self awareness.

Our brains are, in principle, NO different than the Chinese Room thought experiment. Do you believe that the Chinese Room would suddenly have this "magical" self awareness appear? Physics can explain exactly why the Chinese Room would be able to read Chinese symbols and produce answers. How can Physics explain this magic self awareness idea? It's not necessary to the systems operation, it is not a result of any of the systems operations. WHY should self awareness emerge when the Chinese Room is producing rational sentences, but NOT emerge if the Chinese room is given a bad program and produces irrational responses?

omg... so Maybe our consciousness and self-awareness is not real. It's a trick put out by every socially evolved brain to trick those around us into feeling empathy for us.
Like a crying-doll toy, it gets cared for by exploiting the empathy response in humans. What's to say that our brains arn't just the same - the illusion of consciousness evolving side-by-side with empathy - both emerging at the same time of evolution, simply as a blind survival mechanism for the species.
But the chinese room didn't evolve. It has no survival mechanism to evolve an empathy response. But whether we evolve it or are programmed for it, i guess it's all the same in the end - we respond.
So the chinese room would only appear to be as selfconscious as it's programmed to be. To convince us, it would have to appear to share many self-consciousness traits that we humans have. So just as we are programmed with complex inner reward responses - the room would be programmed with it's own inner "rewards" that it is programmed to seek out. Self-consciousness would probabaly fit into this, because for the computer to convince us it would have to be programmed just like us to seek social "rewards" - and it knows that if it appears to be self-conscious then it will gain our empathy - which leads to social rewards.

eek, so if our feelings are just a trick for our psyche-mechanics to make us believe we ARE worthwhile... that means that the entire EGO concept is just a personal (selfish) survival mechanism - a trick to make us believe that we are more important that others. A trick to make us believe that we EXIST as a seperate entity amongst the world.

urgh... but it's so hard to shake the belief that I EXIST. No matter what i logically tell myself... there i am... telling myself! Whereever i go, there i am. Heh, the duality of Feeling and Thinking, Emotions and Logic, the Feminine and Masculine. Feeling makes us look like idiots

, but then again... it's our logical Thinking self that has made that "logic = good" judgement. Should i trust it?

.
3 billion women can't be wrong. But neither can 3 billion men.

Posted: **Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:13 am**

Supersheep wrote:The point was this inert specialness with which we posess to have that nothing else has is in fact nothing special.

OK, then I misunderstood what you were saying, and I actually agree with most everything you said in your latest post (scroll up to my latest two before this if you haven't).

Posted: **Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:02 am**

Posted: **Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:12 am**

roid wrote:eek, so if our feelings are just a trick for our psyche-mechanics to make us believe we ARE worthwhile... that means that the entire EGO concept is just a personal (selfish) survival mechanism - a trick to make us believe that we are more important that others. A trick to make us believe that we EXIST as a seperate entity amongst the world.

No, we have feelings. These feelings just aren't what you used to think they were.

roid wrote:urgh... but it's so hard to shake the belief that I EXIST. No matter what i logically tell myself... there i am... telling myself! Whereever i go, there i am. Heh, the duality of Feeling and Thinking, Emotions and Logic, the Feminine and Masculine. Feeling makes us look like idiots , but then again... it's our logical Thinking self that has made that "logic = good" judgement. Should i trust it? .

So your theory here is that you haven't a special self-awareness, therefore you do not exist?

Posted: **Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:00 pm**

Like Dissent already pointed out...

Dissent wrote:I think, therefore I am.
The converse is not necessarily true.

Posted: **Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm**

TIGERassault wrote:
roid wrote:urgh... but it's so hard to shake the belief that I EXIST. No matter what i logically tell myself... there i am... telling myself! Whereever i go, there i am. Heh, the duality of Feeling and Thinking, Emotions and Logic, the Feminine and Masculine. Feeling makes us look like idiots , but then again... it's our logical Thinking self that has made that "logic = good" judgement. Should i trust it? .
So your theory here is that you haven't a special self-awareness, therefore you do not exist?

yeah. i'm pointing out some human duality - "thinking vs feeling".
- If we were purely logical thinking beings, we'd be able to accept that we don't exist and we'd be fine with it. We'd also be boring as dried snot on a ceiling. Extreme-o vulcans, robots. We'd be nothing but numbers.
- If we were purely feeling beings, well i have no idea what that would be like. Maybe it'd be like being in a permanent quasi-psychosis - our everyday lives being peppered with a rich mix of neverending subconscious hulucinations that we are powerless to not react to. We'd be purely hedonistic morons, perhaps like fairys from folklore.

It's the human condition. Logic vs Feeling. Played out in ancient myths, storys, tv shows, we're all familure with the stock characters or archetypes of this ancient debate in some form or another. Many moral schools of thought encourage the shunning of one and the exultation of the other. YaHWeY vs Satan. i (well, not just me) think this is a dumb idea, such denial of aspects of our inner selves causes neurosis. so much suffering

Posted: **Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:16 am**

roid wrote:yeah. i'm pointing out some human duality - "thinking vs feeling".
- If we were purely logical thinking beings, we'd be able to accept that we don't exist and we'd be fine with it. We'd also be boring as dried snot on a ceiling. Extreme-o vulcans, robots. We'd be nothing but numbers.
- If we were purely feeling beings, well i have no idea what that would be like. Maybe it'd be like being in a permanent quasi-psychosis - our everyday lives being peppered with a rich mix of neverending subconscious hulucinations that we are powerless to not react to. We'd be purely hedonistic morons, perhaps like fairys from folklore.

This seems to be getting continuously more stupid...

For a start, you cannot prove true a theory by using another theory that can't be proven true itself!

Posted: **Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:55 am**

but i'm not trying to prove anything - just chatting on the intarnets. it's fun! don't you think?

i don't have any state of being to experientially compare to, all i got is me.

Unprovable Theorys FUUUUUUUU!!!!

Posted: **Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:56 pm**

Spooky wrote:This is written to those whom it applies. It is not meant to be accusing or critical, It is not written to “condemn” the way anyone believes. That is totally an individuals’ right to believe as they choose . . . .

It is disturbing to see the apparent results of those making comment that may not have read much of the Bible or even read it at all or even care. These individuals seem to believe those who have founded their beliefs on “scientific expertise” The world famous person of Carl Sagan was such. He explored the universe exptensively and reputedly died an athiest believing more in his studies and certain “experts” of his time.

Keep in mind that The Bible was written before there were cameras, television or any form of recording devices. The Bible is to be accepted in simple faith believing that what It says is true. Long disertations, colorful though they may be, that pull an individual away from the central issues of scripture are unecessary and often confusing.

From 2nd Timothy of the New Testament King James Bible

3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Faith is remarkable. A sample is the child believing its’ daddy is going to take it to the circus as promised. Then the joy the child experiences when daddy fufills the promise.

From the New Testament Book of Hebrews King James Bible Concerning faith:

1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.
11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
11:16 But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son].
11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
11:19 Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, [leaning] upon the top of his staff.
11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw [he was] a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.
11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry [land]: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.
11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.
11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and [of] Barak, and [of] Samson, and [of] Jephthae; [of] David also, and Samuel, and [of] the prophets:
11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
11:36 And others had trial of [cruel] mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and [in] mountains, and [in] dens and caves of the earth.
11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

The Old Testament Book of Genesis King James Bible concerning the creation:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

VOMIT.
You better read the Tibetan book of the dead right now. If you are gonna spew copy and paste. But you won't.

Gah... what an embarrassment to Christians you are. Farting in your little chair. Why? Why do you people spew this? It's not fact. It's copy and paste with no synthesis at all. Not using your mind at all; That's scary.

Posted: **Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:43 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:But whether or not self-awareness is a magical property is the very thing in question!

Give me an even PLAUSIBLE guess at a scientific explanation of self-awareness.

Jeff250 wrote:Let's use the singing example except in your case.

I don't quite get the singing analogy. As SuperSheep pointed out, singing is a physical process. While we may feel that it has mystical qualities, they are not anything that can be proven and can therefore be ignored.

Self awareness, the fact that I not only think my thoughts, but EXPERIENCE them, that is self evident to every individual who experiences it, and therefore can not simply be ignored.

SuperSheep wrote:We are meat with language, or complex state machines. Take your pick.

roid wrote:logic states that i gotta agree, but it still doesn't give closure to the question of how REAL our thoughts and feelings feel.

Exactly. If this is all we are, why do we experience self awareness? (Or, at least *I* do, I don't know about any of the REST of you)

Which brings me back to my original question. Do you think the Chinese Room would be self aware? If so, why? If not, then why are we?

Spooky wrote:The world famous person of Carl Sagan was such. He explored the universe exptensively and reputedly died an athiest

Actually, Sagan was an agnostic. And if you read the book CONTACT, you will see that he definitely left open the possibility there was more behind the universe than we see.

Spooky wrote:The Bible is to be accepted in simple faith believing that what It says is true. Long disertations, colorful though they may be, that pull an individual away from the central issues of scripture are unecessary and often confusing.

I'm not entirely certain what you are saying here. Truth is never afraid of inquiry. The Bible should be open to challenge because it can stand UP to challenge. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be worth following.

Isaac (and many of the others here) obviously has an understanding of the universe that differs from ours. It's SO different, that I don't think giving them a selection of Bible texts is likely to influence them at all. Which is why I took the approach I did. Issac's theory is unsatisfactory, in my opinion, because a duplicate of me would not be ME. There is more to me than just the patterns in my atoms. What is that difference though, and where does it come from? You don't have to believe in the Bible at all to discuss the topic. So yes, its a long and colorful discussion, but its one that I think can lead in useful directions, and is interesting to all parties involved in any case.

The Cope wrote:what an embarrassment to Christians you are.

THIS isn't very productive either.

Posted: **Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:33 pm**

One thing that makes us (humans) and some animals more than just atoms, is the existence of feelings. We do not necessarily have to have emotions to be productive in this world. The Chinese Room is a good example of this: people engaged in fact finding to arrive at an answer, all done without the slightest hint of emotion - much like a computer - or a Vulcan perhaps.

Emotions are part of what makes us who we are - but they are not essential for survival. I have seen a cat mourn her dead kittens, a dog smile, a donkey jump for joy, and other such reactions from other animals. Their emotions help make them the individuals they are, but even in their case, emotions are not necessary for survival - but they exist. And I propose they exist because our creator wanted all his living creations to EXPERIENCE life in a way a robot never will.

Posted: **Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:37 pm**

It's interesting to argue the case \"what is me\", but it is more important to argue the case of \"what are you?\", because I already know about me. I'm a carbon-based biological computer, programmed by my parents and the experiences I've had in the last 41 years.

The qaulity of my computer is only dependent on the genes handed to me by my parents, and by the quality and timeliness of the data fed into my brain since it gained consciousness, about the same time I drew my first breath. (There's a large and compelling amount of evidence showing human brains are utterly unconscious until sparked by the birthing process, and breathing.)

I believe it is pointless and silly to argue about what is, and what is NOT human. It's a very simple distinction to make: if it claims human rights then those rights must be awarded it.

The logic is simple: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it IS a duck. It does not matter what the duck is made of, what processes happen inside of the duck: it is still a duck.

Here's why this can be the only test: in the very near future, AIs will pass for better than human. I say a computer will never pass the Turing Test, because we would have to program it to lie, and AIs that tell self-interested lies are of little use to humans.

AIs will never be \"required\" to pass the Turing test - because it will be so obvious from conversing with an AI that it is fully deserving of all the rights which we currently attach to biological humans.

Not only this, but when humans become more hardware than biology, there will be a point at which many will want to \"declassify\" these human/android hybrids. That must not be allowed to happen however.

If we put some \"test\" as being whether one is human or not, then I know for a fact that I can (and would) pass it, but that everyone one else on the planet is merely a very good simulation of a human. See? You can no more prove that you are a human than a computer can.

A person who is 100% human, but incapable of communication would be classified as not-human.

So, you see, it is elementary: if a being or entity craves rights, then rights must be granted accordingly. Most simply, this is to prevent AIs getting really pissed off with us. Because annoyed AIs certainly are not useful to mankind.

There is a classic court case on the web, argued by lawyers for both sides, in front of a judge, to decide if a computer can acquire human rights if it acquires human characteristics.

It is long, but very well worth the read: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0 ... rintable=1

Posted: **Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:58 pm**

Mobius wrote:if a being or entity craves rights, then rights must be granted accordingly.

I agree with this, although I would expand beyond it. There are many that I consider human who are not capable of claiming their rights themselves.

BUT, the entire "right" issue is not MY major point. Self awareness is. Do you feel that self awareness can be explained by entirely physical processes. And if so, how?

Posted: **Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:18 pm**

Kilarin wrote:Give me an even PLAUSIBLE guess at a scientific explanation of self-awareness.

If you want original material, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to provide it, but there's an interesting list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... sciousness

Even so, I still don't like this line of inquiry. We don't have scientific explanations for a lot of things. As a species, we have a long history of appealing to mysticism to explain things that couldn't, at the time, be explained normally, yet even a religious person will agree that appealing to mysticism hasn't been the correct solution for explaining common phenomena in the past. I doubt that it will be here.

Kilarin wrote:I don't quite get the singing analogy. As SuperSheep pointed out, singing is a physical process. While we may feel that it has mystical qualities, they are not anything that can be proven and can therefore be ignored.

No, I never intended to imply that singing is mystical at all, or are you saying that it would have to be to be an appropriate analogy? But then I would just say again that whether or not self-awareness is mystical is the very thing in question.

Since I think there's some miscommunication going on, I'd first like you to explain a little more on what you mean in these two quotes before I respond:
"The fact that a brain brings in input, and produces output, is easy to explain in terms of atoms. but it requires NO CONSCIOUSNESS to do this."
"The system will behave EXACTLY the same, with or without self awareness."

Kilarin wrote:Do you think the Chinese Room would be self aware?

No, but the Chinese Room doesn't even seem apt for self-awareness. What I mean is that just knowing how the Chinese Room communicates in Chinese isn't enough information to make an assessment, even if we know that it passes the Turing Test. But if conversing in Chinese, via the method you explained, makes up the sole function of the Chinese room, I would say no, but again it doesn't seem as if its even apt for self-awareness. I don't think that self-awareness is related to Chinese conversational abilities.

You also mentioned the slow speed of the Chinese Room and said that we should ignore it, but I don't think that this is a good idea. Producing consciousness is going to require a lot of speed, whether in the case of a human, electrochemically, or with a robot, CPU Hz. I don't think that imagining the Chinese Room laborers working really really really fast is suitable either, since it would still be way too slow. I don't think that the Chinese Room is an adequate thought experiment for self-awareness.

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:36 am**

Jeff250 wrote:there's an interesting list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... sciousness

I was familiar with most of them, and don't find any of them to be adequate.

Hofstadter (Who happens to be one of my favorite authors), tries to claim that self awareness comes from complex self-referential patterns. But offers no explanation why those patterns should result in the EXPERIENCE of awareness and more than any other random patterns do. The quantum argument seems extremely bogus to me, after all, complex quantum fields exist around EVERYTHING, so we would need to assume that rocks and chairs might be conscious. The same is true with the EM theory. etc, etc, and so forth.

Jeff250 wrote:Even so, I still don't like this line of inquiry. We don't have scientific explanations for a lot of things.

While I freely admit that we have found physical explanations for many things that we once could not explain, the line of inquiry is only invalid if you assume from the outset that ALL phenomenon must have a physical explanation. As you said, that "is the very thing in question!"

Jeff250 wrote:it doesn't seem as if its even apt for self-awareness.

But how, other than speed, is the Chinese room different than any OTHER computing device? Including the human brain? And why does the speed matter? Are you saying that if a human thought really slowly they would no longer be self aware?

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:43 am**

Kilarin wrote:While I freely admit that we have found physical explanations for many things that we once could not explain, the line of inquiry is only invalid if you assume from the outset that ALL phenomenon must have a physical explanation. As you said, that "is the very thing in question!"

Still, there's something to be said for science's success rate in explaining everything else. In fact, a lot of things that used to be attributed to a soul, like emotion and memory, are now be explained by the brain. It doesn't necessitate that explaining self-awareness will have a scientific explanation, but it certainly seems to strongly suggest it.

Kilarin wrote:I was familiar with most of them, and don't find any of them to be adequate.

I can't debate you point-to-point on these theories because I simply don't understand enough about them, but I think that you'll agree that even if there could be a scientific explanation for self-awareness, it would probably still be in its infancy or not even yet conceived due to the difficult nature of understanding the complexity of the brain.

Still, I think that there are other ways to show that self-awareness can have a scientific explanation other than just giving one.

Changes in brain states seem to result in changes to consciousness states. This can be demonstrated via mind-altering substances, like alcohol or nicotine, which can dramatically alter consciousness by only changing a brain state. It can also be demonstrated via brain damage, where the ability to be self-aware is either hampered or completely destroyed, as might be the case of somebody in a vegetative state.

Before I go on, I know you haven't outright mentioned a "soul," but I assume that that is what you're continually hinting at, right? If so, what exactly is its purview? I mean, surely you are satisfied with scientific explanations of memory, so the soul does not determine this, right? And surely you are satisfied with scientific explanations of emotion, so surely the soul doesn't determine this, right? And what about intelligence? Surely intelligence is purely a function of the brain? What role exactly does a soul play here in determining conscious states or anything else?

Kilarin wrote:But how, other than speed, is the Chinese room different than any OTHER computing device? Including the human brain? And why does the speed matter? Are you saying that if a human thought really slowly they would no longer be self aware?

Yes, you can't expect a human with an extremely low IQ to be self-aware. Along the same lines, I couldn't expect a 486 processor to ever be self-aware either. And like I said before, I don't see how solely assessing the Chinese Room's conversational skills will be adequate to judge whether it is self-aware or not.

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:01 am**

Not to get off topic, but would the only evidence, saying my 'heathenistic' idea is true, would be in light particles out somewhere lost in space? Or would those have been sucked back by gravity, and erased?

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:56 pm**

I don't like the Chinese Room argument at all. It is flawed on many levels and cannot be used to decide whether consciousness is physical or metaphysical.

First of all, you have to keep in mind that it is a THOUGHT experiment. You cannot use it to prove or disprove anything about the physical world. If anything, the thought experiment tells you that if you are interested in finding out about consciousness it makes no sense to construct a computer that can converse in Chinese. Even if you could build such a machine you would get no information about what consciousness is and whether it exists on a physical level.

Second, at least as you put it, Kilarin, the Chinese Room argument is too reductionistic. Of course, the brain consists of neurons and the neurons are probably the stuff that makes it 'think'. But that doesn't mean that the neuronal level is the appropriate level of description for consciousness. For instance, water consists of atoms and quarks and what have you, yet you would never try to describe the flow of the Missisippi on the basis of quantum physics --- that's simply too far down on the ladder of building blocks. Same for the higher brain functions. For instance, you won't find a single neuron that knows how to grasp a cup of coffee, but that doesn't mean that grasping a cup of coffee is a metaphysical activity. To explain it, you have too look at the function of whole brain areas - assemblies of millions of neurons - and how they interact with each other. We now know quite much about how grasping works. Granted, we're not that far for consciousnes, but that doesn't mean that we won't ever get there.

Third, the Chinese Room experiment is closely tied the \"symbol manipulation\" view of consciousness. It suggests that it would be possible to build a computer that can converse in Chinese and even pass the Touring test, and that this computer can somehow be stored in a room or even be realized by one (or many persons) that get inputs (chinese symbols) and produce outputs (chinese symbols) according to some system of rules. However, more and more scientists agree that this is a fallacy. Any computer to display this sort of intelligence NEEDS to have a body with which it can interact with the world and through which the world can affect it. Otherwise, you run into what's called the \"symbol grounding problem\". The computer might have knowledge about many things (that birds are animals that can fly, for instance), but these things don't have meaning for the machine (that you have too look upward to see a bird and that they can crap on your head). So, in a nutshell the simple idea of a bird would elude the sort of 'brain' used in the Chinese Room experiment.

So what do I think about consciousness? Why would humans need a capacity to be self-aware? I think the reason is so that we don't confuse ourselves with other people.This may sound weird --- after all, for each of us it seems intuitively clear who you are. However, from a brain science point of view you need to explain where this everyday feeling comes from and what its function might be. Particularly, because neuroscience finds more and more evidence that humans use the same brain areas - and often even the same neurons - to represent information (like actions, emotions and thoughts) about themselves and about other people. This means that the brain needs something that tells it to whom any kind of information belongs to: is it me or somebody else?

Is there evidence for such a view? Sure, there is. For instance, you can fool this process of self-attribution so that you think a rubber hand - or even a table top - would belong to your own body. Similarly, there are people who cannot take this everyday process for granted. In retrospect, certain autistic individuals tend to confuse their own actions with those of others. They also cannot differentiate between their own knowledge of a situation from that of other people. Similarly, schizophrenics report 'voices in their heads' and don't realize that they might just be their own thoughts. These are just top of my head examples, I am sure there are many more.

In sum, I believe the 'consciousness' we Westeners love to glorify is nothing special. It is is simply the sum of the processes that differentiate your body, your emotions, and your thoughts from those you perceive in other people.

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:44 pm**

jeff250 wrote:I know you haven't outright mentioned a "soul," but I assume that that is what you're continually hinting at, right? If so, what exactly is its purview?

Actually, I would prefer the term "Spirit". Spirit+Body=Soul.
The brain can account for thinking, memory, and emotions. I would credit the "spirit" with those aspects of our selves that can not be accounted for by the physical, and There are only three areas that I feel qualify, and only one of those is solid enough to be worth debating.

1: Self awareness. Self awareness is self-evident to the person experiencing it. Absolutely and completely unprovable to any outsider. I agree that the brain is a state machine, just an organic computer. It's behavior, with all of its complexities, can be explained by the programs running on that hardware. What I have completely failed to find any valid or even plausible explanation for is why I EXPERIENCE that behavior.

2: Free Will. Such an idea can not even be DEFINED by science. What do you mean by free choice? It's either something predefined in your program/data/hardware. OR its something completely random. And yet, we have the illusion of free will. BUT, I can't even prove to MYSELF that Free Will is anything more than illusion.

3: Continuity of existence. Most of the molecules in my body have been exchanged in the last few years, so I don't feel like I am who I am because of the physical material I am made out of. What if you completely duplicated the patterns in my brain (as Issac's theory suggests), but did it while I was still alive? There would be two copies of me. Since they had the same patterns, would they both be me? *I* don't think so. Or to put it more simply, would you step into a Star Trek Transporter if you knew that the way it worked was it KILLED you while recording the positions of every atom in your body, then rebuilt a copy of you elsewhere. The copy would have your memories, right? So wouldn't that be just as good as if you hadn't been killed? *I* don't think so. I believe that the spirit provides continuity of existence. That the Spirit is the reason I still feel like I'm the same person who was around two years ago, and that I'll still be the same person (although much changed) in 50 years. BUT, just like with free will, this point is completely philosophical and useless to debate.

Only point 1, self awareness DEMANDS an explanation, because it is the only one of the three that is undeniably self evident.

Pandora wrote:you have to keep in mind that it is a THOUGHT experiment. You cannot use it to prove or disprove anything about the physical world.

Thought experiments have a long history of being quite useful in illustrating and illuminating real world situations. Einstein liked them.

Pandora wrote:Any computer to display this sort of intelligence NEEDS to have a body with which it can interact with the world and through which the world can affect it.

Only if you insist the computer deal with OUR symbols the same way we do. I don't. BUT, lets grant this point. After all, to pass a turing test an AI needs some way of interacting with the outside world. The more interactions with an outside world that the AI has, the easier time it will have passing the test. More inputs equals more information. So, give the Chinese room inputs. The only point of the Chinese room is that it really no different from the computer, or from your brain. We can explain BEHAVIOR based on physical interactions, but we can't explain awareness.

Pandora wrote:In sum, I believe the 'consciousness' we Westeners love to glorify is nothing special. It is is simply the sum of the processes that differentiate your body, your emotions, and your thoughts from those you perceive in other people.

Again, the ability to separate a computing system from the rest of the world does NOT require self awareness in the sense of consciousness. Even a primitive computer can be given the proper programming to recognize itself in contrast to the rest of the world, but I certainly wouldn't assume it was CONSCIOUS just because it had "self symbols".

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:16 pm**

Kilarin wrote:
jeff250 wrote:3: Continuity of existence. Most of the molecules in my body have been exchanged in the last few years, so I don't feel like I am who I am because of the physical material I am made out of. What if you completely duplicated the patterns in my brain (as Issac's theory suggests), but did it while I was still alive? There would be two copies of me. Since they had the same patterns, would they both be me? *I* don't think so. Or to put it more simply, would you step into a Star Trek Transporter if you knew that the way it worked was it KILLED you while recording the positions of every atom in your body, then rebuilt a copy of you elsewhere. The copy would have your memories, right? So wouldn't that be just as good as if you hadn't been killed? *I* don't think so. I believe that the spirit provides continuity of existence. That the Spirit is the reason I still feel like I'm the same person who was around two years ago, and that I'll still be the same person (although much changed) in 50 years. BUT, just like with free will, this point is completely philosophical and useless to debate.

I definately feel the same way minus the spirit. I think that continuity of brain activity is very important to staying "you". I feel that people that have a complete loss of brain activity and come back "changed" really have changed.

I think this applies to other things as well. Take a computer. If I remove the CPU and install another CPU, same specs, is it the same computer?

If you wanted to remain "you", you definately don't want to step into a transporter because nobody would notice anything different about "you", but I think "you" would be dead, replaced with a different "you".

The only way to really check this is to perfectly clone an individual, put both subjects in identical surroundings and bring the brain states into unison, then, see if a stimulus for one effects the other in any conceivable way.

My theory is that to actually perform a "you" transfer would require either replacing very small sections of the brain at a time, or redirecting thought through sections that take over brain activity until all is handle by the synthetic brain.

Spirits, souls, and the like unfortunately do not explain "you" and it doesn't seem apparent if we replace the brain, if the soul/spirit will also switch.

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:38 pm**

Kilarin wrote:1: Self awareness.
2: Free Will.
3: Continuity of existence.

Let's try a new thought experiment. Suppose that every human has a spirit with the attributes that you outlined. Now suppose that you and I have switched spirits between our brains right... now. Would you (i.e. your spirit) be aware of the brain switch, or would you go along exactly the way my spirit would have had if there had been no switch? The only memories you'd have access to are all of my former memories. Likewise, you'd receive my former intelligence (which you hopefully don't find too crippling

), and you'd receive my former conscious state as well--slightly tired. So, would you have been aware of the switch, or would you have finished typing out this post? If the former, how? If the latter, personal identity lying in spirit identity would seem troubling, wouldn't you agree?

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:59 pm**

SuperSheep wrote:My theory is that to actually perform a "you" transfer would require either replacing very small sections of the brain at a time

Might that just cause you to change into someone else slowly instead of quickly?

SuperSheep wrote:it doesn't seem apparent if we replace the brain, if the soul/spirit will also switch.

Freely admitted!

Jeff250 wrote:Would you (i.e. your spirit) be aware of the brain switch, or would you go along exactly the way my spirit would have had if there had been no switch?

Please note that these are two completely different questions, NOT an either or situation. My guess, no, I would not be aware of the switch, but also no, I wouldn't go along exactly the same way you would have. My "Free Will" would probably make some different choices than you would have. How different? Not a clue, after all, it would be working with the same memories and thinking equipment.

Like I said, the entire "continuity of existence" and "free will" issues are pure philosophical speculation. I wouldn't even attempt to defend them because there is no ground to stand on on either side of the debate. If Joe believes in free will and Jane doesn't, they can shout "Do to!" "Do not!" back and forth at each other all day, but thats about as far as the debate can go. If we have free will, we certainly do not have the technology to detect it. I doubt if we ever will. If we have continuity of existence, we can't prove it, even to ourselves. How would I KNOW if I had been created 20 seconds ago, but with the memories of having been on this planet for 40 years? Interesting to speculate on, but nothing you can debate about.

However, Self Awareness is in a different category. It's self evident and, I still maintain, inexplicable through physical means. If self awareness simply arises out of the organization of the brain, would it still arise if the neurons fired in the same pattern but were not physically connected? If not, why not? The connections have nothing to do with the pattern. But if so? Whats to prevent ANY large pool of random patterns having within them, somewhere, the patterns of thought that bring about self awareness, the patterns just aren't connected.

DescentBB

No heavan on earth?

No heavan on earth?

░