On 2/7/2013 9:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:50:09 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg
<[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>> You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
>> consciousness? If you don't have one, then you have to admit
that your
>> friend (who talks to you and behaves like people do, not in a
coma,
>> not on a video recording, not dead in the morgue) may not be
conscious
>> and your computer may be conscious.
>
>
> No, you are avoiding my answer. What is your definitive test for
your own
> consciousness?
The test for my own consciousness is that I feel I am conscious. That
is not at issue. At issue is the test for *other* entities'
consciousness.
Why would the test be any different?
You are convinced that computers and other machines
don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply
to them and see them fail.
I'm convinced of that because I understand why there is no reason why
they would have consciousness... there is no 'they' there. Computers
are not born in a single moment through cell fertilization, they are
assembled by people. Computers have to be programmed to do absolutely
everything, they have no capacity to make sense of anything which is
not explicitly defined. This is the polar opposite of living organisms
which are general purpose entities who explore and adapt when they
can, on their own, for their own internally generated motives.
Computers lack that completely. We use objects to compute for us, but
those objects are not actually computing themselves, just as these
letters don't actually mean anything for themselves.
When objects can compute 'for themselves' they are conscious. Maybe?
> My point is that sense is broader, deeper, and more primitive
than our
> cognitive ability to examine it, since cognitive qualities are
only the tip
> of the iceberg of sense. To test is to circumvent direct sense
in favor of
> indirect sense - which is a good thing, but it is by definition not
> applicable to consciousness itself in any way. There is no test
to tell if
> you are conscious, because none is required. If you need to ask
if you are
> conscious, then you are probably having a lucid dream or in some
phase of
> shock. In those cases, no test will help you as you can dream a
test result
> as easily as you can experience one while awake.
>
> The only test for consciousness is the test of time. If you are
fooled by
> some inanimate object, eventually you will probably see through
it or
> outgrow the fantasy.
So if, in future, robots live among us for years and are accepted by
most people as conscious, does that mean they are conscious? This is
essentially a form of the Turing test.
I don't think that will happen unless they aren't robots. The whole
point is that the degree to which an organism is conscious is
inversely proportionate to the degree that the organism is 100%
controllable. That's the purpose of intelligence - to advance your own
agenda rather than to be overpowered by your environment. So if
something is a robot, it will never be accepted by anyone as
conscious, and if something is conscious it will never be useful to
anyone as a robot - it would in fact be a slave.
/"L'homme est d'abord ce qui se jette vers un avenir, et ce qui est
conscient de se projeter dans l'avenir."/ ~ Jean Paul Satre
("Man is, before all else, something which propels itself toward a
future and is aware that it is doing so.")
>> You talk with authority on what
>> can and can't have consciousness but it seems you don't have
even an
>> operational definition of the word.
>
>
> Consciousness is what defines, not what can be defined.
>
>> I am not asking for an explanation
>> or theory of consciousness, just for a test to indicate its
presence,
>> which is a much weaker requirement.
>
>
> That is too much to ask, since all tests supervene upon the
consciousness to
> evaluate results.
It's the case for any test that you will use your consciousness to
evaluate the results.
Sure, but for most things you can corroborate and triangulate what you
are testing by using a control. With consciousness itself, there is no
control possible. You can do tests on the water because you can get
out of the water. You can do tests on air because you can evacuate a
glass beaker of air and compare your results. With consciousness
though, there is no escape possible. You can personally lose your own
consciousness, but there is no experience which is not experienced
through consciousness.
Craig
Indeed! This makes consciousness a subject forever removed from the
instruments of the scientific method....
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
