On Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:35:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> 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]>
>> 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?
>
Sure, although I think that means that they have to first feel and think
for themselves. You can lead a computer to their own computations, but you
can't make them drink.
>
>
>
>> > 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.")
>
> Cool. I can agree with that.
>
>
>
>>
>> >> 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....
>
Not necessarily... the mind can be made scientific if it is directly
accessible by other minds. We just need to start looking at those
brain-conjoined twins and sticking wires in our brains.
Craig
>
> --
> 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.
