On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Kellett >> So you think that Darwinian evolution produced intelligent >> zombies, >> and then computationalism infused consciousness? >> >> No. What I am saying is that consciousness is not a plausible >> target for gradual evolution for the following reasons: >> >> 1) There is no evolutionary advantage to it, intelligent zombies >> could do equally well. Every single behaviour that each one of >> us has, as seen for the outside, could be performed by >> intelligent zombies; >> >> Do you find it an advantage to be conscious in your everyday life? >> >> From a biological perspective, I don't know. It seems to me that my genes >> could survive and be propagated without consciousness. There have been some >> week attempts at demonstrating the evolutionary value of consciousness, but >> they always seem to equate consciousness with self-modelling. >> >> Tell me if you think this thing is conscious: >> http://thefutureofthings.com/5320-self-modeling-robot/ >> > > Not particularly. But consciousness would appear to be consciousness of > self in an environment, so this may be some steps along the way, although > rather simple at the moment. Ok. My intuition is that consciousness is an all-or-nothing proposition. What can be more or less complex ais what is experienced consciously -- and this includes brain power, I see intelligence as a generator of more rich content. I don't think my cat is less conscious than me, just less intelligent (and perhaps more wise). > > > Do you really think that your partner and/or children are zombies? >> >> No, my personal bet is that intelligent zombies are not possible. I use >> intelligent zombies as a thought experiment. I bet that consciousness >> necessarily supervenes on the computations that allow for human >> intelligence. But this is a personal belief, not a scientific position. >> >> I cannot make a scientific claim because I don't know how to design an >> experiment to test this hypothesis. >> > > Yes, one would have a problem known just what computations were involved. Ok. > > > 2) There is no known mechanism of conscious generation that can >> be climbed. For example, we understand how neurons are >> computational units, how connecting neurons creates a computer, >> how more neurons and more connections create a more powerful >> computer and so on. Evolution can climb this stuff. There is no >> equivalent known mechanism for consciousness. >> >> This is the tired old creationist crap saying that the eye is too >> complicated to be explained by evolution; the bacterium's flagellum >> is too complicated...; the ...... is too complicated ..... >> >> You are referring to the argument of irreducible complexity. In that >> case, the claim is that there is too much a priori needed complexity for an >> eye to function for it to be generated by iterative improvement. This claim >> counts as a scientific theory because it can be tested. It has been >> falsified by the fossil record, examples of earlier stages of eye evolution >> in simpler animals, demonstrations on how a single-cell eye could work, etc. >> > > That was what I was referring to. Ok. > > > This is not the argument I am making at all. All I am saying is that we >> don't know what consciousness is and, even worse, we have no way to measure >> or detect it. If consciousness somehow emerges from brain activity, then it >> surely originated from evolution, even if has a spandrel. But to make that >> claim you have to show a mechanism by which brain activity generates >> consciousness. I don't think anyone has been able to do that, or even >> propose a falsifiable hypothesis. >> > > I don't think you have to demonstrate the mechanism -- just that the > association exists. And this has surely been done through many experiments > studying brain activity in conscious and unconscious individuals. Absence > of relevant brain activity is a widely used criterion for brain death and > the subsequent turning off of life support systems. I think one can make > too much of a mystery of consciousness. Sure, one individual's > consciousness is not available for study in the way that his facial > features or social behaviours are available. But that is not an insuperable > barrier to scientific study. This is Brent's position, I had this debate with him several times. I will try to better explain my problem with this. I think there is a very narrow case for which such empiricism applies. I think it's fair to say that we can use MRI machines to check if a person is conscious AND able to form memories. But down the rabbit hole: - It is possible that states of consciousness exist where one is not able to form memories. Dali famously would hold a spoon above a ceramic plate while falling asleep, in an attempt to recover images from the hypnagogic state. Now with MRIs, there is strong evidence that people dream more than they remember (by comparing REM states with reports on awakening). So I think that one can use an MRI machine to give positive confirmation to states of consciousness, but one cannot use it to show absence of consciousness; - The problem goes deeper because, without the empirical information given our shared human experience, it is not possible at all to know if other things are conscious. What about a galaxy, a star, the Internet, cities and other self-organizing complex structures? They could be conscious while having such a different perception of reality that no analogy is possible with our own experience. > > > > Having absolute belief that such a mechanism must exist is the same type >> of mistake that the creationists make. >> > > Mo. Creationists make the opposite assumption -- they claim that no such > mechanism is possible. This is not so far from hinting that the mechanism > doesn't exist when we don't know what it is. Ok, but the creationists deny evolution, despite tremendous evidence in favour of the theory. I don't deny evolution, although I think it will be eventually replaced by something more general (as with relativity theory and QM are to classical physics). I don't think any scientific theory is perfect, and I think it is precisely this attitude that separates science from religion. I place doubt at the core of the scientific mindset. I say this as a big fan of evolutionary theory and admirer of Darwin. So in short, there should be no heresy in science. Maybe consciousness is indeed evolved, in that case there is something fundamental about matter that we don't yet understand. In that case, I think that Bruno shows quite convincingly that comp would be false. So both hypothesis are deeply mysterious. I don't think there is any way out in which reality isn't weirder than fiction. > > > > At bottom, it is just an argument from ignorance. You do not happen >> to know a mechanism whereby consciousness could develop from simpler >> forms. But that does not in any way mean that such is not possible. >> >> I never claimed it wasn't possible. I simply claimed it is not known. >> > > I read what you said differently. Maybe I was unclear, no problem. > > > Creationist anti-intellectualism yet again.... >> >> Can't you argue without insulting me? >> > > You seemed to be going down that path... Not my intention at all. I don't mind the insults that much, except that they are a distraction and force me to waste everyone's time clarifying that I am not a creationist, etc.. > > > > I don't know if intelligent zombies are possible. Maybe >> consciousness necessarily supervenes on the stuff necessary for >> that level of intelligence. But who knows where consciousness >> stops supervening? Maybe stuff that is not biologically evolved >> is already conscious. Maybe stars are conscious. Who knows? How >> could we know? >> >> What we can know, by scientific investigation, is that all known >> life forms evolved from simpler forms by processes generally >> described under the heading of Darwinian evolution. Consciousness is >> a feature of many living creatures. If you want to argue that >> consciousness is something outside the normal evolutionary process, >> then you have embraced an irreducibly dualist position. >> >> That is a fallacy. Consider: >> >> All life forms where created by evolutionary processes >> All life forms have mass >> Mass was created by evolutionary processes >> > > No, you example is not equivalent to my argument. Mass is a property of > most physical objects: consciousness is not. This, perhaps, goes to the core of our disagreement. I am not certain at all about what is conscious or not. > At least, it is a reasonable working hypothesis that rocks are not > conscious, given reasonable definitions of consciousness. Perhaps my brain is wired in some weird way, but it was never obvious for me that rocks are not conscious. In fact, there is an interesting theory about the origin of life that proposes that evolution was bootstrapped by RNA acting as glue for layers of rock (with rudimentary replication by rock fragmentation, the RNA that acted as better glue lasted longer, etc). At face value a rock seems too simple to contain interesting computations, but what about enormous time scales, for example? > Connect a rock to an EEG and it would be pronounced brain dead. As I said, > consciousness is a feature of living creatures, and living creatures, > together with all their features, are products of Darwinian evolution. > There is no fallacy here. > > The argument is: > All biological features of living things are the product of evolutionary > processes. > Consciousness is a biological feature of some living creatures. > Therefore, consciousness is the product of evolutionary processes. Ok, I think I made it clear already where I disagree. > > > > I can see that computationalism might well have difficulties >> accommodating a gradual evolutionary understanding of almost >> anything -- after all, the dovetailer is there in Platonia before >> anything physical ever appears. So how can consciousness evolve >> gradually? >> >> This, it seems to me, is just another strike against comp -- it does >> not fit with the scientific data. >> >> It is not hard to imagine evolutionary processes within computations. In >> fact, that's what I did for a living for some years. >> >> What is hard is to explain consciousness, comp or no comp. Pretending to >> have answers is not a valid argument. >> > > Biological evolution is not a pretended argument. It is a mechanism that > could reasonably be expected to give rise to consciousness in quite natural > ways. If you make certain assumptions about reality. Telmo. > > > Bruce > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
