On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:50:48 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 19, 2019, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 2:40:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 1:21 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 10:13:22 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/19/2019 12:19 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 1:50:03 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/18/2019 11:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No I can't *prove *we aren't simulations, or that a simulation >>>>>> running in a big computer made of Intel Cores can't be conscious. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor can you give a reply to Chalmer's fading consciousness problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *for a system to be conscious it must have the right sort of >>>>> biochemical makeup; if so, a metallic robot or a silicon-based computer >>>>> could never have experiences, no matter what its causal organization * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *A natural suggestion is that when experience arises from a physical >>>>> system, it does so in virtue of the system's functional organization. On >>>>> this view, the chemical and indeed the quantum substrates of the brain >>>>> are >>>>> not directly relevant to the existence of consciousness, although they >>>>> may >>>>> be indirectly relevant. What is central is rather the brain's abstract >>>>> causal organization, an organization that might be realized in many >>>>> different physical substrates.* >>>>> >>>>> *In this paper I defend this view.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That from David Chalmer's paper is the only good takeaway. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That was written in 1993. (In 2019, I don't think he himself defends >>>> this view.) >>>> >>>> In any case, I read this "defense" like I read papers defending* the >>>> existence of God*. >>>> >>>> >>> A scientist should be thrilled to find something which might show the >>> ideas he or she holds to be wrong, as it offers a chance to adopt a more >>> correct view. Recently I have seen a lot of people on this list telling >>> others their idea is wrong, but not giving any reason or reasoning to >>> justify that assertion. >>> >>> This doesn't helping anyone. Telling someone else they are wrong without >>> providing a reason won't get them to change their mind, if anything failing >>> to provide a reason is just as likely to reinforce their belief. If you see >>> or intuit something that someone else does not, I think it is best to >>> either point out what it is they are missing or remain silent. >>> >>> Jason >>> >> >> >> > Philip, > > I commend you for providing your reasons below. Thank you. > > > >> >> We know our brains, which we examine in science to be made of a complex >> configuration of cells, neurons and glial, with complex neurochemistry*, >> produces consciousness. That is the fact we know to be the case. >> > > Yes, I agree. > > >> >> So it seems reasonable, from both a scientific and engineering stance, >> that a synthetic intelligence approach - one that combines >> synthetic-biological assembly with AI information processing to produce >> outputs that are actually living things - is the road to (synthetic) >> consciousness. >> >> *The belief that a conventional computer made of a zillion Intel Core >> chips with the right programming can be conscious is a religious belief, >> not a a scientific belief.* >> >> > You could say it is a hypothesis for which we currently have no direct > evidence for. Is there anything you would consider evidence? If a > synthetic Android claimed to be conscious would this be evidence that would > convince you? If not, what evidence could convince you? > > >> The burden of proof is on those with that belief to prove it, just as the >> burden of proof is on those with the belief that God exists to prove that. >> >> > I think the burden rests equally on those holding either that "synthetic > brains cannot be conscious" as "synthetic brains can be conscious". > > The reason I lean towards the second camp, is that the former leads to > very strange situations: pzombies that complain about pain, Androids who > argue that they're conscious, planets with zombies (of a different neuro > chemistry) who nonetheless write books on consciousness, fading qualia, and > qualia that "dance" (disappear and reappear) due to presence or absence of > a few synthetic neurons. > > I am not aware of anything quite so strange resulting from a belief in > synthetic consciousness. Sure it is strange that a billion Intel chips > could be conscious, but no more strange than the idea that a heap of oil > droplets squirting ions back and forth could be conscious. > > Anyway that's how I got to where I am. > > Jason > > > >> >> * neurochemistry like the recently reported role of SATB2-expressing >> neurons in the processing of taste. >> >> SATB2: "SATB2 is a 733 amino-acid homeodomain-containing human protein >> with a molecular weight of 82.5 kDa encoded by the SATB2 gene on 2q33." >> >> @philipthrift >> >> >> We do know that some synthetic-biological objects (SBOs) exist that are conscious: Us.
Except here the material synthesis was accomplished via natural selection, not bay a team of scientists and engineers. An android that came with a resume outlining its manufacturing via sufficiently synthetic-biological processes and said "I am conscious" might be believed. We could cut it open, but that would not be nice. There are several alternatives to our biochemistry, of course [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry ], even involving silicon*. (This is about the 20th time I have posted this.) But I claim that no zillion-processor Intel Core computer (that ultimately runs programs compiled to Intel machine code) can be conscious. I also claim God does not exist. It is this context that [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room ] is correct. "The Chinese room argument holds that an executing program cannot [have] consciousness, regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave." * Silicon biochemistry See also: Organosilicon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organosilicon> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silane.png> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silane.png> Structure of silane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silane>, analog of methane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDMS.svg> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDMS.svg> Structure of the silicone polydimethylsiloxane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydimethylsiloxane> (PDMS) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diatom2.jpg> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diatom2.jpg> Marine diatoms <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatoms>—carbon-based organisms that extract silicon from sea water, in the form of its oxide (silica) and incorporate it into their cell walls The silicon atom has been much discussed as the basis for an alternative biochemical system, because silicon has many chemical properties <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_property> similar to those of carbon and is in the same group of the periodic table <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(periodic_table)>, the carbon group <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_group>. Like carbon, silicon can create molecules that are sufficiently large to carry biological information.[10] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-Pace-10> However, silicon has several drawbacks as an alternative to carbon. Silicon, unlike carbon, lacks the ability to form chemical bonds with diverse types of atoms as is necessary for the chemical versatility required for metabolism, and yet this precise inability is what makes silicon less susceptible to bond with all sorts of impurities from which carbon, in comparison, is not shielded. Elements creating organic functional groups with carbon include hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and metals such as iron, magnesium, and zinc. Silicon, on the other hand, interacts with very few other types of atoms.[10] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-Pace-10> Moreover, where it does interact with other atoms, silicon creates molecules that have been described as "monotonous compared with the combinatorial universe of organic macromolecules".[10] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-Pace-10> This is because silicon atoms are much bigger, having a larger mass <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass> and atomic radius <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius>, and so have difficulty forming double bonds (the double-bonded carbon is part of the carbonyl <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonyl> group, a fundamental motif of carbon-based bio-organic chemistry). Silanes <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silanes>, which are chemical compounds <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound>of hydrogen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen> and silicon that are analogous to the alkane <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkane> hydrocarbons <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon>, are highly reactive with water <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(molecule)>, and long-chain silanes spontaneously decompose. Molecules incorporating polymers <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer> of alternating silicon and oxygen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen> atoms instead of direct bonds between silicon, known collectively as silicones <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone>, are much more stable. It has been suggested that silicone-based chemicals would be more stable than equivalent hydrocarbons in a sulfuric-acid-rich environment, as is found in some extraterrestrial locations.[11] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-world-building-11> Of the varieties of molecules identified in the interstellar medium <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium> as of 1998, 84 are based on carbon, while only 8 are based on silicon.[12] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-12> Moreover, of those 8 compounds, 4 also include carbon within them. The cosmic abundance <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements> of carbon to silicon is roughly 10 to 1. This may suggest a greater variety of complex carbon compounds throughout the cosmos, providing less of a foundation on which to build silicon-based biologies, at least under the conditions prevalent on the surface of planets. Also, even though Earth <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth> and other terrestrial planets <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_planet> are exceptionally silicon-rich and carbon-poor (the relative abundance of silicon to carbon in Earth's crust is roughly 925:1), terrestrial life is carbon-based. The fact that carbon is used instead of silicon may be evidence that silicon is poorly suited for biochemistry on Earth-like planets. Reasons for which may be that silicon is less versatile than carbon in forming compounds, that the compounds formed by silicon are unstable, and that it blocks the flow of heat.[13] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-BC-13> Even so, biogenic silica <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenic_silica> is used by some Earth life, such as the silicate <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicate> skeletal structure of diatoms <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom>. According to the clay hypothesis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Clay_hypothesis> of A. G. Cairns-Smith <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith>, silicate minerals in water played a crucial role in abiogenesis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis>: they replicated their crystal structures, interacted with carbon compounds, and were the precursors of carbon-based life.[14] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-14> [15] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-15> Although not observed in nature, carbon–silicon bonds have been added to biochemistry by using directed evolution (artificial selection). A heme containing cytochrome *c* protein from *Rhodothermus marinus* has been engineered using directed evolution to catalyze the formation of new carbon–silicon bonds between hydrosilanes and diazo compounds.[16] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-16> Silicon compounds may possibly be biologically useful under temperatures or pressures different from the surface of a terrestrial planet, either in conjunction with or in a role less directly analogous to carbon. Polysilanols, the silicon compounds corresponding to sugars <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar>, are soluble in liquid nitrogen, suggesting that they could play a role in very-low-temperature biochemistry. [17] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-17> [18] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#cite_note-18> In cinematic and literary science fiction, at a moment when man-made machines cross from nonliving to living, it is often posited,[*by whom? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions>* ] this new form would be the first example of non-carbon-based life. Since the advent of the microprocessor <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor> in the late 1960s, these machines are often classed as computers <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer> (or computer-guided robots <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot>) and filed under "silicon-based life", even though the silicon backing matrix of these processors is not nearly as fundamental to their operation as carbon is for "wet life". @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f4e55da-f49a-4bc8-8377-eede30aa68bc%40googlegroups.com.
