Christianity

[BigMike]

Yes. Eliminative materialism would be the most relevant instance.

What is the scientific assertion, and what is the evidence against it?

The assertion is that there is no such thing as consciousness. The evidence against it (I would hope) is that the scientists themselves who make the assertion are conscious beings.

What discipline of science made this claim, and how did they define consciousness, which they must have done in order to make this claim? Did you say that your hope is the proof against it?

[Gary Childress]

What is the scientific assertion, and what is the evidence against it?

The assertion is that there is no such thing as consciousness. The evidence against it (I would hope) is that the scientists themselves who make the assertion are conscious beings.

What discipline of science made this claim, and how did they define consciousness, which they must have done in order to make this claim? Did you say that your hope is the proof against it?

Well, you have a point. I suppose it was more of a philosophical movement than a discipline of science. It is my "hope" that those who make the assertion are conscious beings, because I am, without doubt, conscious. Maybe those who make the claim are consciousless automatons, however, the last thing I want is some consciousless automaton thinking that we're all consciousless automatons and then treat me as such. It seems like it would also be kind of lonely if I were the only conscious being in the world. Therefore, yes, I "hope" others are conscious too.

[promethean75]

Dan goes ham on Cartesian dualists.

https://youtu.be/A-wG-HAlkkI

[BigMike]

Well, you have a point. I suppose it was more of a philosophical movement than a discipline of science. It is my "hope" that those who make the assertion are conscious beings, because I am, without doubt, conscious. Maybe those who make the claim are consciousless automatons, however, the last thing I want is some consciousless automaton thinking that we're all consciousless automatons and then treat me as such. It seems like it would also be kind of lonely if I were the only conscious being in the world. Therefore, yes, I hope others are conscious too.

First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to respond to a lengthy list of challenging questions, some to which few, if any, people know the answers. Based on your comments, I'm inclined to believe that we both recognize the importance of defining consciousness, if it exists. Most agree that it exists, but that's about all they can agree on. Finding a collection of necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness would be of great interest to me; a set of rules that might be used to accept or reject potential candidates for consciousness. Then and only then, in my judgment, would it be legitimate to assert anything about its existence.

[Gary Childress]

Finding a collection of necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness would be of great interest to me; a set of rules that might be used to accept or reject potential candidates for consciousness. Then and only then, in my judgment, would it be legitimate to assert anything about its existence.

I don't know that such a set of rules is possible for us. What if it wasn't? Would you then conclude that consciousness doesn't exist?

[BigMike]

Finding a collection of necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness would be of great interest to me; a set of rules that might be used to accept or reject potential candidates for consciousness. Then and only then, in my judgment, would it be legitimate to assert anything about its existence.

I don't know that such a set of rules is possible for us. What if it wasn't? Would you then conclude that consciousness doesn't exist?

You may be correct. But there have been several advancements in the field recently, so I'm hopeful a positive outcome will result soon. Fortunately, my current worldview doesn't require consciousness immediately, so I can wait until that occurs. When or if consciousness is conclusively demonstrated, I'm sure it will lead to a number of astounding developments.

[phyllo]

Finding a collection of necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness would be of great interest to me; a set of rules that might be used to accept or reject potential candidates for consciousness. Then and only then, in my judgment, would it be legitimate to assert anything about its existence.

I don't know that such a set of rules is possible for us. What if it wasn't? Would you then conclude that consciousness doesn't exist?

Effectively it would not exist because there would no agreement on what it is.

[BigMike]

Finding a collection of necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness would be of great interest to me; a set of rules that might be used to accept or reject potential candidates for consciousness. Then and only then, in my judgment, would it be legitimate to assert anything about its existence.

I don't know that such a set of rules is possible for us. What if it wasn't? Would you then conclude that consciousness doesn't exist?

Effectively it would not exist because there would no agreement on what it is.

That is also a possibility of course. But then on second thought, is it possible to disagree on a definition? Isn't a definition just supposed to be accepted, and all arguments faithfully adhere to it? Any flaws would undoubtedly become apparent quickly and result in an enhanced definition.

[Gary Childress]

Finding a collection of necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness would be of great interest to me; a set of rules that might be used to accept or reject potential candidates for consciousness. Then and only then, in my judgment, would it be legitimate to assert anything about its existence.

I don't know that such a set of rules is possible for us. What if it wasn't? Would you then conclude that consciousness doesn't exist?

Effectively it would not exist because there would no agreement on what it is.

Well, I disagree. Consciousness exists whether I know "what" it is or not.

[phyllo]

There are multiple definitions now and lots of disagreement.

[Gary Childress]

There are multiple definitions now and lots of disagreement.

Yes. There are also multiple definitions of what it is to be human and a lot of disagreement. Humans still exist regardless.

[BigMike]

There are multiple definitions now and lots of disagreement.

I'm not sure. Despite my repeated requests, no definition of consciousness has yet been offered. For advancement to be possible, the debate must also be civilized, and both (all) sides must adhere to a single definition, otherwise there is no communication.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is epiphenomenalism, the view which I've already pointed out is analytically defeated in the article Exit Epiphenomenalism: The Demolition of a Refuge by Titus Rivas & Hein van Dongen. Of course, as hq points out, disproofs such as this will simply be ignored by the fools of physicalism, who are only interested in evidence which supports their view.

You just don't get it, do you? Consciousness can not push atoms around. End of discussion.

Please note that I have not really followed this discussion in depth (I find this sort of argumentation really tedious because, as it seems to me, it actually hinges not so much on intellectual positions but on psychological stances) but I am interested to hear your views on the following comment.

I gather that you don't place any stock in the 'ghost in the machine' argument about *consciousness*. So if I understand right you see the machine (the biological organism) as the entirely of the mechanism that produces all human creations. An animal, in comparison, is simply a lesser version of the human being. It would be possible, then, for some animal consciousness if it continued to evolve and develop, to (perhaps at some point) develop to a human level.

Is this a correct paraphrase?

It occurred to me when I pondered this to ask you if it is possible, or probable (?) in your view that so-called AI intelligence could, or will, at some point develop a similar 'consciousness' as we humans possess? It would seem that the argument that seems most reasonable to you is that, yes, this could happen. Because in such a situation a 'mind' with awareness and I suppose volition, because it is a product of materiality (a super-advanced physical computer), is in truth what we are.

Therefore, we seem to be imbuing computer systems with a facsimile of our own programming and then giving them the tools to self-develop, self-correct -- effectively to learn.

So it does seem logical (according to the views you have) that like in the science-fiction scenarios, that these AI mechanisms could, or might, become consciously volitional. (If that happened, how would we describe that volition?)

It would be a curious turn of events if what humans created through conception of material possibility (advanced computer technology and programming) then superseded human beings. I wonder if you also view it like this? And if at some point these computer-awarenesses could somehow also handle construction and fabrication of that which is their substrata (the components that make up a computing machine) that they could very well become, eventually, just as aware as we believe that we are, but also capable of building all the systems needed to maintain their own (what is the word?) bodies.

[attofishpi]

On your point 2. above you appear to be implying that conciousness does not exist, or that you should at least define what you mean by consciousness.

Consciousness may not exist. Then again, it may. I'm fine with that. I have not yet discovered a definition of consciousness that piques my curiosity sufficiently to spend too much time on it.

I think therefore I am conscious.

The ability to think requires sensory input, qualia.

Imagine a brain from birth that had NO sensory input. Would you consider that brain to me a lump of matter with an inability to think?

Well, for me, that is the brain you envision to the degree that a brain COULD have no consciousness.

..what say you?

[phyllo]

There are multiple definitions now and lots of disagreement.

Yes. There are also multiple definitions of what it is to be human and a lot of disagreement. Humans still exist regardless.

Yes, that is the God's-eye concept of existence.