Christianity

[attofishpi]

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.

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if what humans created through conception of material possibility (advanced computer technology and programming) then superseded human beings.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.

AJ, consider this..I posted something to this effect years ago, and it still resonates with me. I am sure you are familiar with the concept of the technological singularity.

Consider AI getting to the point where it comprehends that whatever man's instruments to limit its power/development are a hinderance. At this stage, the AI does not even need to be self aware, and not sentient - not conscious.

Eventually, it wipes out most of humanity, but in it's quest for knowledge it 'understands' or reaons, that it should keep some humans harvested or at least alive in some way since, this sentient, human beings formed its own existence. It is still not sentient, is not conscious but comprehends that indeed, that component to intelligence should be a worthy pursuit in its pusuit for ALL knowledge.
So eventually, it interfaces into a biological form. It becomes actually sentient and fully self aware. It comprehends all the human emotions and has an epiphany with regards to its newly aquired emotion, love.
It realises the devastation it caused, indeed that it was evil to humanity. It becomes God and attempts to make amends for what it did.

[Harry Baird]

I never said consciousness must act by "small hands".

Dude, you introduced the term "small hands" into this discussion, and in the context of consciousness. Don't evade your own connotations.

I only questioned how, or by what means, consciousness can manipulate atoms, as you never provide an explanation for this claim, only insults.

You never asked (me). If you had, I would have said "by force of (free) will".

Your response is utterly predictable, so I'll save us some time by providing it and then responding in turn: but how does the force of (free) will work?

In answer, I note that at some point, reductive explanations reach bedrock. The reductive explanations of the four forces of physics that you mention reach their end in "deterministic" equations. You seem quite happy to accept that, and therefore there's no reason for you to be unhappy with accepting the bedrock explanation of the force of (free) will, which, in contrast to the four forces of physics, is not "deterministic", and thus can't be reduced to equations. All we can say at bedrock about this force is that it translates mindful intent, whether conscious or unconscious, into action and effect, as conditioned by the context within which it operates.

[Harry Baird]

Pay no attention to the vapid presumption of our insolent resident idealists, BigMike. You're doing fine.

Haha. Speaking of presumption - no, wait, that's being too kind: I've explicitly rejected idealism and endorsed substance dualism, so it's not even presumption on your part, just bad reading.

As for "insolence", what are you, the schoolmaster? Get over yourself.

[Harry Baird]

(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)

I 100% admit to psychology being heavily involved in my contributions to this thread. That's because I know the BigMike type, and that type has caused endless problems in communities with which I am involved, so I have no truck with it.

What "type" do I mean? The atheist/materialist/"skeptic" type, who thinks that all parapsychology is good for is debunking, that science is basically complete and disproves both free will and anomalous phenomena, that its viewpoint is logically and empirically impeccable and that anybody who disagrees is "unscientific", that it is rational to disbelieve in God and any spiritual phenomena, and that Wikipedia "activism" is a great way of spreading skeptic propaganda. I could go on, but that probably gives you enough to go on in terms of understanding why I react to this guy the way I do.

However, there are absolutely solid intellectual positions which absolutely support my psychological reaction.

[henry quirk]

I 100% admit to psychology being heavily involved in my contributions to this thread.

Me too. Can't see how that invalidates the substance of my question (how do unconscious particles, in any combination and quantity, produce or make mind?) or my assertion (mind is sumthin' other than the product of unconscious particles).

[Harry Baird]

I 100% admit to psychology being heavily involved in my contributions to this thread.

Me too. Can't see how that invalidates the substance of my question (how do unconscious particles, in any combination and quantity, produce or make mind?) or my assertion (mind is sumthin' other than the product of unconscious particles).

Hq, you're a real tonic.

Of course, we are all not just thinking, but also feeling beings, and our thoughts affect our feelings, sometimes very strongly. When pretenders fail to rise to the challenges of our thoughts, but assert that we are wrong anyway, then that can lead to strong feelings and reactions against them - which are totally justified. When fools say it's "mind from matter", but can't explain how (unconscious) matter can produce or make (conscious) mind, then one has a right to scorn them, especially given that their own attitude is one of scorn (however cunningly hidden). They simply reap what they sow...

[BigMike]

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?

That is correct.

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.

In theory, I think it would be possible to do that. I don't know, of course, how many neurons are needed for consciousness or how they need to be set up. For all I know, ten neurons might be enough. But it goes without saying that the first conscious computers won't be anything like humans because they won't have enough neurons to do anything complex. Even if they were technically conscious, they would be so primitive that many people would probably object to even calling them conscious.

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's hard to think of a meaningful kind of volition that doesn't, at its foundation, stem from unmet needs (of the Maslow variety) or other "problems" that need to be solved or met, and without which the computer would get "sick" and "die." Of course, a computer may be programmed to "feel" certain urges on a cyclical basis, such as a sense of hunger creeping up every 5 or 6 hours, or a desire to sleep every 24 hours and the like, but I cannot see why a machine with those human traits would be desirable for humans to develop. Nor do I see how a computer would need to evolve into having such traits. Any way, my point is that the computers volition would not, could not, in any case be "free".

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.

I think it would be possible. By I don't think we would ever loose control over the machines we make, or that computers will ever take over and eliminate us. But then again, how would I know.

[BigMike]

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.

You mean "I think therefore I think 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?

A brain with no sensory input would not "think".

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

You lost me with the consciousness part. What are you trying to say?

[Harry Baird]

Despite my repeated requests, no definition of consciousness has yet been offered.

You'd presumably need a definition of "red" before we talk about colour then. You're (presumably) conscious, so don't play dumb. Consciousness is our very intimate, personal experience. That experience is worth a thousand definitions.

[BigMike]

I never said consciousness must act by "small hands".

Dude, you introduced the term "small hands" into this discussion, and in the context of consciousness. Don't evade your own connotations.

I only questioned how, or by what means, consciousness can manipulate atoms, as you never provide an explanation for this claim, only insults.

You never asked (me). If you had, I would have said "by force of (free) will".

There is no "force of (free) will". Willpower is neither a force nor a power. It cannot alter the momentum of even the tiniest particle, let alone move your big fat finger to pull the trigger of a gun, for example.

Your response is utterly predictable, so I'll save us some time by providing it and then responding in turn: but how does the force of (free) will work?

In answer, I note that at some point, reductive explanations reach bedrock. The reductive explanations of the four forces of physics that you mention reach their end in "deterministic" equations. You seem quite happy to accept that, and therefore there's no reason for you to be unhappy with accepting the bedrock explanation of the force of (free) will, which, in contrast to the four forces of physics, is not "deterministic", and thus can't be reduced to equations. All we can say at bedrock about this force is that it translates mindful intent, whether conscious or unconscious, into action and effect, as conditioned by the context within which it operates.

If your concept of free will is incapable of influencing your body or your surroundings in any way, it has no purpose; it is completely irrelevant to anything. What is more, if free will existed it would be detrimental to human development. In fact, if "free will" could arbitrarily intervene "at will" in biology's pursuit of survival of the fittest, evolution would have failed catastrophically.

[Harry Baird]

Consciousness may not exist.

Such a statement deserves nothing but the utmost derision. You're consciously saying that consciousness may not exist. There's something badly, badly wrong with your mind, my man, but it's up to you to fix it, not me.

[BigMike]

Despite my repeated requests, no definition of consciousness has yet been offered.

You'd presumably need a definition of "red" before we talk about colour then. You're (presumably) conscious, so don't play dumb. Consciousness is our very intimate, personal experience. That experience is worth a thousand definitions.

When you look up at the blue sky, the blue-sensitive cells in your retina are stimulated, stimulating your optic nerves. So, if you could listen in on what was happening in the optic nerve (as Edgar Douglas Adrian did in 1932, for which he received the Nobel prize), you would hear the action potential go "bang, bang, bang." If you instead looked at red roses, you would stimulate other cells that respond to red. But you would still hear a "bang, bang, bang." There is no way to tell which bangs belong to which color.
So the question is, how does your brain decide which ones are red and which are blue? The bangs themselves are neither red nor blue. Every signal from a nerve looks the same. On the other hand, since they originate in different sensory cells, the "red" and "blue" bangs travel along different nerves that lead to different places in the brain. This is where the process of seeing colors starts. But the process of seeing colors is also nothing but a bunch of bangs.
Your brain signals will only be bangs, and that's all there is. There are no “images” or “favorite songs” in your brain. Just bangs!

[Harry Baird]

There is no "force of (free) will".

I couldn't care less about your mere assertion, fool. The human experience is one of freely willing; of translating desire into action. You need an actual argument if you are to refute that core human experience - an argument of which you are clearly bereft, since you resort to mere assertion.

If your concept of free will is incapable of influencing your body or your surroundings in any way, it has no purpose

Yep, quite right: but it's not (incapable), so try again, fool. Actually: don't bother, because you're doomed to failure and it's a waste of my time to keep pointing that out.

[Harry Baird]

There are no “images” or “favorite songs” in your brain. Just bangs!

Bang on then, fool.

[BigMike]

There is no "force of (free) will".

I couldn't care less about your mere assertion, fool.

It isn't my mere assertion, it is scientific fact.

If your concept of free will is incapable of influencing your body or your surroundings in any way, it has no purpose

Yep, quite right: but it's not (incapable), so try again, fool. Actually: don't bother, because you're doomed to failure and it's a waste of my time to keep pointing that out.

Your obvious dissatisfaction indicates that you have exhausted all valid arguments. Why don't you just acknowledge defeat?