ekrodomos.net> 40cc34e8
From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk
In message
,
joss writes
>On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:26:36 -0600, ghost wrote:
>
>> Searle sounds like a machine-bigot. Sorry, but he does. Utterly denying
>> the possiblity of something that we haven't even really begun to explore
>> shuts doors that may need to be opened to understand the concept fully.
>I agree here. In another thread you replied to my Nexus6 comment by saying
>"but weren't Nexus6 biological". Why, if something is constructed from
>cells does it gain the ability to be conscious?
> Why is it valid to assume
>that a biological entity which behaves in a certain way is conscious, but
>a mechanical entity which behaves in the same way is not conscious?
You are doing the scientific equivalent of putting the horse before the
carriage here, IMHO. Consciousness, as far as I can tell from my
amateur interest in neuroscience, seems to be a feature of things that
have brains, and very specially, conscious states seem to be caused by
the physical state of the brain itself. It seems to make sense to me to
say that consciousness is feature of brains, and a brain is a pretty
specific physical thing, made out of specific physical stuff. I don't
see why a simulation of brain activity, which is made of different stuff
would necessarily exhibit the same characteristics as a brain, given
that it isn't actually a brain, or equivalent to one.
>What
>if we created a simulation using artificially created biological cells?
>Would they be conscious?
It depends. Are you suggesting that we make a model of a brain using
the same materials and architecture as a brain? If you are then the
answer is yes. But that's not a model, that's a brain.
If you are suggesting that we build a computer out of brain material,
and then have it run a computational simulation of brain activity, then
the answer is no. Its not a brain. We have no reason to believe that
non-brains are conscious. If we don't need a reason, then we might as
well declare the economy, the tectonic plates and the amazon rain forest
conscious. In fact, we might would be entitled to declare everything
conscious. Not very scientifically satisfying though is it?
>The consciousness argued by Searle and other weak AI proponents is that
>consciousness is, effectively, like "spirit".
Rubbish.
So the "liquidity" of liquids is some kind of spiritual fantasy is it?
The lower order components of the "liquid" system collectively cause the
property of "liquidity" in the same way that the lower order, material,
chemical components of the brain collectively cause the higher order
property of "consciousness". If you mess with the chemical, material
components of the brain, you end up messing with the higher order
properties of the system, and thereby affecting conscious states. Take
some drugs or get a lobotomy. You will see the causal link.
> I call upon Occam's razor
>here: if consciousness cannot be measured or observed except by effects
>that can be simulated then there is no reason for it to be in our models.
(Im assuming that we both are willing to presuppose that consciousness
exists.)
Consider the difference between what you are proposing consciousness is,
and what Searle is proposing consciousness is.
It's you who keeps implying that it is somehow a non-physical phenomena.
Your "cannot be measured or observed" is starting to sound pretty
mystical to me.
The Philosophical Disney Land is closing for the evening!
Its time to join the team science!
Leave Cartesian dualism behind!
And, to anticipate an objection, there was a time when we couldn't model
fluid dynamics, but we didn't conclude that it was impossible. Searle
is confident that, provided we don't get dragged into the regressive
mysticism of Strong AI, consciousness, being a property of a physical
system, is very much something that we can study scientifically.
>Unfortunately, this is an area that is kind of like religious debate.
Really? Oh well. That's that then.
Lucky they didn't say that about fluid dynamics, isn't it?
>Without a way to prove that consciousness is possessed by something or
>not, it's just a matter of belief.
This is the "Other Minds" objection again. I note that you didn't
address Searle's response to this the first time round.
One thing that characterises many of Searle's critics is a willingness
to condemn his conclusions, coupled with an unwillingness to address his
arguments.
Look, science is *nothing like* a pure, positivistic materialism, and
alluding to a notion of one won't get you out of this. Sometimes we
have to begin with common sense. I am convinced, beyond reasonable
doubt, that I am conscious, and that pretty much everyone I know is
conscious. However, scientific progress will, in my opinion and
excepting the Strong AI mystics, eventually produce a physical
definition of consciousness in terms of the architecture of the brain,
and brain activity (through close neurological and biological study),
and thereby provide a testable proof of consciousness(*3) . This seems
a far more credible scientific bet than the one based on Strong AI,
which IMHO offers no such prospect, just ever more convincing
simulations (though never "perfect" simulation - see my reply to ghost).
*3: i.e. you would look for the physical configurations that produce
consciousness, in the same way that if you doubted "liquidity", you
could look for the atomic (molecular?) configurations that produce that
property.
On a side note, what's york like? I'm in Dundee and planning to come to
England to study. Maybe I'll come and do computer science ;)
thanks,
--
Kevin Calder
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
