Robert Wright interviews Daniel Dennett (4 of 8)

[SciTechExplained]

By the way, Qualia is so private, intrinsic, and ineffable that we all share IT . LMAO. I love the qualophiles' self-confidence and mutual assurance when they talk about something they define as above but feel like they all know what they are talking about.

[4kx]

"... yeah, there would be conscious robot" - I just love that think

[RabelaisPanurge]

Dennett on epiphenomenalism: "It's insane!" 7:40

[209Hmooblis]

How can billions of 0s and 1s have consciousness. I don't see it. All it can have is probability.

[Alexdurrant7]

@209Hmooblis If you believe that consciousness can emerge from billions of neurons in the brain, like I do, then you can believe that consciousness can emerge from billions of 0s and 1s. The idea is not that the numbers HAVE consciousness, but that they CREATE consciousness.

[pedroamaralcouto]

@Alexdurrant7 Believing that consciousness can emerge from a natural neuronal network does not imply it could emerge from 0s and 1s, or even an artificial neuronal network using silica and metal. The chemical reactions might be a factor for qualia to exist.

[SciTechExplained]

@pedroamaralcouto , Where could we find some empirical evidence for that? How can physical chemical reactions create consciousness but physical 0s and 1s (voltages on silica, etc) can not? Where did you drew that implication besides just guessing / applying intuition ?

[SciTechExplained]

@pedroamaralcouto You've started explaining consciousness by postulating the existence of Qualia. Isn't that postponing the explanation of consciousness ?

[matthewjhaywood]

@209Hmooblis

Well I could equally say "How can billions of 0s and 1s beat the world champion at chess?" The short answer is- THEY CAN. I think underestimating how far computer science will go could prove a serious error in the coming century.

[209Hmooblis]

@matthewjhaywood computers by itself can never beat a chess champion. It needs a programmer. That programmer is consciousness.

[matthewjhaywood]

@209Hmooblis

You're missing the point. Obviously they need to be programmed first. The problem is, you're creating a special case for "consciousness" and asserting that it is fundamentally different than being able to play chess. The whole point that Dennett is trying to make is that he doesn't think it is THAT different.

[SciTechExplained]

@209Hmooblis Who created this consciousness you're talking about? It can't be GOD , aaahhh ?

[209Hmooblis]

@SciTechExplained God is the creator of my consciousness. Have you search for God with a sincere heart through prayer?

[frilansspion]

@209Hmooblis could you stop just defaulting to "god" as an excuse not to think about stuff? you can have "faith" in what you want but you cant deny that there are systems at work in the universe and that stuff _works_ in some way or another. if this was a discussion about a painting and theyre talking about painting technique and colors, youd be saying "this guy painted it. That explains it." No it doesnt. Youre off topic.

[209Hmooblis]

@frilansspion Sorry, I don't just think about stuff. I take action. When you're the answer will come.

[frilansspion]

@209Hmooblis "when you take actions the answer will come"? wha-? what action(s), what answer?

[209Hmooblis]

@frilansspion I apologize. I meant to say, when you're ready the answer will come.

[frilansspion]

@209Hmooblis yeah? still - what actions, what answer? an answer to what?

[209Hmooblis]

@frilansspion Each year had been going by so fast and I didn't felt like I have a purpose in life. It was then that I search for whether there really is a God or not. I also pondered, if there is a God can he help me? One day I looked up in the sky in tears and pray. All I can tell you is that after that day I had experienced things in life I never did before. These experiences changed my world view.

[frilansspion]

@209Hmooblis okay fair enough. thanks for telling me. 

[SciTechExplained]

@209Hmooblis , 0s and 1s are as physical as the neurons in your brain. Start by just imagining how physical 0s and 1s create the order you see on your monitor screen.

[Freethinker12341]

robert wright is very overconfident

[agltube]

01:00 I'd like to see you experience pain you smarmy, punchable little bitch. That's what Daniels thinking. I know I am. Peace and love, however.

[ManchesterBudo]

Why Dan?!!? Why does it ned to be scalled up...Ive heard you say before that there isnt a critical mass or minimum speed of interactionality that is required to tip something over the edge to concious.

What extra is needed ?? What makes human conciousness different?

If nothing extra if its a sliding scale then computers (or any other system with competing states would be concious, to a small extent)

It feels like you avoided the important point?

If theres no special extra ingredient needed!!

[Scofield0085]

@ManchesterBudo You've made some interesting observations. I think you're right in thinking that computers, robots e.t.c. are conscious to a small extent, but I have to stress on the "SMALL" as it really is small...at this point in historical time anyway.

I think that the ability to integrate or run cultural 'software' using language is what makes the difference. Memes seem to also play a significant role. Consciousness varies from person to person based on the sum of their experiences.

[jodiebug1]

But how *would* consciousness feel, Robert Wright?

[iamthewalrusQ]

you are NOT an epiphenomenist. no wire hangers EVER!!!!!!

[sitemountain]

Blapperz! Click backwards 7 pages to find my 1st post starting:

'Perhaps you can help me understand Dennett's proposition?'

Am I missing something, or is Dennett like TOTALLY wrong! (And if it's me why?)

[d34thguitarr]

@sitemountain Maybe YouTube experienced a glitch, and your profile was displayed as responsible for the comment written by another author.

[SilveradoNL]

@sitemountain i don’t know what part you have seen, but Wright does not even understand the definition Epiphenomenalism, something he brings up himself.

And when tolled by Dennet why it is a weak argument, he does not even listen.

[TheDreamMechanic]

Careful now, people. I know he looks like Santa Claus and all, but his "competing thought" theory is inherently disgusting. Dennett is an opponent of free will, as fate would have it. The idea of thoughts conflicting and ultimately giving way to a "king of the hill" thought is moreso a reflection of what goes on in Dennett's own brain. He can speak for himself, of course, and that's the end of it. There are those of us whose thoughts are lucid and coherent, and no competition is necessary.

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

"Dennett is an opponent of free will, as fate would have it"

LAMO at this sentence. Lol I tried the predicate calculus on this

[TheDreamMechanic]

@LeopardFrogPilboxhat

Make sure to utilize the Sarcasm Function. ;-)

[Alexdurrant7]

@TheDreamMechanic *sigh*.. typical reply of the philosophically ignorant. "I don't like this idea so I'll denigrate it without actually offering any arguments beyond expressing dislike of the idea." Well done, you've failed.

[skotoseme]

If you're watching this, please STOP watching and order/download and read Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained. He making an admirable effort in defending some very difficult-to-grasp ideas against a well-prepared but ultimately mistaken "interviewer." You'll do much better going straight to the source itself. (If Wright has indeed written books on the subject or can recommend some, check those out too, after comparing them to Dennett's...)

[Animeabe]

woah.... damn this is new term day for me! Determinism and Epiphenomenon. love it

[madJedi1]

also... cosciousness resides in our hearts and is omi-present -accessable remotely via meditiation and or lucid dreaming = astral projection.

Its funny cz te scientist interviewer...by being a tit, is actually shutting his own mind off from the greatrer potential... the brain is merely our 'Hard drive' for info...we are spirt/energy and our bodies are like a car/vehicle... i have been clinically dead several times and proved this 2 many people in many ways

[madJedi1]

ZOMG the intervieweris such an A******!!!

Grrr he ruining this opportunity

[niginit]

Consciousness is mental, physical, physiological, yes.

Go watch some boxing, you'll begin to understand.

People like Wright can't be allowed to parade around as an intellectual, people will foolishly start to believe it. The guy is a mystery man. Remember that movie? Horrible.

[sphericalpyramid]

"Give them enough time and money, and there will be conscious robots."

This after contradicting himself three times (somehow in succession) just moments earlier.

*sigh*

And this guy is an icon of reason?

[boorens18]

@sphericalpyramid guess ur comment ratings suggest most think you're wrong. Maybe you misunderstood something?

[sphericalpyramid]

Well, no. Daniel Dennett isn't exactly "over my head." I'm far too well read to submit my intellectual affections to a charlatan that moreso resembles a parody of an intellectual, rather than an authoritative one. I sympathise with atheists; having to live in such a religious climate has to be abrasive. But it's obvious that this four horsemen BS is outright propaganda, and I'm going to call a spade a spade when I see it, regardless of who adores his stumbling diatribe. So much for dissent.

[boorens18]

@sphericalpyramid You're not fooling anyone just so you know. You gave yourself away as someone who is really uneducated, trying to speak like someone who actually is.

intelligent people dont speak with an air of pompousness. Or strew their sentences with uncommon adjectives/verbs/nouns etc (why is it that every undereducated person thinks thats what intellectuals sound like? And its the easiest thing to spot anyways.

Further, you didn't even mount an argument for your opinion.

[sphericalpyramid]

Interesting. I'm not speaking in a pompous manner, although I'm flattered you think it to be so. Strange that you would presuppose that I'm uneducated, and blame it on "uncommon" nomenclature. If polysyllabic wording is uncommon to you, I would suggest a willful and conscious expansion of your vocabulary. Many intelligent people actually do speak with an air of pompousness. Leonardo da Vinci, for instance. Argument? Dennett's stumbling and stammering speaks, ironically, for itself.

[boorens18]

@sphericalpyramid lol again you show ur just posing, who feels flattered that someone thinks they talk in a pompous manner?

To help you fake it better in the future. Its not that you are using large words, it's that you actually REFRAIN from using an equally appropriate and accurate common words. In other words you TRY to use uncommon words

Then you further demonstrate how ignorant your opinion is when you judge dennetts arguments not on their merits, but on his speech delivery? Fail.

[sphericalpyramid]

Wrong yet again. You're getting good at this! Here: Daniel Dennett no is good. Him is not as smart as you think. Happy now? It's not that I REFRAIN from using "common" words - which I do, and am currently using - it's that I think, speak, and write in a poetic manner. I prefer rhythm and flow to staccato-like grunts and snivels a la Daniel Dennett. And it's not just his nails-on-the-chalkboard-type delivery; it's his elitist certainty that marinades in a glaring ignorance of spirituality.

[Drealist87]

everyone is ignorant of the spirit. Ignorance is lacking knowledge on the topic. No one has proof for their to be a spirit in us. There is nothing that leaves your body after you die. Stop living in a false reality. You are doing more damage to the world then you think.

[sphericalpyramid]

Speak for yourself. I'm not ignorant of spirit, not by a long shot. Speaking of ruining the world, take note that what you are saying effectively obliterates the subjective dimension. You are submitting verification of something inherently subjective to external proof. Just because something doesn't show up under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is the problem with the left-brained, materialistic philosophy. It is quite literally espoused by half wits posing as intellectuals.

[MultiUniv3rsal]

Wow, do you take the bullshit you say seriously?

[sitemountain]

If by 'you' you mean your collective synapse behavior OK it appears we do operate through this process but there must be something more. Why? -because even if we act like have an identity based on our history of actions there HAS to be a 'self' to sense this identity. A machine could only 'go through the motions' of behaving as if it had sentience. I have a genuine sense of consciousness which even the most sophisticated machine has no ability to do -how could it? It does EXACTLY what it has to.

[ateapotist67]

I'm reminded of the WW II vintage Bugs Bunny cartoon with the gremlin who tries to crash the B-19 bomber...

[ananiasacts]

What Wright seems to be missing is that one moments consciousness is just a label we give to the winner as it goes around to become part of the pandemonium that results in the next moments winner. He seems stuck on the 'little dude in your head' model and can't see it as an ephemeral consequence of the brains algorithms. Like the change in entropy from moment to moment.

[whyohwhy815]

Wright understood that, as he admitted that could be the process leading to the "winner". What he is arguing is that this "winner" is completely private in its subjective manifestation and not publicly observable.

[ananiasacts]

Suppose the electorate was wired up in such a way that each of us thought we were president; shared all the same inputs, and were called upon to make the same decisions as quickly as possible. Our entire decision history was constantly being reweighed in hindsight and the mechanism that combined our outputs to select just one used that value to do so. Think of our self-awareness as just a reaction, a labeling or evaluation, to the series of decisions as we see them being made.

[whyohwhy815]

That's a fascinating Theory. But it doesn't address why there seems to be a purely subjective property to such "reactions", "labels", or "evaluations". This property as it is in-itself to the subjective perciever is not public. If it were purely public then we could in theory jump consciousness from each other's bodies. You become me and likewise cease to be what you once were.

[ananiasacts]

It might clear up some more if we add a bit more to the analogy. Think of the parts of our government as different bits of the physical machinery in your brain. Yes, we can't see the debates going on in congress, but we do see the final legislation and can reason out quite a bit about what must have taken place if we study it carefully. Wright wants to consider that unravelling undoable, but what good argument for that position is there?

[whyohwhy815]

Wright would argue though that you cannot see the final legislation. When you look at someone who is conscious, you are seeing them move, hearing them speak, etc. But what you are not seeing is the conscious "final legislation" that they themselves percieve. So, in essence, if you are observing someone else's final legislation as it appears to you, it is not the same final legislation as it appears to the individual you are studying.

[ananiasacts]

Okay. But it's a bit like saying we don't know where a tree's roots are. Yes, technically, but we know everything we need to know about where they are, and why they're there, and why we can't say more, and what it would take to be able to say more.

[whyohwhy815]

To create a functional account of the tree, yes. But in absolute term regarding reality, the natural ontology is insufficient. Likewise, certain mental states (subjectivity) take on different properties then the physical brain state. Thus, you get property dualism.

[ananiasacts]

"But in absolute term regarding reality, the natural ontology is insufficient." There's our disagreement. I think we can find out details about the nature of our metaphysical gizzard which I likened to discovering the branches and agencies of government from the legislation it passed. The way we use language can tell us a lot about the sort of concepts our minds are manipulating. To assume we don't have enough primitives to construct a model of ourselves is just your opinion.

[whyohwhy815]

How do you find out the details of how someone hears a sound as it manifests to themself? You could construct a model, but that model is not what subjectivity is. Subjectivity takes on a radically different property than the brain state - otherwise there would be no point constructing the model!

[ananiasacts]

You'll know it when you see it I suppose. One day in the not too distant future we'll be using a search engine that is obviously every bit as conscious as we are. On that day I believe you'll realize there's nothing special about us except possibly our own insecurity that we might not be special enough to pretend we're the precious toys of a supernatural goodness extruder.

[whyohwhy815]

Who mentioned anything about supernatural? I mentioned properties. Who mentioned anything about being special? I don't think I'm special. Subjective consciousness is not obvious because the only way to confirm such a thing is to be the subjective consciousness itself. Science can only predict subjective consciousness but can never know if one object composed of entities is truly conscious or not. Likewise, there is a mode of property dualism at work. (This still grants all things physical)

[ananiasacts]

Wright doesn't mention it explicitly, but I get the feeling listening to him that 'magical thinking' was at the bottom of his objections. I guess I just see it as an argument over how a blind man experiences color. I'm saying it doesn't matter--if the blind artificial person behaves as a blind man with respect to colors then I'll believe there's really no difference in their subjective experiences of it. And I suppose you'll always claim it can't be. I don't see how it matters who is right.

[whyohwhy815]

It does matter imho because if we accept that experience has radically different properties than the brain that creates said experience, ontological naturalism becomes incomplete in describing reality. Science can explain the functions and correllations of brain-states and experience, but to describe experience we need to use different semantics that are beyond physical reduction.

[ananiasacts]

Can you give me an example of a semantic unit or entity that is beyond physical reduction? I just have no clear idea of what that is.

[whyohwhy815]

"Experience" means to have a being that has a subjective quality. A being that has an "objective" quality is readily accessible to all people. A being that is "subjective" means that the quality of "being subjective" is only accessible to the person being subjective. Likewise, science deals with purely objective properties such as brain neurons. But these brain neurons are not the subjective quality of personal subjectivity. If they were, simply looking at my brain neurons, you could cont.

[whyohwhy815]

Simply looking at my brain waves, you could become my subjective experience (thus, ceasing to be you and being me). So, science only deals with objective properties in the sense that they can fully describe subjective properties with scientific ontology. But while they can explain SOME aspects of subjectivity they cannot explain it in full, because in order to do that you have to know exactly what the subjective is experiencing. If you cannot know, then your ontology is limited.

[whyohwhy815]

So a semantic unit, "experience" is beyond physical reduction because you can never know the experience you are trying to reduce.

[sitemountain]

Perhaps you can help me understand Dennett's proposition? If I understand him correctly, he's saying consciousness is simply an illusion generated by the most dominant brain activity at any given time. OK I get the idea there but as far as I can see the flaw in that concept is WHO (or WHAT) is perceiving this? I fully appreciate the 'little dude in your head' paradox (shouldn't there be another little dude is his head too etc, etc!) which doesn't answer the question: WHO or WHAT question! cont

[sitemountain]

The reason I very much doubt that computers are likely to become conscious is because they can only do EXACTLY what they are programmed to do. OK, perhaps humans are the same & are under the illusion that they DO have free will -I can't prove this but I fail to understand why we perceive a sense of free will if it isn't real -we have pretty impressive computer power right now but to my knowledge no one has managed to produce sentience even now & I'm not surprised. Have I missed something? RSVP

[markthnark]

What would it feel like NOT to perceive a sense of free will? Right now go to a drawer open it and select an object from that drawer. Sit down and ask why you chose that object. How would it have felt had you been a robot doing exactly the same thing? I propose that it would feel exactly the same. We have a grandiose sense of what consciousness is.

[sitemountain]

I can't see that a robot has ANY consciousness at all. Why? -because it operates according to some process (preset programming i.e. 'if this occurs, do this') so it has NO genuine free will just an appearance of it. it just has instructions to REACT (instead of RESPOND) which LOOKS like free will, but there's NO reason to assume it has ANY internal consciousness at all. It can't REALLY 'choose' & NEVER 'feels' ANYTHING -how could it? But we humans KNOW we are experiencing CONSCIOUS choices. RSVP

[markthnark]

Human consciousness may very well be exactly as you describe that of the Robot, programmed to respond...and yet you still "feel". How can you suppose that a complex ROBOT would not also "Feel". At what point in evolution did our ancestors develop from "unfeeling" to "feeling"? Bearing in mind it happened only once?

Return again to your point that humans feel that they have FREE WILL. What would it feel like not to have free will. I suggest it would feel the same.

[sitemountain]

5. Now I can't explain why humans are different i.e. why we perceive our thoughts but I know we have them (well I do... so I assume EVERY animal with a brain does too). But robots have no ghost in the machine - they display no signs of sentience whatsoever. When did organisms first start feeling? Well can you remember your own mind becoming self aware? I can't because it's an 'emergent phenomena'. When does a tornado suddenly 'become' itself? It's an emergent phenomena too & totally subjective.

[sitemountain]

4. What would it feel like NOT to have free will? Surely NOTHING! Why am I so sure? Well think of it this way... Feelings are surplus to requirement where no choice is available. If I turn on my laptops web cam, hold it out the top floor window & point it at the ground it auto focuses on the concrete below with no concern that I may let it fall down. I can program it to display a warning but it has no real opinion about what may happen. Where would feelings of concern 'come from?' cont >

[sitemountain]

3. Humans usually find it ALMOST impossible to commit suicide because they have a sense of self but they also have free will so it IS an option. All robots will blindly obey self destruct orders no matter HOW complex their 'brain' is because they have no genuine sentience as we do. This doesn't total prove they have no self awareness but STRONGLY suggests they do not. They can't meaningfully 'choose' to do ANYTHING. Without a sense of self they are slaves to programming & have no 'will'. cont >

[beriukay]

Here's a guess:

Why do we have optical illusions, auditory illusions, tactile illusions? Because we have evolved from an absurdly long line of creatures who were not killed off because of their flawed perception. Perhaps the idea of free will is just the same kind of evolutionary baggage.

[beriukay]

I can't explain it nearly as well as Dennett can (borrow/rent/buy Consciousness Explained if you are really interested). But to answer your question, basically, YOU are. Retrospectively. You write the abridged history book of yourself, and you decide what goes in it.

[sitemountain]

Hmmm I don't but that because according to Dennet YOU surely doesn't exist... There's only millions of neurons battling out algorithms to 'choose' what thought 'wins' the consciousness selection process. Any retrospective choice about what is perceived therefore requires a consciousness of it's own. So where does the buck stop?The buck doesn't stop because it's endless. QED there is no 'you' there is no consciousness. But there is. If there wasn't, what perceives this illusion? Another illusion?

[beriukay]

That doesn't seem to follow. Please restate your argument.

You are likely mistaken to think that the neurons are battling to decide which "thought wins the consciousness selection process". The thoughts dictate policy. After policy is determined, the history books are written. Conscious choices are determined based on the history books, not policy.

[sitemountain]

I don't quite understand how that relates to the discussion -perhaps you can expand on how a sense consciousness arrises from this without there being something perceiving it. The reason I think Dennett is wrong is because the idea that any computer could become conscious is very flawed. Machines could give the IMPRESSION they are conscious one day. In fact, I think they are already sophisticated enough to do so today but they can't. To read why my they never will see my previous comments below.

[beriukay]

Effing Youtube's comment gremlins!

I think you have already conceded that a machine could, in theory, be programmed to react exactly as you in every circumstance. You still believe that it would not have consciousness. But what would you say if I told you to prove you were conscious? This machine would have the exact response as you. At this point, you would have to claim Numinous Aether gives you your sentience while denying it to the robot, or admit that you aren't so different after all

[beriukay]

As for the history books analogy. There is strong evidence that past behaviors influence the outcome of your next behavior. If you had some quantum randomness magically keeping you from determinism, then every decision you make should be more random. Thus, it stands to reason that your sense of self is deeply rooted in your history of self. You look at your past self as an outside observer would and fit your perception to your memory.

[sitemountain]

Well I don't believe that a machine could actually be programmed to behave like a human but for arguments sake let's say it could be. All it would be doing is APPEARING to be sentient, But sentience isn't required in machines to act like humans -just enough sophistication to ACT as if it did but there's no reason at all to suggest a complex machine would become conscious like humans are. The aspect I take issue with is any reference to 'you'. 'You' look at the past' what 'you'? -continued...

[beriukay]

And I ask you again, what is the difference between being sentient, and perfectly being able to appear to be sentient? You have given many good arguments for why it is currently not the case that AI can be sentient, but you have failed completely at arguing that it is in principle impossible and not worth attempting.

Let's try the 'you' thing in a different way. Do you have a sense of 'you'? Can you predict your future behaviors in any number of hypothetical situations?

[sitemountain]

OK Q1 The difference is I have consciousness (& I assume you do to but I can't prove THAT) & a machine couldn't for all the reasons I've given below -If I'm wrong there how so? Because I'm making assumptions? Why assume a machine can be conscious if you can't give any evidence to back this up. Saying it would be isn't evidence it's assumption. This is the mistake DD makes. He can't prove it -it doesn't follow that a machine programmed to ACT as if it has consciousness HAS it. But I do & you do.

[sitemountain]

In the 60's Arthur C, Clarke predicted HAL a talking thinking computer in 2001. Well it's 2009 I my computer can't clearly explain why the printer won't work beyond very simple pre-written (human written) messages. NASA can't do it either: their mars rovers are largely human controlled. It's not lack of processing power -it's because EVERYTHING a machine does comes from humans + external environmental measurements. Yes we MAY be able to mimic consciousness better in the future but only MIMIC it.

[sitemountain]

Q2. As for predicting the future yes I have a sense of 'me' & I'll bet you do to. So if I tell you to jump out of the top floor window, you want to preserve the 'you' you believe (correctly) that you have & you'll refuse. Tell HAL to self destruct & it (not he) HAS to obey if it's programmed to do so. -More evidence that that all machines don't & won't have ANY consciousness -they never could. If so how? It is not a question of hardware or software complexity because that's not a problem anymore

[beriukay]

That's not evidence. That's speculation. You are wildly overestimating the state of today's technology. The best, closest thing we've come to replicating a brain is a massive cluster on the order of complexity of a cat. It was able to simulate about 5 seconds of a cat, and it took 500 seconds. Yes it is a problem, still.

Now with Q2, you have a sense of future you. But that future you never existed. You have created a fictional representation of yourself, would you not agree?

[sitemountain]

Well, the cat thing 1st. OK so we can MIMIC a cat & I concede that maybe we can mimic a human mind one day -but you said it 'SIMULATE' ie MIMIC a cat. If one day we SIMULATE a human consciousness, so what? -I doubt we ever will: it's not intrinsically to do with hardware OR software limitations, it's to do with the fact that no one (inc. Dan D) can even explain why WE have consciousness so how could we ever hope to do anything more than simulate an appearance of it? DD speculates too! (wrongly!)

[beriukay]

I agree that this debate is largely just about speculation at this point. It really doesn't matter that the world can't quite agree on what consciousness even means (again, you should read Dennett's book before accusing him of mere speculation). The Wright Brothers didn't understand the mechanics of jet propulsion back in a time where heavier-than-air flight was considered impossible by people like yourself. I say give computers as much time as we've given the airplane.

[sitemountain]

Well the reason I won't read DD's book is I can already see how flawed his argument with Robert Write here. The flaw is his assumption that a sophisticated machine which reacts like a human would also attain consciousness. This is 100% assumption but he thinks it's true because he ASSUMES it would happen. How could you KNOW a machine had consciousness even if it appeared to? Explaining consciousness is a LOT harder than understanding the principles of flight in 1903. It's MUCH more mysterious.

[beriukay]

You're putting words into his mouth, sir. He is very open and honest about his assumptions, and he never once assumed himself to be correct. What he's doing is proving that Cartesian Dualism is pure garbage, then following thought experiments and real-world evidence to the conclusion that perhaps consciousness isn't magic after all. Just like optical illusions aren't actually swirling vortices. They're complicated, but they're natural, explainable, and repeatable. This is NOT an assumption.

[sitemountain]

Well I agree that Cartesian Dualism is no explanation: I never said it was. I still maintain that assuming a machine can attain real consciousness is ludicrous. You said we are ' able to simulate about 5 seconds of a cat' Yes SIMULATE! That's all. You've therefore admitted it isn't real consciousness & if you think it is how would you know? How would we know it's actual consciousness? Dennett can't truthfully answer that question. For example watch this clip:

watch?v=3vEDmNh-_4Q&feature=re­lated

[sitemountain]

Q2. Yes I have a sense of me in the future which is imagined -are you saying my sense of 'me' is also imagined? By WHAT? An illusion? Nope not possible. Or all my neurons battling it out to form an opinion? OK probably, in which case that's my consciousness but if there wasn't something very strange happening WITH that why is there 'qualia' e.g the SENSATION of pain? Consciousness isn't required -only MEASUREMENT of external circumstances & an evasive reaction in natural selection processes.

[beriukay]

I'm sorry, but what creature measures its pain? If you're going to use "qualia," either admit that you are looking for a magic explanation, or use the word "sensation." Sensations are easily stimulated and measured today in neuroscience.

I'm not saying that your brain is an illusion. I'm saying that insisting that something has to observe your innermost self doesn't make it so. You can throw back the curtain as often as you like, but there will never be a man behind it. There is no Oz.

[sitemountain]

You're missing the point: any 'magic' explanation is no explanation. I haven't got one & DD hasn't either but the burden of proof lies with the claimant. He's saying 'it must be so because it has to be -there's no other explanation' True there isn't but his explanation is worthless -based on 100% speculation + 100% assumption & 0% evidence because we don't even have machines which appear (i.e. mimic) to have consciousness. I know the brain isn't an illusion but how COULD consciousness be either?

[beriukay]

No, I fully agree that magic is no kind of explanation. However, arguing over the "burden of proof" is a fool's errand when the debate is on whether something is possible. History is replete with examples of people claiming something is impossible and being later proven wrong.

What we CAN do is talk about things that can actually be understood instead of putting the weight of authority on some meaningless babble word like "consciousness" and debating about whether plants have "qualia."

[sitemountain]

History also shows that some claims e.g. almost free power production, which haven't come true too. As I say no one inc DD can explain why we EXPERIENCE consciousness. You haven't addressed my example the Venus rover sensing dangerous radiation & yourself EXPERIENCING sun burn. Machines, even more sophisticated than todays could never experience anything (why would they?) They ONLY sense & react which is an illusion of consciousness. If we're in principle machines, we wouldn't experience either.

[beriukay]

Sure, cheap power hasn't come true yet either.

However, your question doesn't make sense. You are arguing about the implications of a noun, X, without properly defining X, and then telling me that one thing definitely experience X, and that another thing definitely doesn't. Reality doesn't work like that. It works in shades of gray.

Without a reasonable criteria for X, you cannot expect people to agree that Bill experiences X, but BillBot or BillDog only have the illusion of X.

[sitemountain]

OK try this 'X' experiment- tell yourself:

'I have no consciousness'

Repeat it in your head a few times. Does it ring true? No? Why? Because you are conscious of it's impossibility. If you WEREN'T conscious how could you tell yourself you weren't? So you have 100% certainty it HAS to be real -that's your X. But if a machine said 'I'm conscious' why believe it? You know that ultimately it operates from human constructed instructions. How COULD you know it had a REAL not SIMULATED consciousness?

[beriukay]

>>If you WEREN'T conscious how could you tell yourself you weren't?

Simply because I was 'programmed' by you to repeatedly say, 'I have no consciousness.'

Again, I can think and believe that I have 100% certainty until the cows come home. Doesn't make it so.

Even if I am conscious, it doesn't get me any closer to knowing if you are. Why make the jump and say this other thing isn't, even if it claims that it is? It is closer to consciousness than a human raised by wolves.

[sitemountain]

When I say 'how could you tell yourself' I'm referring to the INNER EXPERIENCE not the ACTION of speaking. I CAN prove via the X experiment that I HAVE to be conscious. To say a machine programmed my someone to SAY 'I have consciousness' HAS to say it so why assume there's consciousness? We CAN choose to put our hands on a burner -it isn't easy, but it's been known to happen -or similar examples, so don't say it's 100% impossible. I ask you again: how could you PROVE a machine had consciousness?

[beriukay]

Here's an interesting counterexample I just ran across. Google "Amputee 'Feels' Fingers For First Time With Robotic Hand"

How can he feel his robotic fingers based on your assertion that robots can't feel?

[sitemountain]

The robotic hand sends impulses to the brain like a real one. A robot could SENSE via it's hand & say 'my hand senses heat' or even 'ouch!' but ONLY because it has no choice if it's programmed that way. Real conscious entities usually have some choice -don't you sense you have choices? i.e. 'Responses' rather than pre-programmed 'Reactions'? That's because you have a consciousness. You said 'we can SIMULATE consciousness' so why didn't you say 'we can CREATE consciousness' it's because we can't.

[beriukay]

That's because you can't CREATE emergent properties. You set up situations where emergent properties arise.

When did not having a choice how you were programmed come in to your argument? I don't sense that I have any choice about my programmed response to pain. I can't just put my hand on a burner and choose to keep it there. Besides sensing that you have choices could easily have been programmed in to you/me/anything. Thinking that you are free doesn't make you free.

[sitemountain]

Now you're splitting hairs: you know you're conscious even if it's a private experience so you've got VERY good reason to assume MOST humans do too (let's not get into wolf children -not enough space!) But you keep on dogging the bullet & refuse to say how you know some hypothetical machine could be known to have consciousness, especially since according to you we can only SIMULATE not CREATE it. 'Emergent properties' exist in humans not machines. How would you PROVE a machine had consciousness?

[beriukay]

I am dodging nothing. You are the one claiming absolute certainty here, and so the burden of proof lies on you. I have given you examples that call your bold assertions into question, given plausible explanations and recommended that you read into it before claiming ultimate knowledge. You repeatedly claim 100% certainty, and yet have given no evidence beyond the realm of "because I know, you know?"

The only way to know if something is aware is if it can convincingly claim it is.

[sitemountain]

'The only way to know if something is aware is if it can convincingly claim it is.'

Now we're getting somewhere! So what would be convincing about a machine that has been programmed to SIMULATE consciousness? Remember SIMULATE is the word you chose to use - why didn't you say CREATE? Because that requires Something from Nothing. Yes, I can't PROVE machine consciousness can't be created because you can't prove a negative. e.g. 'There's no Santa Clause' so YOU need to prove machine consciousness.

[beriukay]

Sorry about the delay. Vacation was good.

You are putting way too much importance on my choice of words, I think. If a program can convincingly claim that it is sentient, then I would see no difference between SIMULATE and CREATE. Up until the AI is good enough, however, it would only be a simulation.

There are physical laws that the mythological Santa violates. Machine consciousness violates no such laws. If it did, I would have to concede the impossibility.

[sitemountain]

Well the choice of words is crucial because it represents the crux of what I'm saying: If we create a machine that SEEMS to have consciousness, this only proves it SEEMS to. Period. How can you KNOW consciousness exists instead of an illusion of it? There's a MASSIVE difference between SIMULATING & CREATING machine consciousness because one is real & one ISN'T!

How could any machine ever 'convincingly' claim it's conscious if it's programed to state that it has consciousness? It has no choice!

[beriukay]

Then the crux of your argument is deeply flawed. I never claim 100% absolute certainty of anything, and therefore what you might consider to be weasel words on my part is meant to display humility in the fact that humans cannot know anything for certain, and that with sufficient evidence or logic, I will admit that I am wrong and change my mind.

Also, I distinguish simulating and creating because it is probably easier to set up ideal circumstances and let it happen than direct creation.

[sitemountain]

To answer what creature measures it's pain I'd say most do. I say 'measure' because for example a robot on Venus could measure sun dangerous radiation & react by heading for a shade. It could even transmit a message to NASA saying 'ouch!' but I know & you know it can't really FEEL pain. But if you or I get sunburn & say 'ouch' that's Qualia yes, based on sensation. The robot senses hot sun so you could say it senses the condition but doesn't have a sensation of discomfort like we do. Understand?

[YourBooksAreWrong]

omg there's gremlins in my car ?!?!

[rickenione]

lol

[ananiasacts]

There's even gremlins in your gremlins.

[Chiangmai007]

I've really appreciated Wright's interviews around the world with thinkers from many different worldviews. The meetings with Arthur Peacock , John Polkinghorne and Owen Gingerich deeply strengthened my Christian faith and the beauty of evolution. What Dennett doesn't seem to understand is that there is a YOU that exists. A scientist can stick a probe in my brain and make a limb move; but that is quite different than My Free choice to lift up my arm.

[BoldOriginalFlavor]

Wright isn't going to pass on his genes acting like such a douchebag

[andrewscreename]

Wright is such a prick. I want to punch him.