Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[Willis Gravning]

But then again, maybe human philosophy does overstep its supposed boundaries, stepping onto the feet of scientists by asking too many questions. Maybe the solution to this is not to allow either scientists or philosophers to evaluate the world, but rather let our science itself DO all of the philosophy for us? Ay?

I once read that we can never know if a computer has achieved consciousness, even if it tells us it has. For that matter the only consciousness we can ber certain of is our own and we can offer no objective evidence of our consciousness to anyone else.

 

[Dirk1540]

I once read that we can never know if a computer has achieved consciousness, even if it tells us it has. For that matter the only consciousness we can ber certain of is our own and we can offer no objective evidence of our consciousness to anyone else.

I think that Silmarien pretty much hit the nail on the head a little while ago when she said the day that a computer/robot starts doing things that runs contrary to it's programming code is the day that she'll believe in A.I./computer consciousness. I agree.

 

[Silmarien]

I was talking about the kinds of physical experiences we use to form the physical sciences and how those differ from how we experience "spirituality".

Except that the physical sciences don't really work like that. Physics is the most objective because it relies the least upon the physical senses and the very subjective, humanocentric view of reality they give us. Physical sciences tell us that colors and sounds are not out there in the world, that matter is interchangeable with energy, and so forth and so on. Obviously we need to have sensory input to understand anything at all, but to conflate the subjective nature of qualia with the physical sciences that seek to overcome that limitation seems quite flawed. And opposing it altogether to spiritual "qualia" completely overlooks the role that intuition has also had in scientific advancement.

If the question is A or ~A you have to be able to tell the difference.

If no observations from reality will do, then you don't have a concept at all.

Ever heard of apophatic theology?

You skipped all the steps where you clearly defined your ideas and set about practically demonstrating them to be viable, reasonable or evident and gave me:

I'm a non-naturalist. I lack belief in naturalism. If I understand the rules correctly, this means that it's the naturalist who has the burden of proof, not me.

Beyond that, I'm pretty flexible. More than a bit Greek, certainly, with a commitment to Christian theology, but that part really wasn't my idea. Now, if you'd asked, you'd know that I was something of an agnostic as well, and we could have skipped this whole song and dance.

You are right though. How you got the conclusion that you could decide on a metaphysical system that "seemed to be the most coherent" and "ran with it" is not of that much interest to me.

Fantastic. How you've decided you could pick an epistemological system and run with it isn't of much interest to me either, so I guess we can just call it quits now.

 

[KCfromNC]

And yet the existence of physical sensations can't be proved by physical sciences

Nothing is ever proved by physical sciences. That's simply not how science works.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think that Silmarien pretty much hit the nail on the head a little while ago when she said the day that a computer/robot starts doing things that runs contrary to it's programming code is the day that she'll believe in A.I./computer consciousness. I agree.

Do you need to see this in humans before you're convinced that they are conscious as well?

 

[Silmarien]

Nothing is ever proved by physical sciences. That's simply not how science works.

Very well. Physical sensation cannot be demonstrated to exist at all by physical sciences. Some who insist that physical sciences must be able to fully capture the nature of reality try to get around this by denying that subjectivity is real. Others of us reject materialism instead. (Of course, there are people who are somewhere in between, but to me those positions generally seem to be incoherent compromises that avoid the question altogether.)

Do you need to see this in humans before you're convinced that they are conscious as well?

I would suggest you take a look at Searle's Chinese Room Argument before trying to get involved in this particular conversation.

 

[KCfromNC]

Very well. Physical sensation cannot be demonstrated to exist at all by physical sciences.

Simple assertions like this don't really do much to impress me.

I would suggest you take a look at Searle's Chinese Room Argument before trying to get involved in this particular conversation.

I'd suggest you take a look at the criticisms to Searle's Chinese Room Argument before trying to get involved in this particular conversation. Point 3 seems particularly applicable to my question.

 

[Silmarien]

Simple assertions like this don't really do much to impress me.

Alright. How would you go about demonstrating scientifically that someone else has conscious mental states and not just neurological activity?

I'd suggest you take a look at the criticisms to Searle's Chinese Room Argument before trying to get involved in this particular conversation. Point 3 seems particularly applicable to my question.

You really can't openly despise philosophy, refuse to do any reading on the subject, and then jump right into the middle of a discussion of philosophy of mind without expecting to take some flack for it. You do need to do at least a bit of research on the topic first, hence the Searle article.

In any case, I don't think it's a particularly powerful criticism. Artificial intelligence might have some form of awareness, but we have no way of demonstrating that it does. This is why I initially said that unless machines were to begin to operate in ways inconsistent with their original programming, it's complete speculation as to whether they're actually conscious, much less what the nature of their consciousness might actually be.

Your question seems to presuppose a computational theory of mind, though, which I do not share, and which certainly is not scientific fact and the type of thing that ought to be taken for granted. Whatever theory of mind is ultimately correct (probably none of them), humans do all have the same background. Some of us aren't born and others created, so even though we can't know for sure that anyone else is conscious, I think it reasonable to assume that other organic creatures who display the same signs of consciousness that we ourselves do are aware as well. The same doesn't hold true for an android who is programmed to behave as a human. Increasingly sophisticated programming does not by itself imply consciousness.

 

[Dirk1540]

Do you need to see this in humans before you're convinced that they are conscious as well?

No. Not unless I want to start destroying basement level axioms that logic stands on, argumentation would start to become meaningless when axioms like humans being conscious starts to be challenged.

 

[KCfromNC]

Alright. How would you go about demonstrating scientifically that someone else has conscious mental states and not just neurological activity?

How would you go about demonstrating there's a difference?

You really can't openly despise philosophy, refuse to do any reading on the subject, and then jump right into the middle of a discussion of philosophy of mind without expecting to take some flack for it. You do need to do at least a bit of research on the topic first, hence the Searle article.

I'm not sure why you're saying I didn't do research when my objection is listed in the article you said I need to read before commenting.

In any case, I don't think it's a particularly powerful criticism. Artificial intelligence might have some form of awareness, but we have no way of demonstrating that it does.

Sounds a lot like humans. I mean, yeah, we all intuitively know it should be true but we can't prove anyone else is. That's why we just kinda have to assume it and then handwave why we can't do the same in cases where non-human machines behave the same way.

This is why I initially said that unless machines were to begin to operate in ways inconsistent with their original programming, it's complete speculation as to whether they're actually conscious,

I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other here. Why can't a being which operates consistently also be conscious?

Your question seems to presuppose a computational theory of mind, though, which I do not share

And again we end up using philosophy to get stuck before the starting line.

Increasingly sophisticated programming does not by itself imply consciousness.

Nor does it preclude it.

 

[Silmarien]

How would you go about demonstrating there's a difference?

Scientifically? I would not, because my initial point was that science cannot speak to the existence of subjective mental states at all. It can't tell us if they are the same as neurological activity or not, because you can't scientifically measure subjective experience. All you can look at are the neural activity that is associated with it. The subjective aspect is outside of science's limits.

Sounds a lot like humans. I mean, yeah, we all intuitively know it should be true but we can't prove anyone else is. That's why we just kinda have to assume it and then handwave why we can't do the same in cases where non-human machines behave the same way.

It is a lot like humans, yes. As has been said multiple times here, we can't demonstrate that other humans are conscious. The difference is not hand waved away, however--unlike with humans, we do have fairly complete knowledge of how androids function and how their programming works. They behave the same way because we've programmed them to do so. There is no reason to assume, for example, that your Siri application consciously understands everything you tell it and is replying accordingly simply because it has advanced language recognition.

I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other here. Why can't a being which operates consistently also be conscious?

Nobody here has said that androids are not conscious. The point is that given the circumstances, we cannot know that they are and there is really no reason to assume that they are.

My personal sympathies lie with panpsychism, the idea that mentality is a fundamental aspect of the natural world, so I'm quite comfortable with the possibility that androids are in some ineffable sense conscious, but I feel similarly about trees, rocks, and electrons, so that's really not saying much. In the androids' case, we will never know for sure unless they somehow transcend their programming. That's the only way we'd know that their behavior wasn't merely a matter of programming.

And again we end up using philosophy to get stuck before the starting line.

If you don't like getting caught up in philosophical concerns right out the gate, you should probably stay away from philosophical discussions. There aren't all that many questions messier than the nature of consciousness.

Nor does it preclude it.

I hope this post has cleared things up a bit, because you seem to be arguing against a position that nobody here is holding.

 

[KCfromNC]

Scientifically? I would not, because my initial point was that science cannot speak to the existence of subjective mental states at all.

I know this is a common myth in philosopical circles, but for some reason that faith doesn't actually stop people from researching subjective experience:

Comparison of subjective perception with objective measurement of olfaction. - PubMed - NCBI
As time goes by: Studies on the subjective perception of the speed by which time passes
Fear perception: Can objective and subjective awareness measures be dissociated? | JOV | ARVO Journals
Cognition and the Placebo Effect – Dissociating Subjective Perception and Actual Performance

I'd list more, but I'm expecting to hear that this isn't what was meant. But that's one of the many problems of philosophy of mind - certain groups of believers spend a lot of time talking about stuff that they've made up rather than addressing how the brain actually works.

It can't tell us if they are the same as neurological activity or not, because you can't scientifically measure subjective experience. All you can look at are the neural activity that is associated with it. The subjective aspect is outside of science's limits.

This all presumes there's more than neural activity at work, which obviously hasn't been demonstrated.

The difference is not hand waved away, however--unlike with humans, we do have fairly complete knowledge of how androids function and how their programming works. They behave the same way because we've programmed them to do so.

This isn't how modern AI works.

There is no reason to assume, for example, that your Siri application consciously understands everything you tell it and is replying accordingly simply because it has advanced language recognition.

An individual program not being conscious doesn't really demonstrate anything.

But I'll note this same objection applies to humans.

Nobody here has said that androids are not conscious. The point is that given the circumstances, we cannot know that they are and there is really no reason to assume that they are.

Sounds like philosophy needs to step back and let another field take over.

In the androids' case, we will never know for sure unless they somehow transcend their programming. That's the only way we'd know that their behavior wasn't merely a matter of programming.

Repeating this assertion doesn't make it any more true.

 

[Silmarien]

I know this is a common myth in philosopical circles, but for some reason that faith doesn't actually stop people from researching subjective experience:

Comparison of subjective perception with objective measurement of olfaction. - PubMed - NCBI
As time goes by: Studies on the subjective perception of the speed by which time passes
Fear perception: Can objective and subjective awareness measures be dissociated? | JOV | ARVO Journals
Cognition and the Placebo Effect – Dissociating Subjective Perception and Actual Performance

I'd list more, but I'm expecting to hear that this isn't what was meant. But that's one of the many problems of philosophy of mind - certain groups of believers spend a lot of time talking about stuff that they've made up rather than addressing how the brain actually works.

Well, they also keep the neuroscientists from making unfounded assumptions, but let's ignore that.

If you look at those articles, you'll notice that each of them involves self-reporting. Because as I've been trying to explain ad nauseam, science does not have access to subjective experience. It cannot explore it directly. You keep on arguing that we can't know that other humans are conscious (I am not sure why you think I disagree with that), and then turn around and try to say that science can. You're contradicting yourself.

I really have no idea what a "believer of philosophy of mind" is, though. Someone who realizes that the scientific facts involved have to be interpreted?

This all presumes there's more than neural activity at work, which obviously hasn't been demonstrated.

You do not have subjective conscious experience? I suppose that solves one big philosophical question, at least.

Sounds like philosophy needs to step back and let another field take over.

Sure. And while we're at it, let's let chemistry take over mathematics.

Repeating this assertion doesn't make it any more true.

You can demonstrate that an android is conscious? This should be good.

 

[Dirk1540]

Human knowledge will ultimately boil down to making judgment calls on what is the most rational position based on our vantage point of observation. It is very interesting how Earth is blessed inside of this observational sweet spot in the universe for an incredible amount of data to chew on from our vantage point.

And humans literally sit inside of this vantage point called emotional & rational seeking consciousness. We LIVE inside of this definition of consciousness, save all the fancy definitions, we live in it. We also have the vantage point of having created mechanical gizmos...where if a certain mechanical force is applied to pull a lever on this gizmo 'A' happens, if we manipulate it to instead push the lever in a different direction 'B' happens.

We have the vantage point of creating a microchip. Which can contain thousands of switches, semiconductors, conductors, insulators, etc, all designed for specific and very complexly manipulated pathways of electrical current. A computer could now consist of trillions & trillions of bytes, and each byte consists of 8 bits, and each bit is simply the presence or absence of electrical current. Trillions & trillions of instances of 'Absence of current' or 'Presence of current' based on how things are designed. You eventually design a ginormous amount of combinations of absence or presence of electrical current...which causes a ginormous amount of predictable combinations of electrical and mechanical results.

We have the vantage point of seeing these combinations at the basement level, themselves being manipulated into a ginormous amount of combinations to yield a more comprehensible means of access called computer programming languages. We then, like an artist, mold the ginormous amounts of absence/presence of electrical current pattern possibilities via typing out tedious code. I have written code before...take 30,000 pages of code, randomly insert an out of place comma in the wrong spot and the whole program can crash (unless maybe you elaborately designed a safeguard combination of code as protection against a full crash...point being, IT DOES WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO).

I remember spending hours & hours trying to figure out why a program wouldn't work...UGH...it was an extra period on page 78, line 20. Computers are brilliant, but dig below the surface and they are actually very stupid and vulnerable if so much as a punctuation mark is out of place...which sets off a cascade of unforeseen combinations of absence/presence of electrical current reactions that ruins the complex pattern and it can crash.

So from our vantage point, we have created nothing even close to whatever consciousness is. Does the elaborate combination of the absence/presence of electical current...attached to elaborate mechanical motions of intertwined plastic parts called 'An A.I. robot' feel sadness, endore physical pain if it stubs the lower region of it's plastic body (called A.I. Toes) against the bedpost? These actually become ridiculous questions!! They become examples of 2017 hubris, we created consciousness...dream on computer science.

Computer programming code is loaded with 'If/Else' statements. IF i press the 'H' key "Hello" will pop up on the screen, ELSE if I hit another key "Try Again" pops up. Imagine an A.I. robot with 100,000,000 If/Else statements? Imagine how it might fool you for a bit in thinking that these elaborate mechanical/electrical combinations are actually random, and backed by emotions & consciousness? Imagine an A.I. machine with enough If/Else combinations that it could fool you into thinking you're seeing randomness indefinitely!! So again, let me know when an 'A.I. Machine' has been designed with a bunch of microchips, and designed into a bunch of complex electrical current configurations, morphed with mechanical configurations...and somewhere along the line it says "You know what, I think I'll send the electrical current to where I want it to go, not how it was designed to operate!"

Conclusion, 2 electrical switches that control your living room light via two 3 way switches is not consciousness. Neither is 100 trillion micro switches inside of microchips that manipulate much more elaborate structures of electrical current pathways. Adding complexity to electrical currents doesn't create consciousness.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, they also keep the neuroscientists from making unfounded assumptions

I think you're overstating the impact of philosophy here.

If you look at those articles, you'll notice that each of them involves self-reporting. Because as I've been trying to explain ad nauseam, science does not have access to subjective experience.

Sure it does. Heck, you even explain how in the previous sentence.

You're contradicting yourself.

Nope - words can mean different things in different contexts. In this example, science the concept of knowledge is much more pragmatic than it seems to be in certain types of philosophy.

I really have no idea what a "believer of philosophy of mind" is, though.

I didn't write the quoted text. But a better paraphrase would be "believers in certain philosophies of mind".

You do not have subjective conscious experience?

No idea why you'd ask this. It has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was saying you've provided no reason to think that subjective experience is anything more than neural activity.

Sure. And while we're at it, let's let chemistry take over mathematics.

No idea why you'd say this. It has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was talking about letting other fields make progress now that philosophy has seemed to have given up. That doesn't apply to productive fields like the ones you listed.

You can demonstrate that an android is conscious? This should be good.

No idea why you'd ask this. It has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was commenting on how you've provided no reason to connect "going against programming" with consciousness.

 

[Silmarien]

Sure it does. Heck, you even explain how in the previous sentence.

So if an android has been programmed to self-report subjective experience, science has access to that subjective experience? Even though we don't and can't know it even exists?

No idea why you'd ask this. It has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was saying you've provided no reason to think that subjective experience is anything more than neural activity.

What you wrote had nothing to do with what I wrote. I have not been defending a non-materialist account of the mind at all here, but merely pointing out that it is impossible to quantify subjective experience. You're taking issue with the pretty uncontroversial idea that we neither have access to nor can prove the existence of subjective experience in other people, despite also agreeing with it.

No idea why you'd say this. It has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was talking about letting other fields make progress now that philosophy has seemed to have given up. That doesn't apply to productive fields like the ones you listed.

These questions do not cease to be philosophical questions anymore than a mathematical question could cease to be within the field of mathematics. The best option would really be that people in scientific fields have philosophical training as well so that they could better weigh the possible ramifications of their findings. Physics and philosophy is a potent combination.

No idea why you'd ask this. It has nothing to do with what I wrote. I was commenting on how you've provided no reason to connect "going against programming" with consciousness.

My point was never related to the possible existence of consciousness of androids, but to the question of how we might know that they are conscious. I have said this multiple times now. If they were to behave in ways that transcend their programming, we would have reason to believe that something was going on besides programming. My concern is evidentiary--as long as an android is behaving in ways consistent with its programming, we have no way of knowing that it is conscious. The only scenario I can think of where we'd have actual evidence is this one.

Anyway, I'm out. We're quite clearly having different conversations entirely, and you seem to almost be wilfully misinterpreting everything I say, which is really not conducive to discussion.

 

[KCfromNC]

So if an android has been programmed to self-report subjective experience, science has access to that subjective experience? Even though we don't and can't know it even exists?

In that case it would exist. The question would be the cause and nature of it. Kinda like with people.

What you wrote had nothing to do with what I wrote.

Sure it did. You were trying to draw a distinction between subjective experience and neural activity :

"All you can look at are the neural activity that is associated with it. The subjective aspect is outside of science's limits."

These questions do not cease to be philosophical questions

Philosophy can continue to fail to come up with answers all it likes.

I have said this multiple times now. If they were to behave in ways that transcend their programming, we would have reason to believe that something was going on besides programming.

I really think you're confusing consciousness and free will here.

 

[Silmarien]

In that case it would exist. The question would be the cause and nature of it. Kinda like with people.

You're falling into the same fallacy that plagues modern arguments from design: the universe appears to be the product of intelligence, therefore it must be the product of intelligence. An android gives the appearance of being conscious, therefore it must be conscious.

If you're insistent upon equating appearance with reality, you have no rational basis for rejecting design based arguments for the existence of God. The same reasoning applies to both situations. (I should point out that my approach here was originally part of a critical response to just such an apologetics argument.)

So either sort out your thinking here or embrace deism. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Dirk1540]

So if an android has been programmed to self-report subjective experience, science has access to that subjective experience? Even though we don't and can't know it even exists?

Looks like you are playing Devil's advocate with KCfromNC with this hypothetical Android question, but this hypothetical conversation has landed you 2 into questions of self contradiction.

In that case it would exist. The question would be the cause and nature of it. Kinda like with people.

You didn't even see that the question is a self contradiction, you instead treated it like a coherent post, 'It would exist' you even said. How could a computer Be Programmed to self report? It wouldn't be self reporting than lol.

Do you think that the 2 electrical switches that manipulate the electrical current that goes to your living room light is consciousness? Do you think that the trillions of microswitches manipulating current inside of your Android is consciousness? If you answer no to the 1st question and yes to the 2nd, then how many switches of electrical current manipulation do we have to reach before we have consciousness?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Looks like you are playing Devil's advocate with KCfromNC with this hypothetical Android question, but this hypothetical conversation has landed you 2 into questions of self contradiction.

You didn't even see that the question is a self contradiction, you instead treated it like a coherent post, 'It would exist' you even said. How could a computer Be Programmed to self report? It wouldn't be self reporting than lol.

Do you think that the 2 electrical switches that manipulate the electrical current that goes to your living room light is consciousness? Do you think that the trillions of microswitches manipulating current inside of your Android is consciousness? If you answer no to the 1st question and yes to the 2nd, then how many switches of electrical current manipulation do we have to reach before we have consciousness?

This many?