A Concession & A Question

[DisingenuousChristian]

I would like to make this concession to those materialists on here who would claim that there is no way to prove a "spiritual" or purely non-physical realm in which the mental/intellectual/psychical may be found, or must be found, to exist. I have realized that this probably can't be proven, at least not by conventional armchair philosophical debate.

That said, I would like to pose a question which might shed light on why I hold to this realm's existence as a necessary presupposition. And that question is this:

What, qualitatively, differentiates a complex non-sentient construct (a computer say) from a complex sentient construct (a human brain, let's say). Since we take for the most part (most of us) for granted that a computer or even blades of grass are not sentient, what proper moves (that is, logical steps) allow us to get to the existence of sentience in any other being? What is that "extra" thing which we find in the organic brain which does not come to fruition in the mechanical processor? How is this explanatory gap overcome, in other words? To me it seems as though one needs to posit consciousness - which is itself unexplainable - or one is simply piling on complexity on complexity without any sight of a (non)arbitrary division into sentient and non-sentient, unless perhaps everything is sentient but "asleep" or that sentience exists incipiently and simply hasn't reached the necessary stage of complexity so as to express itself. In which case one would have to default to something at least akin to pan-psychism, which I'm not sure materialists would like to do.

 

[The Nihilist]

Turing test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/thread

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Turing test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/thread

Post by link is not accepted. Please make a substantive point yourself, with support, not just the assertions of others.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm not debating with you. You have a question, and the link posted provides a good physicalist answer. Read it and learn, or wait for someone to come fight with you if that's what you're here for.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

I'm not debating with you. You have a question, and the link posted provides a good physicalist answer. Read it and learn, or wait for someone to come fight with you if that's what you're here for.

I don't see how a Turing Test is in any way, shape or form relevant to my query. However, if you like you can explain its relation to my OP at your leisure.

Not looking for a fight, just honest answers.

 

[The Nihilist]

Oh, well, that's different. To your question, "What, qualitatively, differentiates a complex non-sentient construct (a computer say) from a complex sentient construct (a human brain, let's say)," I think the answer implied by the Turing test is that there is no difference.

But you understand the mind is a pretty specific way, don't you? In your physicalism thread, you seemed to suggest that you thought the mind did some kind of special function to give us true knowledge, didn't you? Or is that what you've conceded?

 

[Paradoxum]

Well yes, consciousness is a problem that has had people asking questions for a long time. But it seems we may be lucky enough in our lifetimes to see if computer science can answer the question by putting consciousness into a robot. I have no idea what the difference is, but we are getting closer. Just as it isn't necessary to presuppose a God to know where humans came from, it is also a bit early to be doing the same for consciousness.

 

[SithDoughnut]

What, qualitatively, differentiates a complex non-sentient construct (a computer say) from a complex sentient construct (a human brain, let's say).

Complexity, probably. A computer is not capable of processing the same information that humans can. At least, not yet. Once we fully understand the brain, and have the technology to emulate it, I see no reason why we would not be able to create a sentient computer.

I can't go into any more detail because we don't yet understand exactly what sentience is. Until we do that, we can't really compare it non-sentient entities.

 

[juvenissun]

Complexity, probably. A computer is not capable of processing the same information that humans can. At least, not yet. Once we fully understand the brain, and have the technology to emulate it, I see no reason why we would not be able to create a sentient computer.

I can't go into any more detail because we don't yet understand exactly what sentience is. Until we do that, we can't really compare it non-sentient entities.

If we do not know now, how do you know it is a knowable subject? How is this "faith" different from the faith to God?

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Oh, well, that's different. To your question, "What, qualitatively, differentiates a complex non-sentient construct (a computer say) from a complex sentient construct (a human brain, let's say)," I think the answer implied by the Turing test is that there is no difference.

But that is no explanation for the real difference between a sentient creature and a non-sentient being. One can imitate perfectly the former, but still be the latter.

But you understand the mind is a pretty specific way, don't you?

Yes, I would say its chief attribute is its directedness towards objects (either of reflective thought or external reality). In that I would suppose a machine would be different had it not this directedness and instead merely functioned in a hermetically sealed way, processing lines of code as it were, with no attention given at all to that it was processing. There is a difference between mere "thinking" (even machine thinking if you wish to call it that) and "awareness of" certain things, through outlets like the five senses.

In your physicalism thread, you seemed to suggest that you thought the mind did some kind of special function to give us true knowledge, didn't you? Or is that what you've conceded?

Yes, and that is where I assumed rather than proved a mental realm which was sufficient to "mirror" or be a reflector of external fact. Reality "impressed" itself onto the mental realm and in turn thoughts intentionally "picked out" a referent which was identical in essence (though not in mode) to that which was thought about.

I assumed the neuro-physical alone was not a sufficient "reflector" of this information because it lacked the crucial self-reflexive and self-luminous quality of the mental and was, as it were, nothing but a self-enclosed, hermetically sealed "boxed in" zone of information, such as a machine might run through. One needs outlets, and only a mind (not a brain) can do this as it has the sufficient directedness towards objects in order to actually be aware of entities, via things like the senses/affections.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Well yes, consciousness is a problem that has had people asking questions for a long time.

So has the idea of "EXISTENCE" - people have been asking questions about that for a very long time as well. It is my own humble opinion that both Existence and Consciousness are essentially on a par in terms of explanatory depth. It is at this point where explanations "bottom out." Just like it's very possible that explanations ultimately bottom out in terms of quantum physics or God, just so they bottom out here. Nothing can be said for existence other than "it is." My contention is, nothing can be said for consciousness other than "it is."

But it seems we may be lucky enough in our lifetimes to see if computer science can answer the question by putting consciousness into a robot. I have no idea what the difference is, but we are getting closer.

I am not sure how we would know consciousness would exist in the robot over not, or whether consciousness doesn't already exist in machines but they can't express themselves adequately merely for us to be convinced such is the case.

And anyway, if consciousness is the basic fundament of our world I think it is, would it really be us "manufacturing" consciousness, or would it be consciousness binding itself in property-like fashion to an entity? The same way a blanket might get wetted by contact with the ocean. We simply do not know.

Just as it isn't necessary to presuppose a God to know where humans came from, it is also a bit early to be doing the same for consciousness.

Not unless you have a sense that all explanations of consciousness are mere pseudo-explanations for machine intelligence. Then you can say consciousness is akin to, and has the same explanatory possibility as, existence itself - which is nada from the mechanistic p.o.v. Indeed, there have been some traditions in the world who have identified consciousness and existence as the same exact thing. And if "Why is it that things are?" is a pseudo-question, than so is "Why do I think things are?"

 

[Paradoxum]

So has the idea of "EXISTENCE" - people have been asking questions about that for a very long time as well. It is my own humble opinion that both Existence and Consciousness are essentially on a par in terms of explanatory depth.

What do you mean?

It is at this point where explanations "bottom out." Just like it's very possible that explanations ultimately bottom out in terms of quantum physics or God, just so they bottom out here. Nothing can be said for existence other than "it is." My contention is, nothing can be said for consciousness other than "it is."

What does it mean for something to 'bottom out'? Quantum physics has equation and theories that attempt to explain it, so I'm not sure why bring it down to quantum physics would be a problem.

I'm also not sure what you mean consciousness simply being 'it is'. My chair 'is' but isn't conscious.

I am not sure how we would know consciousness would exist in the robot over not, or whether consciousness doesn't already exist in machines but they can't express themselves adequately merely for us to be convinced such is the case.

Well that could be the problem, but if that is so then in time we will give robots the sorts of bodies we have so that we can express their consciousness. I don't believe conscious robots exist yet though.

And anyway, if consciousness is the basic fundament of our world I think it is, would it really be us "manufacturing" consciousness, or would it be consciousness binding itself in property-like fashion to an entity? The same way a blanket might get wetted by contact with the ocean. We simply do not know.

We don't know, but I'm not sure why we would think that is more likely. What do you mean that consciousness could be a basic fundamental of our world? Are you referring to the fact that observation can change the happenings in quantum physics?

Not unless you have a sense that all explanations of consciousness are mere pseudo-explanations for machine intelligence. Then you can say consciousness is akin to, and has the same explanatory possibility as, existence itself - which is nada from the mechanistic p.o.v. Indeed, there have been some traditions in the world who have identified consciousness and existence as the same exact thing. And if "Why is it that things are?" is a pseudo-question, than so is "Why do I think things are?"

I'm not sure why we would want to suppose this though. I don't think "Why does anything exist?" is a pseudo-question. At the least one must explain why it is a meaningless questions if it is.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

What do you mean?

What I mean is, there is no more reason for why consciousness is than there
is for why existence is. There is no ultimate explanation for something's "being" other than the fact that it is "to be."

You can say, "well, how about the big bang, isn't that an explanation?" Why is it that the big bang is, then, or should ever have been? We are talking about existence generally, not the existence of any one thing. It's because of existence. Even if, "in the beginning" so to speak, there was only a great Quantum Nothingness that spewed out the Big Bang as one of infinitely many possibilities, you are ultimately left with the answer "well, it exists/existed."

One can go a step further and ask: why does anything exist at all in the present moment? Ultimately, it's because it merely does, or else some force (God) sustains it. But I can bet that even that explanation bottoms out. Or else you are left with explanations atop explanations, and you never receive a final explanation.

What does it mean for something to 'bottom out'? Quantum physics has equation and theories that attempt to explain it, so I'm not sure why bring it down to quantum physics would be a problem.

Think of it this way. If the explanation for why the earth doesn't fall into the abyss is because it is held up by a giant turtle an adequate one? But let's say that that turtle is held up by another, and that one by another and that one by another, ad infinitum. Ultimately, in order for there to be an explanation at all there has to be some ground, some ultimate basis for why anything is which is itself unexplainable. If not you are left with an infinite regress which repudiates all explanation.

I'm also not sure what you mean consciousness simply being 'it is'. My chair 'is' but isn't conscious.

I am saying, your awareness of the chair, your consciousness thereof, simply is. You might say here that your brain is a certain way and your mental character is of such and such a nature, but the bare fact of consciousness is what lies at the root of the explanation why you have the chair-experience. It is the one necessary condition which lacks any background details.

We don't know, but I'm not sure why we would think that is more likely. What do you mean that consciousness could be a basic fundamental of our world? Are you referring to the fact that observation can change the happenings in quantum physics?

Not necessarily. What I am saying here, in this thread, is since there is no cogent explanation for consciousness it may as well be left unexplained. This isn't out of mere laziness or a "God of the gaps" mentality, but because the nature of consciousness simply cannot be mechanistically parsed into lesser explanatory components. Since there seems to be no (non)arbitrary distinction between degrees of non-sentient complexity and sentient complexity, I don't see how one can avoid consciousness as a discrete entity, i.e, non-physical. Existence fares no better in terms of explanatory depth. We can say that both appear to be brute facts with nothing more underpinning them besides their own facticity - to use Heideggerian jargon.

I'm not sure why we would want to suppose this though. I don't think "Why does anything exist?" is a pseudo-question. At the least one must explain why it is a meaningless questions if it is.

To me it is on the same level as "why is water wet." Well, wetness is the outcome of certain molecules making sense contact with nerves, by which is formed a wet sensation in the brain. But the real pseudo question is: why is that? Ultimately, there is no answer, and that's because all explanations ultimately bottom out.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If we do not know now, how do you know it is a knowable subject?

We don't know what the bottom of the ocean looks like in many places but that doesn't mean we can't go and find out. It just takes time and resources. It could, for some mysterious reason, be unknowable, but so could the bottom of the ocean. That doesn't mean we should start accepting Atlantis as fact, does it?

How is this "faith" different from the faith to God?

We know where the brain is, we know what it is and we know how some of it works. If we want, we can scan it or physically take one and cut it apart to look at in more detail. Verifiable tests can be conducted and predictions made which can either confirm or refute various theories and hypotheses. None of this is faith, and none of it can be done to God.

 

[SithDoughnut]

But that is no explanation for the real difference between a sentient creature and a non-sentient being. One can imitate perfectly the former, but still be the latter.

What's the difference between a perfect imitation and the real thing? The only difference I see is meaningless definitions that we attach to the concept that would make a perfect imitation, which is the same in every way to the real thing, "fake". In reality, the perfect imitation is no different to the real thing. If a computer could perfectly imitate sentience, it would be sentient.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

What's the difference between a perfect imitation and the real thing?

Consciousness.

And no, it wouldn't be sentient, just a very sophisticated simulacrum.

 

[juvenissun]

We don't know what the bottom of the ocean looks like in many places but that doesn't mean we can't go and find out. It just takes time and resources. It could, for some mysterious reason, be unknowable, but so could the bottom of the ocean. That doesn't mean we should start accepting Atlantis as fact, does it?

We know where the brain is, we know what it is and we know how some of it works. If we want, we can scan it or physically take one and cut it apart to look at in more detail. Verifiable tests can be conducted and predictions made which can either confirm or refute various theories and hypotheses. None of this is faith, and none of it can be done to God.

Unknown is not can-not-know.
But unknown includes can-not-know.

How do you know an unknown is just not known yet, or can not know.

Or, how do you know all unknowns can be known.

 

[KCfromNC]

But that is no explanation for the real difference between a sentient creature and a non-sentient being. One can imitate perfectly the former, but still be the latter.

Seems like you're assuming naturalism isn't true (i.e. there must be more than the physical workings of the brain there) to prove that naturalism isn't true. Round and round you go, but it doesn't mean anything.

And no, it wouldn't be sentient, just a very sophisticated simulacrum.

Same problem with this approach. What's the difference between a system and a perfect working copy of that system. It's like saying there's only one true Honda Civic and the rest are simply a "sophisticated simulacrum". Doesn't make any sense unless you assume there's some magic at work in one of the cars which we can't reproduce. But again you're just assuming your conclusion which proves nothing.

 

[KCfromNC]

If we do not know now, how do you know it is a knowable subject? How is this "faith" different from the faith to God?

We have millennia of examples of finding answers to questions which were for a time unanswered, so it's at least a reasonable working assumption that future unknowns might be answered in similar ways.

We have no evidence or reason to have faith in gods.

They're two totally different problems.

 

[KCfromNC]

What, qualitatively, differentiates a complex non-sentient construct (a computer say) from a complex sentient construct (a human brain, let's say).

Different configurations of matter. We don't know specifically how close you need to be to a human brain to get consciousness, but it's pretty obvious that changing or removing parts from it changes or stops consciousness so there's obviously a physical component to the process.

On the other hand, there's not even a concept of how a non-physical component of consciousness would work, much less what it actually is. I don't have to add that there's absolutely no evidence for any of this undefined non-physical stuff interacting with consciousness.

Given these facts, it's reasonable to continue investigating the known physical component of consciousness. At the same time, until someone can come up with something to investigate on the non-physical side, it's also perfectly reasonable to ignore it, since there's literally nothing to consider.

Pretending that the non-physical slips in by default if we can't explain physically every single nuance of consciousness is just an argument from ignorance. If you expect to go from "we don't know particular answer X" to "therefore magic is involved in consciousness", you'll have to do a lot more work than just pointing out that humans aren't omniscient and that science doesn't know everything.