Consciousness, free will, and falsifying dualism

[scientia]

Many people have been working on this. Douglas Hofstadter, Francis Crick, and many, many others.

But producing such a theory would not, of course, disprove dualism. If a theory explains the empirical facts, that does not of itself imply that the theory is true and that all the alternatives are false.

The only current support for dualism is the lack of explanation of the source of experiential awareness. This problem has been so difficult that Harris has begun to claim that free will doesn't exist, others have claimed that even atoms have awareness, and Dennett has claimed that free will is something other than what people think. A better theory is desperately needed.

 

[Davian]

That's not my approach. If philosophy were enough to explain consciousness, Daniel Dennett would already have the answer or someone would have before Dennet.

Also if it were easily explained with neurology, I'm sure someone like Harris would have already done that.

I'm actually approaching it from four different directions and am looking for an explanation that would either prove or disprove artificial consciousness. At this point in time, I've already disproved consciousness based on Von Neuman architecture. The question is whether a different architecture would allow it.

What do you mean by "disprove artificial consciousness"?

 

[scientia]

Harris says bluntly and openly that brain processes can't explain consciousness, but can only explain the contents of consciousness (including personality as a whole). Dennett has his own objections philosophically.

That's true. Although I understand how he reached his conclusions, his limitations are obvious.

What do you mean by disproving consciousness?

I never said that. I'm saying that it is impossible to create an artificial consciousness with current computer architecture, not just difficult, impossible. The question is whether a different architecture could produce an artificial consciousness.

What do you mean by architecture and Von Neuman?

I guess you would need to understand computational theory. Everything that can be done with a computer can also be done with a punch card reader and mechanical logic. So, if you could create an artificial consciousness on a computer, you could also create one on a very large mechanical adding machine. The question that I have not answered is what it would take to be able to create an artificial consciousness. For example, is a purely mechanical consciousness possible?

 

[Received]

That's true. Although I understand how he reached his conclusions, his limitations are obvious.

I never said that. I'm saying that it is impossible to create an artificial consciousness with current computer architecture, not just difficult, impossible. The question is whether a different architecture could produce an artificial consciousness.

I guess you would need to understand computational theory. Everything that can be done with a computer can also be done with a punch card reader and mechanical logic. So, if you could create an artificial consciousness on a computer, you could also create one on a very large mechanical adding machine. The question that I have not answered is what it would take to be able to create an artificial consciousness. For example, is a purely mechanical consciousness possible?

Oooh I see.

Then yeah, sounds like a great question. It sounds like you're skeptical that such a thing could happen?

I'm going with Searle and Dreyfus in saying that computers regurgitate syntax and don't have semantics, and because the latter is important to consciousness, computers can't be consciousness.

 

[Davian]

The Christian hope of the resurrection from the dead in no way depends upon dualism.

Like most religious claims, this is unfalsifiable.

 

[juvenissun]

I explained that at the start. A theory of consciousness would disprove dualism.

You said that. But you did not explain it.
Why would it disprove dualism?

 

[Davian]

...
I never said that. I'm saying that it is impossible to create an artificial consciousness with current computer architecture, not just difficult, impossible. The question is whether a different architecture could produce an artificial consciousness.

I guess you would need to understand computational theory. Everything that can be done with a computer can also be done with a punch card reader and mechanical logic. So, if you could create an artificial consciousness on a computer, you could also create one on a very large mechanical adding machine. The question that I have not answered is what it would take to be able to create an artificial consciousness. For example, is a purely mechanical consciousness possible?

What do you mean by "consciousness"? Are you using a definition from Harris, Dennett, Metzinger, or your own? Please elucidate.

 

[Tree of Life]

Like most religious claims, this is unfalsifiable.

Well this one actually is falsifiable because it's dealing with philosophical concepts. If you can demonstrate that the concept of resurrection depends upon the concept of dualism then you have falsified my claim.

 

[Davian]

Well this one actually is falsifiable because it's dealing with philosophical concepts. If you can demonstrate that the concept of resurrection depends upon the concept of dualism then you have falsified my claim.

lol. All I know of the "concept of the resurrection" is that it is a bible story. You may want to try to provide a scientific definition for what you mean by "resurrection" so that such a discussion may proceed, but that is a rabbit hole that I am not going down.

 

[scientia]

I did like a number of points that were brought up. However, I'm not sure that it is possible to continue discussing this here due to the restrictions.

 

[Received]

Well this one actually is falsifiable because it's dealing with philosophical concepts. If you can demonstrate that the concept of resurrection depends upon the concept of dualism then you have falsified my claim.

Actually that isn't falsifiable. No philosophical concepts are technically falsifiable. Which means science, a philosophy, isn't falsifiable. So the claim that things should be falsified, given that it's a philosophy and so isn't falsifiable, shouldn't be believed. -- Provided you think we should only believe things that can be falsified. (And if you don't believe this, then there's no point in appealing to falsifiability in the context of a philosophical discussion.)