What is it that gives people a consciousness?

Page 2 of 9 [ 133 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

20 Sep 2008, 8:28 pm

Drakilor wrote:

chever wrote:

Drakilor wrote:

I love metaphors; they allow me to easily make pseudo-substantial points in any argument.

Briefly, explain how a state of consciousness arises strictly from electrical and chemical activity.

Don't be ridiculous; I obviously don't know. Do I need to fill a gap by babbling about souls and ghosts that rely on a lot more presumptions that "it just happens" does?

Ooh! I've got another one.

Hilary Putnam wrote:

Let T be a Turing machine which "represents" me in the sense that T can prove just the mathematical statements I prove. Then using Gödel's technique I can discover a proposition that T cannot prove, and moreover I can prove this proposition. This refutes the assumption that T "represents" me, hence I am not a Turing machine.

(Quote taken horribly out of context)

_________________
* here for the nachos.

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

20 Sep 2008, 9:06 pm

Drakilor wrote:

Don't be ridiculous; I obviously don't know. Do I need to fill a gap by babbling about souls and ghosts that rely on a lot more presumptions that "it just happens" does?

Look at the word 'metaphysical' closely. It breaks down into two parts: a prefix 'meta-' that more or less means 'operating upon' in this case and 'physical', obviously referring to things in this physical world.

For me, the metaphysical is a lot like a C pointer. When you pass a datum by value to a function, there is no way in hell you can see the address of the original. You just can't do it. You need some kind of frame of reference to do that: a pointer in this case. In the same way, you need a special frame of reference that is not in this physical world to experience it. Bits of matter can't reflect on themselves. That's ridiculous.

Since I'm not a philosophy student and have very clumsy explanations for my beliefs, here's a more convincing form of the same argument (or a similar argument) by a doctor of philosophy:

http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/09/a ... alism.html

Taking up this position is not without its own problems, but it has much, much less than mind-body physicalism.

And, no, I wasn't being entirely facetious about the thermostat. John McCarthy, the man who coined the term 'artificial intelligence', seriously suggested that even a thermostat has beliefs, which is one of the strangest things I ever heard.

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

Drakilor
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Age: 177
Gender: Female
Posts: 186

20 Sep 2008, 9:34 pm

chever wrote:

Drakilor wrote:

Don't be ridiculous; I obviously don't know. Do I need to fill a gap by babbling about souls and ghosts that rely on a lot more presumptions that "it just happens" does?

This argument is useless, typing that much makes you a excellent typist.
[edited for content by sinsboldly]

_________________
"Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind."

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

20 Sep 2008, 9:41 pm

Drakilor wrote:

This argument is useless

Explain why my argument or Alan Rhoda's (better) argument is useless.

Drakilor wrote:

typing that much makes you an excellent typist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

and:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel.htm

(Notice that I have reverted back to being terse as I usually am.)

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

21 Sep 2008, 12:31 am

chever wrote:

The brain itself is a wagon without a horse.

(The wagon is clearly useful, but doesn't go anywhere without the horse.)

Does that mean that the brain is the wagon and the horse is the body?

In the biological sense, consciousness seems to work through chemical and electrical reactions in the brain, which can be interpretated as the mind not being able to function and to exist without the body, which could be a case against dualism and favoring naturalism I suppose.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

patrick6
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 186
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,257
Location: London, U.K.

21 Sep 2008, 1:27 am

Drakilor wrote:

Not science, move this to the philosophy section.

Not science? Would you give me a break? Science can be applied to anything and everything.

Science can be used to try and answer this question. I doubt that any scientists know (as of now) what gives us a consciousness, but though science, scientists will possible one day fully understand what it is that gives us a consciousness.

Last edited by patrick6 on 21 Sep 2008, 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

patrick6
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 186
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,257
Location: London, U.K.

21 Sep 2008, 1:30 am

Drakilor wrote:

This argument is useless, typing that much makes you a excellent typist.

Quit being so rude to everyone.

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

21 Sep 2008, 10:46 am

greenblue wrote:

In the biological sense, consciousness seems to work through chemical and electrical reactions in the brain, which can be interpretated as the mind not being able to function and to exist without the body, which could be a case against dualism and favoring naturalism I suppose.

However, simply bouncing electrons and neurotransmitters around does not and cannot explain 1st person qua 1st person.

patrick6 wrote:

Drakilor wrote:

This argument is useless, typing that much makes you a excellent typist.

Quit being so rude to everyone.

I responded but I'm afraid she's going to call me a n****r in her next volley.

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

Drakilor
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Age: 177
Gender: Female
Posts: 186

21 Sep 2008, 11:06 am

chever wrote:

Drakilor wrote:

This argument is useless

Explain why my argument or Alan Rhoda's (better) argument is useless.

Drakilor wrote:

typing that much makes you an excellent typist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

and:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel.htm

(Notice that I have reverted back to being terse as I usually am.)

You're a [super nice guy] for automatically assuming that I used the word "fag" as a derogatory term for "homosexual", you bigot.
I was obviously referring to you fagging at such a stupid subject, something the moderator failed to grasp when they replaced it with "excellent typist".

patrick6 wrote:

Drakilor wrote:

Not science, move this to the philosophy section.

Read this thread again. Do you see references to scientific research or do you see philosophical ramblings?

patrick6 wrote:

Drakilor wrote:

This argument is useless, typing that much makes you a excellent typist.

Quit being so rude to everyone.

Any sane person would be unphased by this "rudeness" of yours.

greenblue wrote:

I responded but I'm afraid she's going to call me a n****r in her next volley.

[Black man (who can be just as intelligent as any other person of another race)]

_________________
"Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind."

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

21 Sep 2008, 11:36 am

Drakilor wrote:

Read this thread again. Do you see references to scientific research or do you see philosophical ramblings?

What is inherently wrong with philosophical arguments?

Drakilor wrote:

Any sane person would be unphased by this "rudeness" of yours.

Any sane person would not object to being called a 'fag'?

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

donkey
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 May 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: ireland

21 Sep 2008, 11:44 am

drakilor.
one day when you lose your anger you will not find a need to flame others.

it is a very AS course and approach to pick apart others words.
Some AS can be very accurate and precise but are rarely correct.

you have done the same in other posts.

most AS here have been picked on abused and bullied at some course in their life.
while we arent in control of what has happened to us, we are in control of how we respond to it.

_________________
a great civilisation cannot be conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within- W. Durant

lau
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,791
Location: Somerset UK

21 Sep 2008, 11:50 am

chever wrote:

...However, simply bouncing electrons and neurotransmitters around does not and cannot explain 1st person qua 1st person.

Your proof of this assertion would be...?

Anyway, my stance is that we are on the verge of having the tools that will allow us to apply science to the whole question of "consciousness".

Some people seem to insist that that is impossible, but in support of their feelings on the matter, can offer no clear reasoning.

I am looking forward to discussing consciousness with the first fully self-aware, conscious machine intelligences. I'm sure they will have just as hard a time explaining it... at least initially.

_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer

Drakilor
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Age: 177
Gender: Female
Posts: 186

21 Sep 2008, 1:40 pm

chever wrote:

Drakilor wrote:

Read this thread again. Do you see references to scientific research or do you see philosophical ramblings?

What is inherently wrong with philosophical arguments?

Wrong Planet Forums Forum Index -> Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

donkey wrote:

Nice try, but as a "neuro typical", I'm not quite as queer as you are.

_________________
"Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind."

donkey
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 May 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: ireland

21 Sep 2008, 1:52 pm

oh yes i should have checked, silly presumption by me.
carry on then.

_________________
a great civilisation cannot be conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within- W. Durant

sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

21 Sep 2008, 2:00 pm

Drakilor wrote:

Nice try, but as a "neuro typical", I'm not quite as queer as you are.

well, he is not on a neurotyical site trolling the normies, either. That in itself is pretty queer.

Merle

_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

21 Sep 2008, 7:13 pm

lau wrote:

chever wrote:

...However, simply bouncing electrons and neurotransmitters around does not and cannot explain 1st person qua 1st person.

Your proof of this assertion would be...?

Mathematical proof? That's the only kind of proof I recognize, and I can't offer such a proof one way or the other. But see the Rhoda argument from earlier.

lau wrote:

I am looking forward to discussing consciousness with the first fully self-aware, conscious machine intelligences. I'm sure they will have just as hard a time explaining it... at least initially.

I intend to do my doctorate research on artificial intelligence. It would be really cool if strong AI were possible. I can't say that it isn't, but I harbor a lot of doubt.

Drakilor wrote:

chever wrote:

What is inherently wrong with philosophical arguments?

Wrong Planet Forums Forum Index -> Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

They overlap to some degree.

Get a copy of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach by Norvig and Russell if you don't know what I mean.

Drakilor wrote:

Nice try, but as a "neuro typical", I'm not quite as queer as you are.

You're at least this queer:

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

Page 2 of 9 [ 133 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

What is it that gives people a consciousness? Post Reply New Topic

What is it that gives people a consciousness?