Chip with simple program for Toy

[Daryl McCullough]

Kevin Aylward says...

The second point is begging the question. How do you know which
objects are conscious and which are not? You can't use statistical
reasoning until you are able to compile *examples* of conscious
things and not-conscious things.

We can make a good start, beyond reasonable doubt.

No, you can't. Not until you have said on what basis you are calling
something "conscious".

Look you keep appealing to popular opinion: Everyone (except
the mental ill, as you point out) believes X. Therefore X is
true beyond a reasonable doubt. That's an exceedingly *bad*
form of reasoning. The overwhelming majority can be wrong,
and often is. If you're trying to form a *scientific* theory
of consciousness, then the fact that the overwhelming majority
believes whatever about consciousness is not relevant *except*
that if your theory contradicts what people generally believe,
you need to explain why people think otherwise.

The fact that some people (or 6 billion people, for that matter)
believe X is not very good evidence for X unless you look
into *why* they believe it.

That's just what we do in physics. I drop a penny and measure
how long it takes to get to the ground. I don't drop all pennies,
or watch for ever.

In this case, you haven't dropped a *single* penny, and you
are making generalizations about it. That's exceedingly
*unscientific*.

cats, dogs, seals, humans are conscious

How do you know?

computers, watches, carrots, tv sets are not conscious.

How do you know?

You are doing something *very* weird, from a scientific
point of view. It makes sense to generalize from a collection
of observations, but you *aren't* generalizing from observations.
You are generalizing from people's *opinions*. That is *never*
done in physics. Galileo didn't ask whether the majority of
people believe that heavier objects fall faster than light
objects, because people's beliefs in the matter are *irrelevant*
to the truth.

Do you want to put a serious objection to the lists above?

Yes. You are generalizing from a collection of statements,
*none* of which is an actual observation.

Are you using *introspection* as the basis for deciding that
something is conscious? In that case, you've only got one positive
example of conscious entities (yourself) and *no* negative examples.
How does it make any sense to generalize from one example to
"Consciousness is the result of Darwinian evolution"?

It has to be. There is no alternative.

That's not true. Things happen that are not due to evolution.
Cosmic rays, chemical reactions, radioactivity, UV radiation.
All of those can make changes to the physical structure of
our brains. Not all changes are evolved.

Consciousness is due to the brain, and only the brain.

How do you know that?

The only question is that, is consciousness a side effect of evolutionary
problem solving. Does consciousness actually mater, not that it was or not
selected for, either directly or indirectly. It was selected for. This is
not debatable if you accept evolution.

That's not true.

What I would say is that evolution selects for behaviors in
which living creatures react to changes in the environment in
order to improve their reproductive chances. But what does
that have to do with *consciousness*? Are you saying that
that kind of behavior *is* consciousness? Are you saying that
that kind of behavior is *evidence* of consciousness? On
what basis are you saying that?

I dont understand what you are saying.

I'm saying that you can give an evolutionary explanation for
*behavior*, because behavior affects survival and reproduction.
You can give an evolutionary explanation for brain structures
that give rise to those behaviors. So as long as you are identifying
consciousness with "the brain structures necessary to produce
such and such behavior" then I think it's fine to invoke
evolution as an explanation for consciousness. That's my preferred
approach. Consciousness is just another name for a sophisticated
process of modeling the world and acting on that model. Evolution
is certainly relevant to such a notion of consciousness. Such a
notion of consciousness is *not* circular.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[Daryl McCullough]

Kevin Aylward says...

Daryl McCullough wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding the situation. Yes, most people
would assume that a rock is not conscious, and it's a perfectly
sensible thing to do because a rock doesn't *behave* in the way
that typical conscious beings behave. That's typically what people
want to know when they ask "Is that thing conscious?": they want
to know is it paying attention to what's happening, is it noticing
who and what is nearby, will it respond to things being done to it?
Saying "Is it conscious" is *usually* a short-hand for asking such
purely behavioral questions.

That's all we need if we're only asking practical questions. We just
need to know how (and if) an object behaves in response to changing
environment.

However, if you are doing a *philosophical* investigation into
the nature of consciousness, it seems to me that either you want
to say that consciousness is *identical* to behavioral properties
(it's just a name for complex behaviors), or you allow for the
possibility, in principle, of behavior and consciousness not
coinciding. That is, you allow for the possibility of something
behaving as if conscious when it's not, or failing to behave as
if conscious when it actually is. But if you're allowing for this
disconnect between behavior and mentality, then what *is* your
basis for saying that something is or is not conscious?

I think that you really haven't thought enough about these matters.

Ahhhmmmm.....

What can I say other than, not at all. I have looked at this a fair bit.e.g.
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/consciousness.html

I'm not talking, at this point, about your theory of consciousness,
I'm talking about your statement

...it would take a lot to convince anyone that a wind up watch is
conscious.

What it would take to convince the average person is *IRRELEVANT*
to this discussion, because the average person is using the word
"conscious" pragmatically. If you are talking pragmatics, then that
is relevant, but if you're discussing philosophy or science, then
it isn't.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[Glen M. Sizemore]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:euc67l021ie@drn.newsguy.com...

I'm saying that you can give an evolutionary explanation for
*behavior*, because behavior affects survival and reproduction.
You can give an evolutionary explanation for brain structures
that give rise to those behaviors. So as long as you are identifying
consciousness with "the brain structures necessary to produce
such and such behavior" then I think it's fine to invoke
evolution as an explanation for consciousness. That's my preferred
approach. Consciousness is just another name for a sophisticated
process of modeling the world and acting on that model.

Is it, then, your view that "modeling the world and acting on that model"
are kinds of behavior?

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

I didn't wake up one day and go, a watch is not conscious. I have
already went through detailed reasons as to why it isn't, that I
simply cant be bothered to discuss such a daft idea anymore.

Hi Kevin!


Every artwork, and a clock/watch is one, holds some Magic
(prestidigitation and time), provided by the Artist/Mechanist.
Hand-made, of course, preconditioned. Other (machine made) is mixed
magic, but not without any.

You cannot distunguish its Magic, not even when the originator is not
living anymore. (The human is able to create something never seen twice
in Cosmos, but she should not do so with him/herself. Gen tech bla bla,
Brain study etc. ....all retarding stuff, IMO)

Also the breeding of other Mammals apart from us should be avoided.
They know too less about genes and all that stuff. (e.g. Dolly)

Creating something out of our mind is the best way. Checking (learning)
how it comes out...? wherefore?



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Daryl McCullough wrote:

Once again, I remind you that you were the one who
brought up watches. Nobody else has suggested that
watches are conscious.

They are consciuos as planets are, just a fewer time.

If presenting facts is "arrogance", I am guilty.

You haven't presented any facts. Do you mean facts about
schizophrenia? The thread is not about schizophrenia, it
is about consciousness. What facts have you presented about
consciousness?

Shizophrenia is like haemhorrides, it comes and goes. Someone let it
cut out.... bad idea! In both cases!!

What I would say is that evolution selects for behaviors in
which living creatures react to changes in the environment in
order to improve their reproductive chances. But what does
that have to do with consciousness? Are you saying that
that kind of behavior is consciousness? Are you saying that
that kind of behavior is evidence of consciousness? On
what basis are you saying that?

Don't forget, at what Dimension.


Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

For reference, I am strongly influenced by the Darwinian evolution
algorithm (http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/index.html).
Known, consciousness, is a direct result of properties that have
evolved to maximise replication numbers of replicates. What good is
it for a watch to be conscious? It cant walk, it cant talk.
Consciousness is no advantage to it, so it doesn't make sense
evolutionary wise, so I reject it. If something is not consistent,
with evolution, its wrong. Period.

I spit on Darwins Theory.

A clock is as wonderful to watch, as it is wonderful to watch the
amazing sun- and moon darknesses.

Everything goes out of a creator.




You would like to find the source of our ability, being conscious about
creating...

Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daryl McCullough]

In article <46099fa3$0$11906$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com>, Glen M. Sizemore
says...

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:euc67l021ie@drn.newsguy.com...

I'm saying that you can give an evolutionary explanation for
*behavior*, because behavior affects survival and reproduction.
You can give an evolutionary explanation for brain structures
that give rise to those behaviors. So as long as you are identifying
consciousness with "the brain structures necessary to produce
such and such behavior" then I think it's fine to invoke
evolution as an explanation for consciousness. That's my preferred
approach. Consciousness is just another name for a sophisticated
process of modeling the world and acting on that model.

Is it, then, your view that "modeling the world and acting on that model"
are kinds of behavior?

No, my view is that they are functions of the brain that produce
behavior.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[Lawson English]

Daryl McCullough wrote:

In article <46099fa3$0$11906$ed362ca5@nr2.newsreader.com>, Glen M. Sizemore
says...

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:euc67l021ie@drn.newsguy.com...
I'm saying that you can give an evolutionary explanation for
*behavior*, because behavior affects survival and reproduction.
You can give an evolutionary explanation for brain structures
that give rise to those behaviors. So as long as you are identifying
consciousness with "the brain structures necessary to produce
such and such behavior" then I think it's fine to invoke
evolution as an explanation for consciousness. That's my preferred
approach. Consciousness is just another name for a sophisticated
process of modeling the world and acting on that model.
Is it, then, your view that "modeling the world and acting on that model"
are kinds of behavior?

No, my view is that they are functions of the brain that produce
behavior.

Interesting division. How is behavior within the brain differentiated
from behavior outside the brain? Verbalized thought is apparently silent
speech, for instance.

 

[Daryl McCullough]

Lawson English says...

Interesting division. How is behavior within the brain differentiated
from behavior outside the brain? Verbalized thought is apparently silent
speech, for instance.

That's a fascinating subject. There are lots of clues that thought is
very closely related to behavior. For example, a recent study shows that
for normal people (not autistics, though) watching somebody perform
some action such as dancing or playing an instrument or swinging a
baseball bat causes very similar patterns in the brain as actually
*doing* those actions. (I think that this is attributed to "mirror
neutrons" but I don't remember the exact reference.)

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[Daryl McCullough]

In article <eucqee0cp7@drn.newsguy.com>, Daryl McCullough says...

Lawson English says...

Interesting division. How is behavior within the brain differentiated
from behavior outside the brain? Verbalized thought is apparently silent
speech, for instance.

That's a fascinating subject. There are lots of clues that thought is
very closely related to behavior. For example, a recent study shows that
for normal people (not autistics, though) watching somebody perform
some action such as dancing or playing an instrument or swinging a
baseball bat causes very similar patterns in the brain as actually
*doing* those actions. (I think that this is attributed to "mirror
neutrons" but I don't remember the exact reference.)

I think this might be the article I'm thinking of:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050411204511.htm

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Curt Welch wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Daryl McCullough wrote:

If the debate is about experience, then how in the world is it
pointless to ask how you know that something doesn't have
experience?

I dont have time to detailed debate with someone that wants to
prove to me that watches have consciousness.

But, the point here is how can you hope to prove it doesn't since you
are unable to define it in a way that would allow us to test the
watch to see if it were conscious?

I have already proved that consciousness is not derivable, so why would you
think that I would want to try to prove the non derivable. As I stated, I
handle this in exactly the same way as is done do in physics. I can simply
define various enites as non conscious and conscious, just like we define an
axiom the speed of light as an invariant.

I'm not arguing that a wind up watch has experience, I'm asking you
on what basis are you saying one way or the other? What counts as
evidence on such a question?

Out of any even vague ideas of how to define consciousness, a watch
is conscious is simple a non-starter. Those that dont understand
this point for a watch need to do 101 first.

Again, you have failed to answer the question. We can't have an
intelligent debate about this artifact you call consciousness if you
can't define it.

We can certainly debate without solid definitions, we just cant prove
anything. However, that does not matter, as nothing physical is provable
anyway.

On the other hand, if one is attempting some arguments as to whether
a fly is conscious, that deserves much more attention.

For reference, I am strongly influenced by the Darwinian evolution
algorithm (http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/index.html).
Known, consciousness, is a direct result of properties that have
evolved to maximise replication numbers of replicates. What good is
it for a watch to be conscious? It cant walk, it cant talk.
Consciousness is no advantage to it, so it doesn't make sense
evolutionary wise, so I reject it. If something is not consistent,
with evolution, its wrong. Period.

The watch exists because it was created by evolution. How is a watch
not consistent with evolution?

Oh dear...a conscious watch is not consistent with evolution.

It survives because it has survival
powers. They exist in a symbiotic relationship with humans. The fact
that it's not self replicating has nothing to do with evolution.
Life wasn't self replicating when it was first created by evolution

Oh...? Where does that information come from? Very unlikely, in my view. A
main idea of evolution, is that somewhere, out of billions of molecules, a
self-replicating one occurred. If a Replicator created a Replicant, how
would that Replicant generate more Replicators to generate more Replicants?

Of corse, after the fact, we can have memes that cant self replicate, yet
get replicated by a Replicatorm but thats a story for another time.

(note I use Replicator, different from Dawkins replicatoE, he got his
English wrong).

but that doesn't mean that some other force than evolution created
life.

To quote someone else from this thread: "Its clear that you just
haven't thought this thing through at all."

I have, ....

It's clear you have put a lot of thought into it. But you choose to
ignore some of the most important questions in the debate - such as
how can you tell if a watch is conscious. Or how can you prove it's
not? If you can't prove it's not conscious, we have to assume it
might be conscious.

Not at all. We can assume what we like, and see if that assumption leads to
contradictions.

Again, science is simply not about proof. Its about making somewhat
arbitrary definitions and axioms, and seeing if the predictions agree with
reality.

There's no question that a watch doesn't have the same capacity to
create complex behavior that a human has. It's no where near to a
human (duh). But it does have behavior. It's got internal and
external behavior. It reacts to it's environment. It produces it's
own behavior (hands spin around and then stop at some point).

If this type of complex behavior is not conscious, how many more
parts do you have to add before it becomes conscious? What is that
one magic part you must add before you call some hunk of matter
conscious?

If you can't answer these questions, you don't have anything to debate
other than personal opinion. You have no facts, no evidence, no real
knowledge, no proof of anything - just a shit load of personal opinion
about a word that no one has defined well enough to debate what it is.

Ho humm...

I have proven that it is quite impossible to define consciousness, you
apparently agree from your statement above, so why are *you* debating it?


--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Bob Myers wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:KUdOh.19574$7l1.16786@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
For me, the line is more usefully addressed at sometime like a fly.
There is not much point in dwelling on the trivial cases. It like,
if you do graduate E&M, Maxwell's equations are just a given. There
is little brownie points gained for deriving them. There is more
important work to get done.

But we're hardly at that point yet. No line ANYWHERE
has been cleanly drawn, so asking "why isn't it here?

Because its not really a line. Its a band of uncertainty. Below the edge of
the lower band, its no conscious, above the upper edge, its conscious.
Indeterminate in the band.

Why
isn't it THERE?" helps to draw the line even when some of
those might be "trivial" cases.

While it is impossible to say just where consciousness occurs, we can make
pretty much reasonable statements that say, a watch, a stone, a tv set is
not conscious, and a cat is. This is 101 consciousness, so lets get on to
the harder cases.

And while the grad students might think they're above
deriving Maxwell, etc., I think it should also be recognized
that a lot of really good work in theoretical physics - I am
tempted to say "most if not all" - has come from someone
looking for the threads hanging out from "well-established"
models, and pulling on them to see what starts to unravel.
That's pretty much working at the "derivation" level.

I am not really sure what you mean here. Existing models don't seem to be
working very well in explaining bits that are err unexplained. People are
trying all sorts of new approaches to get a grand unified theory, and
rejecting the old approaches. Of course, existing ideas are used to generate
new ideas.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

None of you materialists have referred to my previous post on March
25, on free will, so I guess this matter is closed. On now.

Some materialists here have seem to claim that consciousness isn't a
separate, non-physical entity, so that brain states = mind states
completely. This can be refuted by a (relatively) simple experiment,
which has been done.

Monitoring the brains of moving people, can show which electric
currents, and where, correspond to each motoric act. E.g., we can see,
brainwise, what it means to 'lift an arm'. More than that, putting
electrodes in the right places we can artificially create these
currents, and the arm of the patient will really be lifted. Now, had
consciousness been only a state of the brain, and 'a person's will'
were no more than currents in the brain, this patient (whose arm had
been lifted) would feel as if s/he WANTED to lift it, as his/her brain
is no different from one who really wants to lift it. Actually, in
experience, patients report that they feel as if someone has forced
them to lift their arms. IMHO it proves the point.

(note: no definition of consciousness is needed here (and I really
don't know if there's one). It only proves it isn't physical, so
apparently even if there's a definition, physical-scientific ideas
aren't going to help much here).

And a few words on metrialiasm in general, as it seems to be ruling
here. No, I'm not going to refure meterialism here, and I don't need
to. Materialists have to prove their case. You see, science isn't
about observations. It's about a very limiting way of observing the
universe. E.g., is someone comes and claims he's a prophet, and tells
as a few facts known to him by prophecy - non of us will get them as a
valid scientific observation. So science is about observations made
with very firm ideas of what is a valid observation and what is not.
That means that all the phenomena not observable by these means are
outside the scientific debate. There's a whole world there, out of
Science. Now the materialist comes and claims that it doesn't exists -
what isn't observed in scientific means doesn't exist. It's like a
greek geometrician claiming that every geometric theorem which isn't
provable by a ruler and a pair of compasses isn't true. Clearly, the
burden of proof lies on the materialist.

But, I'll give materialists a small point to ponder about, something
that amazed my years ago. You know, the stomach liquids can digest
almost everything. They can digest even another creatures's stomach,
should one care to eat it. But, the stomach doesn't digest itself.
More than that, when a craeture dies, this stomach immediately starts
digesting itself. Well, dear materialists, has something non-material
acted here while the creature was alive? or do you think the matter of
the stomach changed in the moment of death as to make it digestable?

And a last point about leprechauns (for you, RichD). About 400 years
ago, if you came to a scientists (or just a man on the street) and
told him there're a lot of invisible waves, undetecable by all known
means, that flow everywhere, you'd be laughed at. Then came Newton and
discovered the infra-red, and now invisible electromagnetic waved are
widely accepted as reality. That gives a knock-out to the old
Aristotelean thesis of what-I-can't-measure-doesn't-exist (and I don't
care whether it was really him of one of his students to put it on his
name). How do you know that no one will come, 200 years from now, with
a leprechauns-detector? How can you ever claim they don't exist?
Inablity to either prove or refute something should leave a rational
mind in doubted state, not to choose one way or another.

And now. I don't believe leprechauns exists. But I do it for a better
reason than not being able to detect them.

 

[Daryl McCullough]

Kevin Aylward says...

While it is impossible to say just where consciousness occurs, we can make
pretty much reasonable statements that say, a watch, a stone, a tv set is
not conscious, and a cat is. This is 101 consciousness, so lets get on to
the harder cases.

I would say that you haven't yet passed consciousness 101. The final
exam question is: Give a single example of a system that is not conscious,
and explain how you know that.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[PD]

On Mar 27, 3:08 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mar 24, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

The universe and everything in it however isn't circular -

It indeed is.This is in fact very well known and understood.

yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not?
Look mate these issues are pretty fundamental and unresolved.

An inertial frame is a collection of objects
which are not accelerating with respect to one another.

What's the problem?

Your description is a problem.

Stomp on your gas pedal in your car.
During the acceleration, the passenger seat, the radio, the cup
holder, the steering wheel, and the door latch comprise a collection
of objects which are not accelerating with respect to one another.
Does this collection represent an inertial frame?

PD

 

[Don Stockbauer]

On Mar 28, 5:06 am, part...@yahoo.com wrote:

None of you materialists have referred to my previous post on March
25, on free will, so I guess this matter is closed. On now.

Some materialists here have seem to claim that consciousness isn't a
separate, non-physical entity, so that brain states = mind states
completely. This can be refuted by a (relatively) simple experiment,
which has been done.

Monitoring the brains of moving people, can show which electric
currents, and where, correspond to each motoric act. E.g., we can see,
brainwise, what it means to 'lift an arm'. More than that, putting
electrodes in the right places we can artificially create these
currents, and the arm of the patient will really be lifted. Now, had
consciousness been only a state of the brain, and 'a person's will'
were no more than currents in the brain, this patient (whose arm had
been lifted) would feel as if s/he WANTED to lift it, as his/her brain
is no different from one who really wants to lift it. Actually, in
experience, patients report that they feel as if someone has forced
them to lift their arms. IMHO it proves the point.

(note: no definition of consciousness is needed here (and I really
don't know if there's one). It only proves it isn't physical, so
apparently even if there's a definition, physical-scientific ideas
aren't going to help much here).

And a few words on metrialiasm in general, as it seems to be ruling
here. No, I'm not going to refure meterialism here, and I don't need
to. Materialists have to prove their case. You see, science isn't
about observations. It's about a very limiting way of observing the
universe. E.g., is someone comes and claims he's a prophet, and tells
as a few facts known to him by prophecy - non of us will get them as a
valid scientific observation. So science is about observations made
with very firm ideas of what is a valid observation and what is not.
That means that all the phenomena not observable by these means are
outside the scientific debate. There's a whole world there, out of
Science. Now the materialist comes and claims that it doesn't exists -
what isn't observed in scientific means doesn't exist. It's like a
greek geometrician claiming that every geometric theorem which isn't
provable by a ruler and a pair of compasses isn't true. Clearly, the
burden of proof lies on the materialist.

But, I'll give materialists a small point to ponder about, something
that amazed my years ago. You know, the stomach liquids can digest
almost everything. They can digest even another creatures's stomach,
should one care to eat it. But, the stomach doesn't digest itself.
More than that, when a craeture dies, this stomach immediately starts
digesting itself. Well, dear materialists, has something non-material
acted here while the creature was alive? or do you think the matter of
the stomach changed in the moment of death as to make it digestable?

And a last point about leprechauns (for you, RichD). About 400 years
ago, if you came to a scientists (or just a man on the street) and
told him there're a lot of invisible waves, undetecable by all known
means, that flow everywhere, you'd be laughed at. Then came Newton and
discovered the infra-red, and now invisible electromagnetic waved are
widely accepted as reality. That gives a knock-out to the old
Aristotelean thesis of what-I-can't-measure-doesn't-exist (and I don't
care whether it was really him of one of his students to put it on his
name). How do you know that no one will come, 200 years from now, with
a leprechauns-detector? How can you ever claim they don't exist?
Inablity to either prove or refute something should leave a rational
mind in doubted state, not to choose one way or another.

And now. I don't believe leprechauns exists. But I do it for a better
reason than not being able to detect them.

I can make choices. I have free will (marked down from $1.98).

 

[Lawson English]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Curt Welch wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Daryl McCullough wrote:
If the debate is about experience, then how in the world is it
pointless to ask how you know that something doesn't have
experience?
I dont have time to detailed debate with someone that wants to
prove to me that watches have consciousness.
But, the point here is how can you hope to prove it doesn't since you
are unable to define it in a way that would allow us to test the
watch to see if it were conscious?

I have already proved that consciousness is not derivable, so why would you
think that I would want to try to prove the non derivable. As I stated, I
handle this in exactly the same way as is done do in physics. I can simply
define various enites as non conscious and conscious, just like we define an
axiom the speed of light as an invariant.

The speed of light has been tested many times. That makes it a non-axiom.

I have already provided a definition of consciousness that makes a
reasonably robust distinction between obvious non-conscious things and
conscious things, though there are gray areas:

any living thing has consciousness: it maintains a boundary between self
and not self-and responds to the not-self in ways that tend to support
the continued existence of self. Any one-celled or higher organism fits
this definition. Virii may not. Sperm cells may not (interesting
speculation about the evolution of sperm in those last two sentences).
Normal watches do not. Some other, more elaborate machine, might.

 

[Lawson English]

PD wrote:

On Mar 27, 3:08 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 24, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

The universe and everything in it however isn't circular -
It indeed is.This is in fact very well known and understood.
yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not?
Look mate these issues are pretty fundamental and unresolved.
An inertial frame is a collection of objects
which are not accelerating with respect to one another.

What's the problem?

Your description is a problem.

Stomp on your gas pedal in your car.
During the acceleration, the passenger seat, the radio, the cup
holder, the steering wheel, and the door latch comprise a collection
of objects which are not accelerating with respect to one another.
Does this collection represent an inertial frame?

PD

The distinction made in elementary texts is flawed. An accelerating car
and a non-accelerating car are both already in a non-inertial frame wrt
to the perpendicular acceleration of gravity. In an accelerating car,
any and all objects fixed to a surface perpendicular to the
acceleration of the car are still in an inertial frame of reference wrt
that surface. Only in the special case of "Free fall" can you have a
truly inertial frame of reference, leaving aside micro-gravity issues.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Daryl McCullough wrote:

Kevin Aylward says...

The second point is begging the question. How do you know which
objects are conscious and which are not? You can't use statistical
reasoning until you are able to compile *examples* of conscious
things and not-conscious things.

We can make a good start, beyond reasonable doubt.

No, you can't. Not until you have said on what basis you are calling
something "conscious".

I have already explained many times, it is inherently impossible to define
conscious. If someone tells me that that kick in the balls hurts, I believe
him. I know what it feels like.

The basis for anyone of us to declare consciousness is referral to oneself
and note of the fact that they and we are constructed simular and behave
simular. In other areas, that is a problem, but not in the case of
consciousness. For example, if someone says they believe in god because he
spoke to them, we can argue that he was hallucinating. In the case of
declaring consciousness, a hallucination is just another aspect of
consciousness. Hallucinations do not disprove consciousness, true
hallucinations do disprove that particle piece of god evidence.

We add up a weighted sum of all the characterises we believe are relevant to
consciousness. Many of these calculations are non consciously performed.
That's how the brain works. Its a Darwinian process within a Darwinian
universe. We can't understand our brain fully, because our brain is what we
are using to analyse the measurements of. Our very measurements disturb what
we are measuring.

I dont have the time to list all the factors hat I use for my "its
conscious".

Look you keep appealing to popular opinion: Everyone (except
the mental ill, as you point out) believes X. Therefore X is
true beyond a reasonable doubt. That's an exceedingly *bad*
form of reasoning. The overwhelming majority can be wrong,
and often is. If you're trying to form a *scientific* theory
of consciousness, then the fact that the overwhelming majority
believes whatever about consciousness is not relevant *except*
that if your theory contradicts what people generally believe,
you need to explain why people think otherwise.

The fact that some people (or 6 billion people, for that matter)
believe X is not very good evidence for X unless you look
into *why* they believe it.

And this is all new to me?

That's just what we do in physics. I drop a penny and measure
how long it takes to get to the ground. I don't drop all pennies,
or watch for ever.

In this case, you haven't dropped a *single* penny, and you
are making generalizations about it. That's exceedingly
*unscientific*.

cats, dogs, seals, humans are conscious

How do you know?

computers, watches, carrots, tv sets are not conscious.

How do you know?

You are doing something *very* weird, from a scientific
point of view. It makes sense to generalize from a collection
of observations, but you *aren't* generalizing from observations.
You are generalizing from people's *opinions*.

Oh dear...no, I simply don't have the time to give the details.

That is *never*
done in physics. Galileo didn't ask whether the majority of
people believe that heavier objects fall faster than light
objects, because people's beliefs in the matter are *irrelevant*
to the truth.

Do you want to put a serious objection to the lists above?

Yes. You are generalizing from a collection of statements,
*none* of which is an actual observation.

Do *you* actually dispute the list. Are you claiming that seals are non
conscious and that a good night out clubbing, as in seal clubbing seems an
attractive way to spend the evening.

Are you using *introspection* as the basis for deciding that
something is conscious? In that case, you've only got one positive
example of conscious entities (yourself) and *no* negative examples.
How does it make any sense to generalize from one example to
"Consciousness is the result of Darwinian evolution"?

It has to be. There is no alternative.

That's not true. Things happen that are not due to evolution.
Cosmic rays, chemical reactions, radioactivity, UV radiation.
All of those can make changes to the physical structure of
our brains. Not all changes are evolved.

Darwinian evolution is

1 Replication of traits
2 Selection (by the enviroment)
2 Randam variation of the replicant.'s traits.

A replication gain of unity or zero is an allowable value for the parameters
of evolution.. Cosmic rays, chemical reactions, radioactivity, UV radiation.
are just methods of the environment to randomly vary a Replicant traits.

Consciousness is due to the brain, and only the brain.

How do you know that?

Your going around in circles. Look, we have to make an operational start
somewhere, otherwise there is nothing.

No majic axiom - http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/magic.html. The
support for this axiom is extensive. Physics works, or e.g.
http://www.randi.org/, for the absence of supernatul etc..

Outline...Experimentally, with the working definitions of consciousness that
are actually used by practising scientists, the brain is the best object to
consider as the seat of consciousness. For example, we can take drugs, feel
different, and measure electrical correlations to these drugs in the brain.
We can take pieces of the brain away, lobotomies etc, and note the effect of
behaviour that we attribute to a conscious person. Many studies have been
performed, see for example, http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/. The physical
evidence for consciousness is the brain is overwhelming.

The only question is that, is consciousness a side effect of
evolutionary problem solving. Does consciousness actually mater, not
that it was or not selected for, either directly or indirectly. It
was selected for. This is not debatable if you accept evolution.

That's not true.

It is.

Look, do you believe in gods? ever heard of the "nothing makes sense in
biology without evolution?

The brain is a physical construct generated by physical replicatants (DNA),
undergoing a Darwinian process. All human physical structure is the result
of the Darwinian Replication, Selection, and Random Variation process.
Evolution is a fact. Human structure is a result of that fact, including the
brain.

Consciousness (no magic axiom) is strictly due to the brain, therefore,
consciousness is strictly a result of Darwinian adaption to the enviourment.

What I would say is that evolution selects for behaviors in
which living creatures react to changes in the environment in
order to improve their reproductive chances. But what does
that have to do with *consciousness*? Are you saying that
that kind of behavior *is* consciousness? Are you saying that
that kind of behavior is *evidence* of consciousness? On
what basis are you saying that?

I dont understand what you are saying.

I'm saying that you can give an evolutionary explanation for
*behavior*, because behavior affects survival and reproduction.
You can give an evolutionary explanation for brain structures
that give rise to those behaviors. So as long as you are identifying
consciousness with "the brain structures necessary to produce
such and such behavior" then I think it's fine to invoke
evolution as an explanation for consciousness. That's my preferred
approach. Consciousness is just another name for a sophisticated
process of modeling the world and acting on that model.

Consciousness, is more. A kick in the balls *hurts*. Just how is that
accounted for by "a sophisticated process of modeling the world and acting
on that model"? That is the "hard problem". Reducing pain to a sentance just
dont cut it.

Evolution
is certainly relevant to such a notion of consciousness. Such a
notion of consciousness is *not* circular.

Sure, If you ignore exactly the thing that consciousness is that is what we
are, there is not a circular definition. However, once you bring in the
notion of pain and pleasure, that is feelings, it all falls down. We
experience, no amount of words can deny this, or explain it with reference
to non conscious matter. Godel, tells us that this is just the way things
are. new properties of physics must always have to be introduced. There is
no reason to suppose that there *should* be an explanation to why a kick in
the balls hurts. Where by default, I am excluding the imanimate ohh.. it
tells one to protect ones nuts so that we can reproced via Darwin.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Kevin Aylward]

RichD wrote:

On Mar 24, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
The universe and everything in it however isn't circular -

It indeed is.This is in fact very well known and understood.

yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not?
Look mate these issues are pretty fundamental and unresolved.

An inertial frame is a collection of objects
which are not accelerating with respect to one another.

Er..how do you define acceleration?

Look, Rich, dont even go there.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice