1 Million Dollar Challenge To Materialists – Prove A Computer Can Experience A Dream!

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by sparky

is the JREF prize unfair ?
or do you think it is unfair because nobody has succeeded in taking the money ?

I think it is very similar in spirit to OM's prize! The point is that we all have an inner life - complete with dreams (I assume), but it is essentially impossible to provide 'hard' evidence of that to materialists. Materialists also have an inner life, of course, but the seem to view consciousness in a schizophrenic sort of way, so that while off duty (so to speak) they live like everyone else, but on duty, they doubt that the brain is good for much but suffering illusions. No account of an experience - such as an NDE - counts for anything, they just say "prove it"! The problem is that they can't prove or define consciousness in a computer.

Ultimately, all of maths is suspect, because the validity of a mathematical argument can only be judged using fallible brains!

OK - I know that rambled a bit, but I wanted to say it

David

[FastEddieB]

I had to think of this:



But isn't the whole problem something like the Turing Test?

If a computer outputs: "I had a dream last night", how do you know it really had a dream, or is just programmed to say so, directly or indirectly.

And, as said previously, isn't it difficult in theory to even prove with certainty that another human is actually conscious and not just programmed to act conscious?

[Danny_D]

I have my doubts that some of the skeptics dont even grasp the problem of consciousness. Some years back I started a thread over at JREF about the "hard problem of consciousness". It went on and on over a hundred pages with out any common consensus, well obviously
There were all these ideas that the act of processing information IS consciousness and even a thermostat is conscious to some extent....this might be true, as Open mind pointed out in the OP, theres the possibility of panpsychism, but this is just shifting the problem down to the level of particles.

The reason why consciousness is such an elusive problem is the fact that it is not an idea or concept that one can conceptualize, it is simply the act of being aware.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

It is what you experience when you sleep, every night.

This definition is not crisp enough for a challenge.

Dreams can be somewhat influenced in content by the body senses ... but it doesn't explain dreams, if people lose sight or go deaf, they still can see and hear in dreams. It is not critical to dreaming.

What if they lose all senses, both internal and external? Do you know what their dreams are like then?

Not my problem, there is no technology to measure when a computer is feeling angry or it's sensation of colour or it's taste of apple pie or the sharp pain in it's computer phantom limb.

So you're offering a challenge without specifying what we actually have to do to win it. I guess it was a rhetorical challenge.

The amusing thing here is that you say you're basing this on the JREF challenge rules, where "[they] decide what qualifies as a proper test, the level of extraordinary evidence required," but then you respond "not my problem" to those very questions. This is a beautiful example of how bollocksed up some people's view of the JREF challenge is.

I do NOT actually approve of unfair prize challenges. I was parodying the JREF style of challenge.

And yet your parody has it backward.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I think it is very similar in spirit to OM's prize!

Apparently not.

The point is that we all have an inner life - complete with dreams (I assume), but it is essentially impossible to provide 'hard' evidence of that to materialists. Materialists also have an inner life, of course, but the seem to view consciousness in a schizophrenic sort of way, so that while off duty (so to speak) they live like everyone else, but on duty, they doubt that the brain is good for much but suffering illusions. No account of an experience - such as an NDE - counts for anything, they just say "prove it"! The problem is that they can't prove or define consciousness in a computer.

Why is that a problem? My lack of ability to prove X somehow counts as evidence for Y?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Danny D

The reason why consciousness is such an elusive problem is the fact that it is not an idea or concept that one can conceptualize, it is simply the act of being aware.

And this overly simplistic definition is exactly what lets people get away with claiming all sorts of things about consciousness.

The reason why computation is such an elusive problem is the fact that it is not an idea or concept that one can conceptualize, it is simply the act of computing.

I could say that, too, but you wouldn't let me get away with it.

~~ Paul

[Danny_D]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

And this overly simplistic definition is exactly what lets people get away with claiming all sorts of things about consciousness.

The reason why computation is such an elusive problem is the fact that it is not an idea or concept that one can conceptualize, it is simply the act of computing.

I could say that, too, but you wouldn't let me get away with it.

~~ Paul

Paul, you can make it as complicated as you want, the underlying problem wont go away.
This is the basic explanation from materialists; To bury consciousness under all that complexity as something fuzzy and undefined. The second one to deny it even exists

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by FastEddieB

But isn't the whole problem something like the Turing Test?

If a computer outputs: "I had a dream last night", how do you know it really had a dream, or is just programmed to say so, directly or indirectly.

And, as said previously, isn't it difficult in theory to even prove with certainty that another human is actually conscious and not just programmed to act conscious?

With regard to Turing argument .... I agree with Graham Dunstan Martin's excellent book ....

'..... This must be one of the most bandied-about fallacies ever to be proffered. It is immediately evident that an appearance of thinking is not the same as thinking; that one may appear to think without thinking; and that one may think without appearing to do so. It is a fallacy to suppose that if an imitation is good enough to deceive then it is no longer a deception. On the contrary, it is only if an imitation is good enough to deceive that it becomes a deception.

There is, however, an ironic consequence to Turing's view. If it were indeed possible to simulate all the external appearances of being conscious, to such a degree that no difference could ever be detected between a conscious person and an unconscious machine, then what would follow? What would follow is this: it would then become inexplicable what the purpose or function of consciousness is, that is why consciousness is present in the world at all

Graham Dunstan Martin - 'Does it Matter'

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Why is that a problem? My lack of ability to prove X somehow counts as evidence for Y?

~~ Paul

Well it counts by weakening some of your arguments that use that same inability. If you say there is no proof that NDE's are not just hallucinations or dreams (actually there is some evidence), it is worth pointing out that proof is very hard to come by in these matters. You could have the most wonderfully 'artificially intelligent' computer, and you would still be unable to prove it was actually conscious (experienced qualia).

David

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

With regard to Turing argument .... I agree with Graham Dunstan Martin's excellent book ....

I am really enjoying this thread.

To Paul: The difference in computing power between a human brain and a computer is irrelevant, because the level of mechanical complexity is not what causes consciousness. Instead, it is necessary to carry out the complex instructions delivered to a body, just as the chips on a computer allow it to carry out, but not to invent, instructions. There is such a thing as artificial intelligence, but it is not the same thing because there, the AI is modeled after something else, and it isn't artificial.

AP