Parapsychology and alternative medicine forum

Part of parapsychology articles and blog


Go Back   Parapsychology and alternative medicine forums of mind-energy.net > Parapsychology and psi abilties > Skeptiko Podcast

Skeptiko Podcast The Official discussions forum of skeptiko.com podcast

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 05:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,052
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sparky View Post
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
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links - register to remove ads
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 07:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 295
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 07:26 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 97
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 08:20 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Mind
It is what you experience when you sleep, every night.
This definition is not crisp enough for a challenge.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 08:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
I think it is very similar in spirit to OM's prize!
Apparently not.

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 08:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,820
Default

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 09:18 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
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

Last edited by Danny_D; 02-06-2010 at 09:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 01:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,722
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FastEddieB View Post
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 ....

Quote:
'..... 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'

Last edited by Open Mind; 02-06-2010 at 01:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 01:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,052
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2010, 01:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Mind View Post
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
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links - register to remove ads
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0

Ad Management by RedTyger