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 Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 09:42 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bailey
More generally, is it reasonable to expect a computer program to have any side effects - like feeling pain - as it grinds its way to an answer.
Only if the mechanism and its programming support the processes that produce pain. Certainly not as an epiphenomenon.

Quote:
People have to choose between accepting the idea that a computer simulation of a brain (or entire body) would be equivalent to the real thing, or rejecting the idea (my position).
Why do I have to choose at this point in time?

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links - register to remove ads
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 11:10 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
Only if the mechanism and its programming support the processes that produce pain. Certainly not as an epiphenomenon.
Ah, now if you said this about any ordinary process it would make sense - a computer can only generate printout (say) if a printer is attached and there is suitable software available - but pain is supposed to be experienced by the very brain that is being simulated - you can't just shunt this function off!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
Why do I have to choose at this point in time?
LOL - well nothing requires you to take a view at all on anything - but I thought you had already accepted this choice - maybe you are having second thoughts!

David
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bailey
Ah, now if you said this about any ordinary process it would make sense - a computer can only generate printout (say) if a printer is attached and there is suitable software available - but pain is supposed to be experienced by the very brain that is being simulated - you can't just shunt this function off!
I don't seem to be able to make myself understood here. It may not necessarily be the case that any old simulation of a brain will produce consciousness. The simulation may have to be performed with certain kinds of hardware, in certain configurations, with certain sorts of software running, and so forth. Since consciousness is a result of a process, all the details of the process, both hardware and software, may matter. Heck, it could turn out that only wetware is capable of consciousness, so the simulation would have to be run on a wetware computer, possibly one very similar to an actual brain. Who knows?

In fact, here's a question for you: What if we built a brain? Would it be conscious?

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 03:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
I don't seem to be able to make myself understood here. It may not necessarily be the case that any old simulation of a brain will produce consciousness. The simulation may have to be performed with certain kinds of hardware, in certain configurations, with certain sorts of software running, and so forth. Since consciousness is a result of a process, all the details of the process, both hardware and software, may matter. Heck, it could turn out that only wetware is capable of consciousness, so the simulation would have to be run on a wetware computer, possibly one very similar to an actual brain. Who knows?

In fact, here's a question for you: What if we built a brain? Would it be conscious?

~~ Paul
I am not sure that is entirely fair - as I am sure you know, pure computation can move from hardware to hardware without being affected in any way. The internal architecture of a Celeron processor (say) is utterly different from an 80486 chip, yet it can run all the software that used to run on the old chip - but a lot faster. As another example, Java can run on a vast range of architectures. I think the real point is that physicalists are more or less limited to looking at the computation that the brain does - because it is essentially impossible to conceive of what else a physical system can do that might relate to consciousness. That is why most of them sneer at the idea that QM is involved in a fundamental way. Also, you are rather backing away from your original assertion that the simulation would indeed capture everything of the original.

On to your question - if we built a brain! First, I would say that our respective positions are not exactly symmetrical. Many materialists seem to almost take the view that consciousness is already almost understood - it is only when really pushed that they start to back off a bit. Conversely, we on the other side are really trying to point out that there is a big black hole of knowledge in this area - even at the conceptual level. Thus, I feel it is reasonable to demand more definite answers from materialists.

Obviously my answer is a maybe - my bet is that at some point in the womb, our brains attach to some mental stuff. Quite probably that attraction process is affected by our genes, but that is another matter. Thus the answer to your question depends on whether an adult brain - created from scratch - still possesses that attachment mechanism. Of course, perhaps the building process would involve a developmental process analogous to what goes on in the womb, in which case.....

Maybe such a brain would indeed be like a TV set with no signal!

I know you will say that the above description is highly speculative, but by demonstrating how inadequate (and downright peculiar) the conventional view of consciousness is, I think such speculation seems quite justified.

David

Last edited by David Bailey; 12-03-2007 at 03:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 04:09 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 67
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
Obviously my answer is a maybe - my bet is that at some point in the womb, our brains attach to some mental stuff. Quite probably that attraction process is affected by our genes, but that is another matter. Thus the answer to your question depends on whether an adult brain - created from scratch - still possesses that attachment mechanism. Of course, perhaps the building process would involve a developmental process analogous to what goes on in the womb, in which case.....

Maybe such a brain would indeed be like a TV set with no signal!
David,

Do you have any ideas as to what practical steps we could take to move towards scientific confirmation or disconfirmation of your above speculation?
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 04:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 449
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
This is exactly why I feel this computer gedanken experiment has so much to tell us! Thinking about computers can clean up a lot of fuzzy thinking. For example, it would be completely trivial to write a program that printed "Ouch!" every time the left mouse button was pressed. Would in be feeling pain - I doubt it!

More generally, is it reasonable to expect a computer program to have any side effects - like feeling pain - as it grinds its way to an answer.
I don't think that a lot of these materialists are saying it's a side effect. Rather consciousness literally is the function (execution of an algorithm) itself.

Quote:

Ian, can I take it that when you replied "Yes, absolutely anything that can reproduce the function associated with pain will experience that pain. It could be some device consisting of tin cans, or whatever.", you were answering on behalf of the materialist viewpoint - not your own belief?
It's certainly not my own belief! Quite frankly I think the reductive materialists are off their heads.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 04:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 449
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike View Post
David,

Do you have any ideas as to what practical steps we could take to move towards scientific confirmation or disconfirmation of your above speculation?
What about inventing a matter duplicator, duplicating a person, and seeing if this duplicated person is conscious. I bet she wouldn't be.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 05:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian View Post
What about inventing a matter duplicator, duplicating a person, and seeing if this duplicated person is conscious. I bet she wouldn't be.
LOL - Mike did say practical!

I suspect we are a long way from being able to demonstrate (or refute) my speculation. However, it is interesting that you do get odd cases like:

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1202.html

This describes a reasonably successful maths student with very little brain tissue! Perhaps this makes more sense if you assume that we attach a chunk of mental matter.

I feel reproducible, accepted ψ effects may be the way to progress. Imagine someone with enhanced ψ (maybe as a result of a training program) who could reliably communicate with a foetus, or with someone as they were dying (to observe the detachment of the mental components, perhaps).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian View Post
I don't think that a lot of these materialists are saying it's a side effect. Rather consciousness literally is the function (execution of an algorithm) itself.
This is where I feel that the simulation idea really pays off. These arguments are steeped in philosophical subtleties, but seem to fall to bits when you examine them in the context of computer simulation. For example, a simulated brain may or may not be experiencing pain with no outputs either way. Do the functionalists really propose that these two possibilities are equivalent!

While talking about a real brain there is far more room for hand-waving - such as a need for feedback to/from the body, various physiological effects, etc.

Recent legal arguments regarding execution by lethal injection possibly bring that question uncomfortably close to home!

David
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 05:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
What about inventing a matter duplicator, duplicating a person, and seeing if this duplicated person is conscious. I bet she wouldn't be.
How would you test it? Would you ask the person if she was conscious? Would the person would say "no"?

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 05:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
How would you test it? Would you ask the person if she was conscious? Would the person would say "no"?

~~ Paul
The only reason anybody asks something like that is because of all the obscure arguments based on such ideas as "consciousness is a user illusion" (e.g. Tor Nørretranders). A non-conscious person would be unconcious!!

David
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links - register to remove ads
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 10:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0

Ad Management by RedTyger