Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution

On Jul 26, 1:58 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 26 Jul, 15:24, SortingItOut <eri...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 25, 8:53 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 25 Jul, 09:38, SortingItOut <eri...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 24, 5:03 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Some regard evolution as an explanation for us. This is implausible,
and should be pointed out in the classroom.

The reason is that it is implausible that we are simply biological
mechanisms, rather than spiritual beings experiencing being humans.

It is implausible that the 'I' that consciously experiences doesn't
influence the behaviour of the human that it experiences being.

OK.

If it
were suggested that the 'I' is simply the brain, then why is it
suggested that the brain, made up of well known chemicals doesn't
follow the known laws of physics?

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that the brain doesn't follow the
known laws of physics, and it doesn't follow from your earlier
statement.

If it were suggested that it does,
and that what is consciously experienced influences behaviour, then
the person is under a misconception. According to the known laws of
physics, subjective conscious experiences don't influence behaviour.

That's quite a claim. Are you going to explain it further? Which
laws of physics are you referring to? And how do these laws apply to
subjective conscious experiences influencing behavior?

The reasoning isn't suggesting that because a single neuron doesn't
consciously experience, a special combination couldn't have conscious
experiences as an emergent property, it is just pointing out that the
emergent property wouldn't be influencing the behaviour if the brain
followed the known laws of physics.

Same questions apply.

To illustrate the issue, a hypothetical robot will be used. Supposing
there was an artificial neural network, with a billion more nodes
than you had neurons in your brain, and a very 'complicated'
configuration, which drove a robot. The robot, due to its behaviour
(being a Turing Equivalent), caused some atheists to claim it was
consciously experiencing. Now supposing each message between each node
contained additional information such as source node, destination node
which could be the same as the source node, for feedback loops), the
time the message was sent, and the message. Each node wrote out to a
log on receipt of a message, and on sending a message out. Now after
an hour of the atheist communicating with the robot, the logs could be
examined by a bank of computers, varifying, that for the input
messages each received, the outputs were those expected by a single
node in a lab given the same inputs. They could also varify that no
unexplained messages appeared.

So what would you be saying with regards to it consciously
experiencing:

A) The atheists were wrong to consider it to be consciously
experiencing.
B) Were correct to say that was consciously experiencing, but that it
doesn't influence behaviour.
C) It might have been consciously experiencing, how could you tell, it
doesn't influence behaviour.
D) It was consciously experiencing and that influenced its behaviour.

If you select D, as all the nodes are giving the same outputs as they
would have singly in the lab given the same inputs, could you also
select between D1, and D2:

D1) The outputs given by a single node in the lab were also influenced
by conscious experiences.
D2) The outputs given by a single node in the lab were not influenced
by conscious experiences, but the influence of the conscious
experiences within the robot, is such that the outputs are the same as
without the influence of the conscious experiences.

D.

Followed by:

D3) Each node acts in accordance with its own properties (e.g.
internal logic), and this is what the bank of computers verified (and
the single node in the lab was not influenced by consciousness,
therefore not D1). However, the messaging passed between nodes varies
according to what the conscious robot is doing, what it is seeing,
what questions are put to it, etc. When the consciousness decides to
work a math problem in response to a question, for example, some nodes
will get activated (i.e. receive messages) that probably wouldn't have
otherwise (therefore some nodes have different outputs when the robot
is conscious versus when it is not, therefore not D2).

Regarding your added option D3, the bank of computers varified that no
unexplained messages appeared, so how are you suggesting "that some
nodes will get activated (i.e. receive messages) that probably
wouldn't have otherwise (therefore some nodes have different outputs
when the robot is conscious versus when it is not, therefore not
D2)"?

Because D1 and D2 make no sense.

D1 makes no sense because the only thing that influences a node is
messages. How can consciousness possibly influence a single node
other than through it's inputs (messages)?

D2 makes no sense because it says that the overall set of messages is
the same whether the robot is conscious or not.

I don't know why you limited us to just those two
possibilities...other than bias, of course.

So I created D3, and I'm sure there's many more. I expect single node
verification to work just as you described. I also expect the overall
collection of messages to differ depending on what tasks the conscious
robot performs. If you ask the robot "what's 2 plus 2?" and collect
the logs, then ask the robot to raise it's hand and again collect the
logs, then compare the sets of logs, the logs will differ.

I didn't complain about you making an option D3, or ask you why you
did, I just said:

Regarding your added option D3, the bank of computers varified that no
unexplained messages appeared, so how are you suggesting "that some
nodes will get activated (i.e. receive messages) that probably
wouldn't have otherwise (therefore some nodes have different outputs
when the robot is conscious versus when it is not, therefore not
D2)"?

You seem to have replied, yet avoided answering.

When I first read "unexplained messages", I thought you meant that
there were no strange or unusual messages that made no sense to
anyone, including the designers. I now think you mean that all
messages are not only all valid, but that all messages are present and
accounted for and there are no extra messages. You must further mean
that the verification done by the bank of computers was a verification
written by the designers. In other words, "unexplained messages" is
really from the perspective of the designers. Correct?

I originally thought it was just a machine that was operating, but now
I think you mean that the machine is operating exactly as the
designers intended it to. I say that only because that's the only way
I can find that the phrase "There are no unexplained messages" has any
meaning in this scenario.

If that's the case, then my revised answer to your scenario is "None
of the above". If it passed the Turing test, I would assume (based on
the "no unexplained messages" condition) that the designers intended
it to. If I further wanted to know whether or not is was conscious, I
would simply ask the designers. I might think it was conscious based
on my observations, but the designers would know for sure.

It would be either:
A) The designers designed it for consciousness, it appears conscious,
it passes their tests, therefore it is in fact conscious. Or
B) The designers are really good at building a machine that is not
conscious but simulated consciousness well enough to pass the Turing
test (and therefore the Turing test is flawed and needs to be beefed
up).

If instead you mean that the machine is operating outside of what the
designers expected (which seems reasonable, if not very likely, for
such a complex machine), then the phrase "There are no unexplained
messages" needs to be explained to me.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... The reason being is that you admit, ... robot if it were to be consciously experiencing, ... experiencing consciousness is myself. ... certainty that you or anyone else in this thread has such experiences. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... interactions would be different if the robot was not experiencing. ... and had nodal interactions that correlated with conscious experiences, ... consciousness is part of those interactions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... robot', as it would strictly follows the laws of physics,if ... it had any experience of being a robot, ... possible to describe conscious experiences and their effects in physical ... or not the robot is conscious, you cannot say whether consciousness ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Materialist Evolutionists
    ... robot', as it would strictly follows the laws of physics,if ... it had any experience of being a robot, ... possible to describe conscious experiences and their effects in physical ... or not the robot is conscious, you cannot say whether consciousness ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... rather than spiritual beings experiencing being humans. ... subjective conscious experiences don't influence behaviour. ... configuration, which drove a robot. ... the single node in the lab was not influenced by consciousness, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading