mindless

There's a point where the probability of something happening is so low that you can assume it will never happen without ever having to worry about being wrong.

This is far past that point.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

It's a hypothetical, man!

OK, suppose the entire universe is an entirely predetermined machine, apart from you, the only person with a consciousness.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Is it necessarily the case that deterministic systems can't enjoy subjective experiences, though?

Why?

edited 7th Jun '11 4:49:37 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

I didn't say a deterministic system. I am specifically positing one where only one entity actually possesses a consciousness, and everything else just acts according to a pattern resembling the actions of conscious beings. Compare solipsism.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

But that would be so difficult to happen as to be impossible.

It would be as if the Harry Potter universe had happened exactly in the books until the present day, except that magic didn't actually exist and all appearances of it were actually due to a series of coincidences and quantum accidents.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

If the P-zombies are capable of acting convincingly, then they clearly have a decision-making process that works just as effectively as that of the solipsist. All it would imply is that consciousness is disconnected from rationality.

edited 7th Jun '11 5:17:32 PM by Jinren

And is that so hard to believe?

Kill all math nerds

It is if part of their decision making process is claiming they have consciousness.

And even arguing about p-zombies, like we're doing on this very thread. There is no reason a p-zombie would ever consider its own existence.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

I don't see why.

Kill all math nerds

Because talking about consciousness implies you think about consciousness, and thinking about consciousness implies that you have consciousness.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

So if I have one of those voice programs read this thread out loud, does it become conscious?

More so than it would be if I made it read some Forum Games thread?

Kill all math nerds

No, but it didn't generate the material itself.

If you had a computer that could post in this thread without giving itself away as nonconscious, I would bet strong money that that computer was itself conscious.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Talking about consciousness implies you have processes related to evaluating the concept of consciousness. This doesn't mean you need to understand how you're evaluating it.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Or some sorta qauntom monkey on a typewriter thing.

Please.

Or a mind that works in the same way as ours that's somehow deadened to experience. Which would be the most logical solution if someone is a P-zombie, since the requirement is that they have to be perfectly convincing, which means they have to be capable of advanced reasoning and creative output, including waxing about how much they love having qualia.

In other words thinking about P-zombies involves implicitly assuming that the reasoning mind and the seat-of-consciousness or soul or whatever are not only meaningfully distinct, but separable enough that you can have one and not the other (which is contrary to what most people think as far as I'm aware). Which turns the real debate into one on the nature of consciousness and the soul, despite the fact that no information on this subject is presented, because for the whole P-zombie idea to work every testable aspect of the zombie must match perfectly with a "complete" human.

Hence incoherent.

You can make the question coherent, by changing it from one about humans to one about AI, or the Chinese Room (which is about AI, plus some unnecessary fluff involving a door, and an apparent misconception that mutable memory is somehow irrelevant to computer programs). In that case the subject isn't necessarily expected to be perfectly replicating a human, so you have a bit more room for arguing. I'd still say that it's meaningless and unnecessary though: if something behaves like a human, treat it like a human and drop all the pseudo-racist, can-never-become-a-real-boy nonsense.

edited 8th Jun '11 4:00:47 AM by Jinren

Re: the reptilian brain - reptiles aren't mindless. They have a very simple experience of the world, but they do think.

What parts of Terri Schiavo's brain were present and working? Have scientists figured out everything those areas are capable of doing?

I used to think the brainstem was just breathing, heart beat, etc. But on further reading I found out it's involved in voluntary movement, basic perceptual processing, and some other things. We really don't have more than a general sense of what any part of the brain does. And that's even assuming that all brains are the same, when your brain is more unique than your fingerprint. Often part of the lost function from brain damage is taken over by other parts, for example.

I'm not sure Terri Schiavo had any awareness, but I'm not sure she didn't, either. That's what really horrifies me about her case, and more generally about the whole idea of the empty shell person.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

My opinion on the Chinese Room, just for kicks:

Of course the guy inside the room doesn't know Chinese, but that's not the point. The room itself does know Chinese.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

I never said they were mindless, I was using a term for a specific section of the brain. If you dislike this, go change the language.

Fight smart, not fair.

The phrasebook knows Chinese.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

No, the phrasebook provides static rules that can translate snippets of English and Chinese into each other.

(Edit: for some reason I read that as meaning "any old phrasebook" as opposed to "the AI in this particular room". May not be what you meant?)

The room is equipped with an AI, which (contrary to the massive misconception in the original thought experiment) almost certainly doesn't use static rules, but rather learning algorithms that are modified by the act of being run (e.g. artificial neural network): the program internalizes the information from each conversation action and can remember content from previous actions. Therefore, you could make a very solid argument that the room does in fact understand Chinese - even when the AI is being run by the man tracing lines on a piece of paper.

This is what makes the debate difficult.

edited 9th Jun '11 6:51:11 AM by Jinren

It depends on which are the machine's Chinese responses. If the machine is capable of giving meaningful responses in any conversation, it's programmed for having (or effectively having) viewpoints, ideas and beliefs, even a concept self, and is capable of giving significant arguments.

If the program was sophisticated enough to allow for changes on those ideas and viewpoints, it'd be indistinguishable from a human consciousness.

It produces intelligent responses to stimuli. It has beliefs and makes assumptions that it can change. It posesses a concept of self. Saying that such a machine is not conscious wouldn't be accurate.

A machine that invariably passes the Turing test should be described as meaningfully conscious.

edited 9th Jun '11 6:47:37 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

The whole conscious-argument is the same as the god-argument; you can't directly prove it, you can only perceive the results.

edit: As Heathen said, if it acts like it is conscious you should treat it as conscious.

edited 9th Jun '11 6:50:29 AM by honorius

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

@honorius: No, the book-man-instructions system knows Chinese, if you want to be explicit about it. The book alone only knows Chinese vocabulary, which is only one part of knowing Chinese.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

I wasn't serious about it though.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling