and so does quite a big part of academic philosophy. i personally would name foucault and derrida as philosophers of that same kind. BUT please don't judge on philosophy just with those folks in mind. analytic philosophy has been struggling for more than 100 years now not to be confused with that kind of phil (i tend to call blabber-philosophy simply 'literature' instead of 'philosophy').
again: if you think science is the best means for understanding the world (so do i), naturalistic philosophy will support your view! 

even if science could answer all your questions, why do you believe what you perceive is true?

i believe in consciousness solely because im thinking the thought. that other human beings have a consciousness on their own which i can compare to mine i am not sure of. they could easily just be a subset of my own consciousness.

also, if we take for granted that most human beings HAVE a consciousness, im quite convinced that each one is unique and different. 

this doesn't change anything at all about this discussion for anyone who argues to achieve results. 

If you produce a conscious being through artificial selection, have you actually understood consciousness? 

"even if science could answer all your questions, why do you believe what you perceive is true?"

Because it doesn't matter if we're hooked up to machines feeding reality to us or not. We still have to work and eat and shit, lest we die.

Those types of pseudo-philosophical musings drive me up the walls. They sound very deep, but they're not. 

what's with the machines bullshit?

can you PROVE what you perceive is true? no? so, then stop calling this pseudo-philosophical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes#Philosophical_work

Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Meditations on First Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum, ("I think, therefore I am").

Therefore, Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been proven unreliable. So Descartes concludes that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing. Thinking is his essence as it is the only thing about him that cannot be doubted.

but i see, you're a matrix generation troll. 

Hehe yeah that was my point :) 

Imagine a zombie BlackDog in a putative physicalist universe. Since everything is physical here there would have to be some physical process or condition responsible for consciousness occuring in me, which a zombie would have to lack in order to be a zombie. However, a zombie is supposed to be a perfect physical clone! Since it can't both lack and possess whatever attribute results in consciousness, the concept of a zombie makes zero sense in a physicalist universe.

That means that the zombie concept is built entirely on the assumption of a form of dualism to even make basic sense, and can't be used to bolster dualism for fear of circular argument.

First of all, I've stopped using the word consciousness to attempt to avoid conflating subjective experience with cognitive thought.

So zombies require dualism? Correct, becuase epiphenominalism is a form of dualism.

However, this new thought experiment doesn't require zombies:

Suppose we design a "conscious" robot (conscious in the sense that physicalists call something conscious). We build two of them. We put them in identical rooms. We turn up the temperature in the rooms to the point that the robots are feeling pain.

Okay, now suppose I'm one of those robots. They are phsyically identical, under identical conditions, and yet...they are very different becuase I'm experiencing one robot's pain, but I experience none of the other robot's pain. 

The standard idea is that humans have thier homuncolus, the inner self that watches as the outer self acts, usually called the consciousness.

The difference between a machine mind and an organic one will eventually only be the components. In the future we will have the ability to make exact physical copies of anything - which raises the issue of the intrinsic worth of the original, especially when you can remove flaws and improve in subsequent versions.

The lack of free will may be real, but since it's impossible to control it then it's not worth worrying about - achieving geneuine free will could well mean evolution to the infinate. The gnosticism or hubris involved in this speculation is evident - do other people even exist?

I'd say I'm a nihilist / pessimist when it comes to the big questions. 

If Descartes was so smart, how come he's dead? 

Okay, now suppose I'm one of those robots. They are phsyically identical, under identical conditions, and yet...they are very different becuase I'm experiencing one robot's pain, but I experience none of the other robot's pain.
And the other robot would feel that robot's pain (since the feeling of pain happens in the brain). What is the difference? Maybe they even behaved prettymuch the same way.

Maybe I didn't get this analogy.

In password databases you see that people very often have similar passwords. Proof against free will? Perhaps. ;) 

Well I've sort of run out of stuff to say on this specific topic, I don't think we really disagree on much, but I'm definitely failing to communicate the last 5%. Plus I would agree with anyone like wrath that accused me of borderline wankery, since this idea is in the same category as idealism, solipsism, existence of god, etc, and pretty much unresolvable.

So let's talk about stuff that has more meat, more details to chew on, like all these tangential questions you guys keep bringing up. From now on, pretend I'm a physicalist.

Consciousness (in the physicalist sense you guys keep using):

* Consciousness continuum: I take issue with the idea consciousness being a yes/no proposition, of a supercomputer "attaining consciousness" in the sense of crossing some threshold. It seems more plausible to me that all organisms are conscious, and that the more complex the brain, the more lucid the consciousness. Imagine the less lucid moments in your own life, such as dreaming, being half-awake, being very intoxicated, or being very young (3 years old, let's say.) These are all examples of being conscious, but less so. I imagine that less complex brains in animals and even in insects are similarly less lucid, but still conscious.

* Consciousness defined by nature of input: I also think it's important to think about consciousness as tied to sensory input, and I think each animal's consciousness is given shape and definition by what forms of input and what resolution/richness each form provides. For example, humans have a very detailed vision, as do many predatory birds such as hawks. On the other hand, dogs have good senses of smell, and their vision is less detailed and lacks color variation. I think this has a huge impact on what consciousness is actually like for these creatures. 

Though I'm not sure what is demonstrated by that thought experiment. Two disparate physical objects are prima facie, different - one of them is *here*, and the other one is over *there*. :) Distinctions don't get much more fundamental than that.

"Identical, different robots" is no more a problem for physicalism than are "identical, different carbon atoms", as I see it. Fascinating argument though. 

continuum;
It's a question of definition. And of ethics. I personally have no problem classifying certain organisms as "below" the threshhold of consciousness. Chances are, consciousness requires a certain amount of available neural matter. Bio-psychology is largely a matter of real estate and energy consumption. The mere presence of a central nervous system isn't enough.

nature of imput;

I'm not so sure about that. That's very much a question of the post-thalamus neural network. Sensory systems serves two purposes; to orient the organism in space, and feed it information about its surroundings. The fact that humans primarily rely on our vision to do that doesn't mean our sense of the world is different from that of a dog or a bird. We all need to build mental maps of our surroundings. If we use vision or olfactory input to do so matters less . Smelling it or seeing it or hearing it doesn't matter, we just need to know where we are in relation to the charging bear. And how best to proceed. 

I still don't understand what's the point of it? What do you expect to reveal? It's completely trivial to me. 

I was trying to explain my claim that a subjective experience is outside the domain of objective science, by creating a situation where there is a distinction that isn't physical.

But I'm done with that; I think we'll have a more interesting conversation if we move on. 

I recommend poking around on http://arxiv.org or the like to get an idea of where current AI research is going. 

this isn't interesting at all, imho.

it doesn't matter, brings us no insight into ourselves; only in the unlikely case of us creating a new consciousness being (or something that might have one) we should make sure to give it SOME means to express itself. Then it will.

More interesting question: will we understand it? or rather, will we be able to recognize whatever it will behave as conscious behaviour? 

I came in here to fart.


...


..ahhhhhhhhh

*returns from whence he came 

Looking at the idea of the world objectively… If we are scientifically able to reverse engineer the cognitive processes of the brain, in the end, it must be some algorithm that creates the subjective experience. How the fuck is that possible? And what sort of scientific results, or observations, could conclude with this?
I know this sounds ridiculous, but science could never tackle questions about the nature of existence, whether it’s the subjective experience or if you believe in an objective world. In either case, science is based on results of this world, observable patterns; it can not be used to describe the world itself.

I can't believe how people attach themselves to science. Looking at the theories of the big bang, all that is known is that all the energy we perceive came from a single point of space, how is that closer to the truth people want?
Science is good for getting results in this world, but it can never go beyond that 

What is useful that is outside of "this world"? 

and the cycle begins again... 

If we are scientifically able to reverse engineer the cognitive processes of the brain, in the end, it must be some algorithm that creates the subjective experience.
Or some combination of algorithms. And it might not be algorithms at all. I happen to believe it is, the computational theory of mind makes alot more sense than many others. To me, I should say. But it might not be, we don't know for sure yet.

How the fuck is that possible?

Why the fuck shouldn't it be? Every other mystery we've cracked so far has been boiled down to algorithms or similar heuristic rules. The mind isn't magic. It exists in, and is the product of, a universe governed by laws that cannot be broken.

I know this sounds ridiculous, but science could never tackle questions about the nature of existence

Yeah, I wouldn't bet on that. Mysticists and philosophers have been singing that song since the invention of the scientific method.

"You can't explain why things fall down, it's God's will!"

"Right, but don't for one second believe you can figure out what the stars are and where in the universe we live. That's beyond human understanding."

"Ok. You did figure that out. But listen, the question of life is impossible to answer! Impossible I say!"

"Oh fuck, it's Darwin... Tell him we'll call back."

We may very well reach a limit to human intelligence and understanding. The math for theoretical physics is getting awfully complicated. Dogs can never understand radio waves, they simply lack the gray matter needed for such abstract concepts. I'm sure there is a similar limit to the human brain. though we could always try breeding smarter humans.

In either case, science is based on results of this world, observable patterns; it can not be used to describe the world itself.

Newsflash: The world, and the universe, is made up of observable patterns and probabilistic events.

I can't believe how people attach themselves to science.

I can't believe how people attach themselves to tarot cards, horoscopes, crystal healing, ley lines, and other concepts of God. When have they ever been able to accurately predict and explain the world? But there you go.

Looking at the theories of the big bang, all that is known is that all the energy we perceive came from a single point of space, how is that closer to the truth people want?

All that is known? I'd argue that that knowledge is pretty important.

Anyway, what truth is satisfied by mysticism then? That God created the world and governs it? Then what created him?

Science is good for getting results in this world, but it can never go beyond that

Beyond? There is no beyond. This is it. Just because Man can formulate the Question doesn't mean there has to be an Answer out there that satisfies him. We're not that important. 

 

I agree with roughly 110% of that post.