Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 They are facts to me. Here, i look at the brain of a mouse. know the mouse doesn't have awareness, which would suggest a hightened sense of consciousness. But here we are. We know we have hightened sense of consciousenss, so its begs to reason that the atoms in our heads have reached a state of enlightenement when considering consciousness. No perhaps about it. Yes it is speculation. But from my opinion, we are the evidence to suggest this might be the case. Think of me as a Maverik in this sense.
Edtharan Posted May 27, 2008 Posted May 27, 2008 Here, i look at the brain of a mouse. know the mouse doesn't have awareness, How do you know it doesn't have awareness? Without other evidence to support that conclusion it is just an opinion. Just by looking at a Human Brain, what structures tell you that it has consciousness? Can you see a physical difference in the brains of a conscious and unconscious (or comatose) human? We know we have hightened sense of consciousenss Can you prove to me that you are conscious (more so than a mouse or a really clever computer program)? Think about this: If you are in a dream and you are talking to someone and they claim they are conscious can you prove that they are or are not conscious? If you are awake, and talking to someone and they claim they are conscious can you prove that they are or are not conscious? Until you can answer these questions in a way that provides a repeatable method to determine consciousness, you can't actually claim that "They are facts to me." They are instead you opinions (you are allowed to have your opinions, but don't call them facts if they are not). because as we have seen, there is no current technology to prove this either way. But because we can't prove either way they can therefore not be called fact. I'll tell you what, i will consult another physicist who works in the area of cognitive science, and ask whether he believes that a model of the brain requires non-classical physics, and if i was wrong, i will hold my hands up. Then it will be scientific, in the sense you mean yes? No this is not scientific. Science is about questioning and relying on evidence. If the Dr gives you actual evidence (maybe in the form of data collected form an experiment to back up what he says), then that would be scientific. If he gives that kind of evidence, then we would be relying on his evidence, not his authority. Just be cause someone is a Scientist does not mean they can't be wrong. If we just relied on some scientist's word (without the evidence to back it up) then we might have just relied on what Einstein said and dismissed Quantum Mechanics altogether. Einstein did not believe that QM was inherently uncertain and that there was an underlying classical physics underpinning it. However, he was wrong. QM does appear to be inherently uncertain. Einstein did not have the evidence to back up his claim, but because there was evidence to back up the uncertainty of QM, that is the theory that became accepted. So, can you understand now the reason that you need to back up your claims/beliefs/assumptions/etc with evidence, and not opinion (despite whoever that opinion actually comes from). No matter how intelligent or studied someone is: They can be wrong in their opinions.
Graviphoton Posted May 27, 2008 Author Posted May 27, 2008 I see a motivational and problem solving difference, at best. They cannot work systems, nor do they understand them with intelligent degree. Mice are simply not aware like humans are... if anything, its one of the lowest kinds of aware biosystems their are. Awareness, for me, again, is to self-refelct; know you exist, and not a mindless robot, which by the way, most animals are but mindless robots. They are driven on sense alone. We have developed past that stage... And yes... proving consciousness is easy. Do we all agree, we think, therefore we are?
ydoaPs Posted May 27, 2008 Posted May 27, 2008 Grav, have you done ANY research into chimps? How about bonobos?
Graviphoton Posted May 27, 2008 Author Posted May 27, 2008 Any knowledge about the Chimp family, or bonobo, is of what i have read, and watched on wildlife programs. I have never worked directly with them. Why. Have you?
Edtharan Posted May 28, 2008 Posted May 28, 2008 They cannot work systems, nor do they understand them with intelligent degree. What do you mean by systems (computers?). Mice are simply not aware like humans are... I asked for proof and you just repeat the claim . Awareness, for me, again, is to self-refelct; know you exist, and not a mindless robot, This is a tautology. To be aware, you have to know you exist, but to have a concept of "you" you need to be aware... What if you programmed a robot to be aware of itself? Would it be conscious then? There have bee a few robots that use self examination to achieve goals. They examine the stare they are in and compare that to the state that they want to be in. They then use that difference to move towards the desired state. In several examples I have seen, a robot arm examined its current position and the projected position of an incoming ball. It then change its arm's position towards the ball. It did this continuously until it caught the ball. which by the way, most animals are but mindless robots. They are driven on sense alone. Actually, recent research indicates that animals can have a quite complex internal life. Although not a peer reviewed journal, New Scientist does have an article reporting on peer reviewed research about such things: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826571.700-is-there-anything-unique-about-humans.html But I come back to my original question to you: Just by looking at a Human Brain, what structures tell you that it has consciousness? There is a test called the Turing Test designed to determine if a computer program was intelligent or not (the test has now been shown not to be the definitive indicator, but for the time it was quite good). Many of the Chat Bots that exist actually manage to fool most people into thinking that it is a real person. We have developed past that stage... Have you proof of this? Humans seem to operate of Stimulus -> response, sometimes the Stimulus is complex and the Response is Complex, but it is still stimulus -> response. Any knowledge about the Chimp family, or bonobo, is of what i have read, and watched on wildlife programs. I have never worked directly with them. Research can be reading about them. However, research does not stop once you find something that confirms your initial thoughts. Proper research involves trying to find information that disproves your initial thoughts. This is where most people fail in their research, they stop researching when they find something that agrees with them. And yes... proving consciousness is easy. Do we all agree, we think, therefore we are? This is actually a logical fallacy called a Retrospective determinism (actually it is a conclusion based on that fallacy). Therefore it is not a good argument for the existence of consciousness. It is even worse. Can you prove that I "think" (therefore am) and am not just some complex system designed to give the impression of thinking? So if true, it gives absolutely no indication that something else is conscious or not. So this doesn't actually prove it at all .
Recommended Posts