Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The Case for Idealism

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Image

Just a pile of atoms.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 23, 2018 8:16 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I subscribe to Cosmic Idealism...


Every cart needs a carthorse.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 23, 2018 8:17 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:I actually have a degree in psychology...


Don't you mean Philosophy?

Which university?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 23, 2018 8:19 am
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:No, a computer cannot be conscious

Ok, are you conscious?
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Wed May 23, 2018 8:20 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

going to have to start striking through all the fapping going on here
)

Call it what you want but facts are facts: I provided an argument and you didn't. That's exactly what happened. That's not fapping, that's literally reality. You can't strikethrough the truth, sorry.

Then can a human be conscious?


Yes, because we're not a computer.

How can you tell the difference between the quality of consciousness a human allegedly possesses, and the allegedly simulated consciousness a computer is limited to possess?


A computer is reducible to the structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of its basic elements while consciousness is not.
Last edited by Monistic Idealism on Wed May 23, 2018 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wed May 23, 2018 9:00 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Ok, are you conscious?


Apparently you haven't even read Premise 1 of my argument lol fail
Wed May 23, 2018 9:02 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Don't you mean Philosophy?


Nope, I mean psychology: The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context. I seem to have a relevant degree to this matter. Where's yours...?

Which university?


None of your business. No sense in doxing myself. Try addressing my arguments instead of degrading yourself to personal judgments.
Wed May 23, 2018 9:05 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Don't you mean Philosophy?


Nope, I mean psychology: The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context. I seem to have a relevant degree to this matter. Where's yours...?


A relevant degree in whether there's only mind in the universe.

I don't think you're being honest with yourself.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Which university?


None of your business. No sense in doxing myself. Try addressing my arguments instead of degrading yourself to personal judgments.


What 'personal judgments'?

You're the one who felt the need to talk about yourself, I merely followed up with a perfectly normal question.

For example, I studied Anthropology BSc and Human Evolution MSc,... and if you asked me where, I would immediately reply "at University College London".

Have I now 'doxxed' myself?

Regardless, you can't hang authority claims on something you're unwilling to justify.

If your degree is relevant, then so is where you received that degree.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 23, 2018 9:26 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:Call it what you want but facts are facts: I provided an argument and you didn't. That's exactly what happened. That's not fapping, that's literally reality. You can't strikethrough the truth, sorry.


I didn't strike through the truth: I struck through the fapping.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Then can a human be conscious?


Yes, because we're not a computer.


Pure genius.

Next up, circles are circular because they're circles.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
How can you tell the difference between the quality of consciousness a human allegedly possesses, and the allegedly simulated consciousness a computer is limited to possess?


A computer is reducible to the structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of its basic elements while consciousness is not.


Even Sesame Street could see the flaw you committed. One of these things is not like the other.

Computer is not functionally equivalent to consciousness.

Instead, computer would be functionally equivalent to brain. Consciousness would be functionally equivalent to the processes running, for the computer, a program or operating system.

You have declared that minds exist without brains, but you have yet to show this to be true other than repeating yourself every time you've been challenged on it.

But now you say that programs can't run without computers?

Are you sure you've given this enough thought to be so smug and condescending to strangers on the internet?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 23, 2018 9:31 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Ok, are you conscious?


Apparently you haven't even read Premise 1 of my argument lol fail



Or, apparently your argument is terminally insufficient in establishing your desired argument lol fail
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 23, 2018 9:32 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Sparhafoc wrote:
Monistic Idealism wrote:I actually have a degree in psychology...


Don't you mean Philosophy?

Which university?



Last time, it was Philosophy.

Only it wasn't.

It was a degree that was being taken, not received.

And it was from The Open University.

:geek:

At least under Monistic Idealism, you get to reinvent yourself to be exactly the same. But i fear you spelled Mononanism wrong.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 23, 2018 9:33 am
AkamiaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 147Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Then can a human be conscious?


Yes, because we're not a computer.

How can you tell the difference between the quality of consciousness a human allegedly possesses, and the allegedly simulated consciousness a computer is limited to possess?


A computer is reducible to the structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of its basic elements while consciousness is not.

This reeks of special pleading to me, the way you're going about this. As Sparhafoc pointed out, consciousness is not analogous to the computer itself, but the software it runs. The computer is more analogous to the brain.

This, of course, doesn't explain why computers can't be conscious. If you can't tell the difference between a supposedly conscious human and a supposedly conscious computer beyond the rather superficial fact that humans are organic lifeforms and computers are not, I don't see what good it does to deny the idea that computers can be conscious, especially if you put them and yourself through a blind test where you can't even tell which is which in any meaningful way while interacting with them.

I'm not even sure it really has to be on the same level as a human. If we consider non-humans to be conscious – like just about every other animal on the planet, for example – then I'd say that Mindstorms robot Ghost Knight brought up earlier is as meaningfully conscious as Caenorhabditis Elegans is.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Last edited by Akamia on Wed May 23, 2018 2:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Wed May 23, 2018 9:47 am
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

So you accept that you are conscious but a computer can not be.

Now, can a computer programed to think exactly like you conclude thus that it is unconscious in a different manner than you?
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Wed May 23, 2018 10:34 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:So you accept that you are conscious but a computer can not be.

Now, can a computer programed to think exactly like you conclude thus that it is unconscious in a different manner than you?



Even the extremely primitive bots are shaking their collective processors in despair.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 23, 2018 1:54 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

A relevant degree in whether there's only mind in the universe.


???
My degree is relevant to the scientific study of the mind, which is what you brought up. You brought up credentials, and it seems I have some in the relevant field. Where's yours?

What 'personal judgments'?


You're going to credentials, not the argument. The level you have descended to is personal, not logical.

You're the one who felt the need to talk about yourself, I merely followed up with a perfectly normal question.


You're the one who brought up credentials, not me. You're the one who asked which university I went to, not me. Come on man, don't lie like this, your comments are public. We can all see for ourselves that you're the one who descended to this level. Try addressing the actual arguments now.

I didn't strike through the truth: I struck through the fapping.


What I said was a literal description of reality, and you struck through it, hence you struck through the truth. Deal with it.

Next up, circles are circular because they're circles.


Can you really not put the pieces together here? You asked about computers and if they are conscious and then asked "well how can people be conscious then??" as if people were computers. I merely noted they are not computers. Your weak attempt at sneaking in this premise that humans are essentially computers is not accepted, so I showed you that I denied it.

Computer is not functionally equivalent to consciousness.


I don't know why you're saying this as if it negates what I'm saying. I agree with this lol

Instead, computer would be functionally equivalent to brain. Consciousness would be functionally equivalent to the processes running, for the computer, a program or operating system.


That would mean you're reducing consciousness to functional states of the brain, but the hard problem of consciousness already deals with this. Describing such functions doesn't tell us what it's like to have experiences from the first-person. This would contradict your identity thesis here and push you towards consciousness being irreducible.

You have declared that minds exist without brains


When did I say that? Stop attacking straw men. If anything, that's you who said that: apparently computers can be conscious according to you, even though there's no brain. Go ahead and say the computer is analogous to the brain, it's still not a brain.

Or, apparently your argument is terminally insufficient in establishing your desired argument lol fail


Or you could just, ya know, read the first premise of the argument lmao
Wed May 23, 2018 3:13 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

As Sparhafoc pointed out


This reeks of a sock account lol

consciousness is not analogous to the computer itself, but the software it runs. The computer is more analogous to the brain.


As I pointed out a bit ago, the hard problem of consciousness deals with this already. Describing functional states doesn't tell us what its like to have experience from the first-person. If consciousness were identical to such functions, then describing such functions should be sufficient, but it's not. Notice how we can describe hardware and software just fine, we can reduce everything to something more fundamental. We cannot do this with consciousness, so your example breaks down.

This, of course, doesn't explain why computers can't be conscious.


I cited an argument from John Searle on this if you had read closer. What I noted in my previous paragraph and the argument from leads me to believe computers cannot be conscious. Address my arguments before you conclude I have no reasons for what I believe.
Wed May 23, 2018 3:19 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

can a computer programed to think exactly like you conclude thus that it is unconscious in a different manner than you?


It doesn't make sense to say the computer is thinking. There is no thinker, it's just a bunch of code and algorithms and such. You can make a program perform all kinds of functions but that's no reason at all to believe there's some thinking going on or consciousness.
Wed May 23, 2018 3:21 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
As Sparhafoc pointed out


This reeks of a sock account lol


Well, according to your supposed belief system, it's all one big sock account in the sky. :)


Monistic Idealism wrote:
consciousness is not analogous to the computer itself, but the software it runs. The computer is more analogous to the brain.


As I pointed out a bit ago, the hard problem of consciousness deals with this already.


No, no it doesn't. The hard problem of consciousness doesn't 'deal' with anything at all, it not being a solution, but rather a question.


Monistic Idealism wrote: Describing functional states doesn't tell us what its like to have experience from the first-person.


Ergo, you can't declare that AI is not conscious as you will never know.


Monistic Idealism wrote: If consciousness were identical to such functions, then describing such functions should be sufficient, but it's not.


You should take the needle off your broken record as it's only you who has (repeatedly) tried to contend that function is identical to substrate, whereas everyone else has disagreed with you.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Notice how we can describe hardware and software just fine, we can reduce everything to something more fundamental. We cannot do this with consciousness, so your example breaks down.


And you just made the exact same error again.

In your analogy, the computer hardware is not equivalent to consciousness, but rather to the brain.

You've now added the notion that you can reduce software to something more fundamental. Great. So now you can take apart a hard drive and show me where Adobe photoshop is in it... or any of the words you've just typed on your computer.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
This, of course, doesn't explain why computers can't be conscious.


I cited an argument from John Searle on this if you had read closer.


It wasn't an argument.


Monistic Idealism wrote: What I noted in my previous paragraph and the argument from leads me to believe computers cannot be conscious. Address my arguments before you conclude I have no reasons for what I believe.


You have a reason for what you believe, but it's a bad reason because it's all an extended multiple year attempt to justify another belief.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 23, 2018 3:42 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
A relevant degree in whether there's only mind in the universe.


???

My degree is relevant to the scientific study of the mind, which is what you brought up. You brought up credentials, and it seems I have some in the relevant field. Where's yours?


Firstly, if you had studied psychology, you would know that's bollocks. Psychology is a massively disparate field which has no necessary implication with respect to the idea of whether mind is all there is or not.

Secondly, I didn't 'bring it up' - you did. It's still there just a few posts back to see.

Thirdly, you brought it up because you're attempting to appeal to authority as your argument has failed to persuade. You're trying to pretend that others don't get your argument because it requires expertise. It's your defining pattern.

Finally, I don't believe you have a degree in psychology anymore than I believed you had a degree in philosophy when you lied to people about it before.

I've already told you my qualifications, and the university at which I studied. Do I now toss in a 'do try and read' jibe? I won't bother with the playground tactics you appear to find so vital to discussion.

Incidentally, people who have been to university tend to exhibit certain characteristics that are not present in your discourse. This was noted many years ago by someone else, someone you actually respect, and you were the object example they gave of clearly not having attended university.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
What 'personal judgments'?


You're going to credentials, not the argument. The level you have descended to is personal, not logical.


Again, this is factually not what occurred.

What actually occurred is that you wrote

viewtopic.php?p=186288#p186288

I actually have a degree in psychology....


Whereas, I had never once talked about qualifications or degrees prior to that.

However, once you appealed to your degree, I then asked you which institution of education you studied at, and you suddenly became coy and tossed out a bizarre notion that knowing the institution would somehow reveal your personal information. :lol: This is clearly bonkers - thousands of people study at university, and knowing which one you studied at would offer me not so much as a jot of information as to which of those students you supposedly are.

As if anyone credible would first declare they have a degree then refuse to share from which institution they studied at. This just doesn't happen.

Funnily, though, I've witnessed another evangelizing monistic idealist do exactly that before! :D

Regardless, I don't believe you. Sorry.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
You're the one who felt the need to talk about yourself, I merely followed up with a perfectly normal question.


You're the one who brought up credentials, not me.


Are you bonkers, bro?

You appear to think that repeatedly asserting something makes it true.

viewtopic.php?p=186288#p186288

See that? Yes, that's where YOU declared your qualification.

It's the 8th post in this thread.

So rather than repeat yourself ad nauseum - show where I talked about qualifications prior to that post. Given I only made TWO posts in this thread prior to that, one should imagine it would be very easy for you to show me wrong.

Go on then. I'll wait.


Monistic Idealism wrote: You're the one who asked which university I went to, not me. Come on man, don't lie like this, your comments are public. We can all see for ourselves that you're the one who descended to this level. Try addressing the actual arguments now.


And I asked you which university you went to AFTER you declared you had a degree.

So given the nature of your admonition to me, why are you lying like this when your comments are public and 'we' can all see for ourselves that you're the one who brought up your alleged degree: not me.

What strikes me as most amusing about this is how you've tried this in the past and it ended the exact same way! :lol:



Monistic Idealism wrote:
I didn't strike through the truth: I struck through the fapping.


What I said was a literal description of reality, and you struck through it, hence you struck through the truth. Deal with it.


Whereas, what I struck through was:

Way to completely ignore my rebuttals.


Which is now a 'literal description of reality'? Is this feat of declaration how you gained your degree? :lol:

No, the reality is that you keep ignoring all the bits of peoples' posts you don't want to answer, then telling them they ignored your post.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Next up, circles are circular because they're circles.


Can you really not put the pieces together here?


Yes, I can, which is why I am mocking the shit out of you for your supercilious vacuity.


Monistic Idealism wrote: You asked about computers and if they are conscious and then asked "well how can people be conscious then??" as if people were computers. I merely noted they are not computers. Your weak attempt at sneaking in this premise that humans are essentially computers is not accepted, so I showed you that I denied it.


What's laughable about this is that it exposes how thin the veneer of knowledge is that you possess about this topic.

No, I wasn't likening humans to people, I was actually 'sneaking in' the problem of solipsism that plagues idealism. How can you know a computer cannot possess consciousness? If you don't have a metric beyond 'because it's not human' then your metric is nothing more than masturbation. People like you got lost in their navels for millennia.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Computer is not functionally equivalent to consciousness.


I don't know why you're saying this as if it negates what I'm saying. I agree with this lol


:lol:

So gently have I poked, and so quickly the facade has fallen.

I've explained your error three times, and now you say that is what you meant?

Again, your own words: Come on man, don't lie like this, your comments are public.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Instead, computer would be functionally equivalent to brain. Consciousness would be functionally equivalent to the processes running, for the computer, a program or operating system.


That would mean you're reducing consciousness to functional states of the brain,...


That's not what reductionism necessarily entails.


Monistic Idealism wrote:... but the hard problem of consciousness already deals with this.


Again, to educate you so you don't continue to make this mistake: the hard problem of consciousness doesn't 'deal' with anything. Rather, it outlines the difficulty in explaining how physical phenomena and experience are related.

I am pretty sure you've been told this dozens and dozens of times by now, aside from the couple of times just in this thread.


Monistic Idealism wrote: Describing such functions doesn't tell us what it's like to have experiences from the first-person.


No, it doesn't. But nor does idealism, so it's hardly a problem specific to reductionism or physicalism.

Idealism has a further problem: how does mind create reality? And how then does the created reality impinge on the mind? What does it mean to experience something that was itself created by the experiencing thing?


Monistic Idealism wrote: This would contradict your identity thesis here and push you towards consciousness being irreducible.


Or it is a misunderstanding or misapplication of terminology: a category error.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
You have declared that minds exist without brains


When did I say that? Stop attacking straw men.


Well, it's becoming rapidly clear that you don't even know what you're talking about, let alone what others are talking about... from earlier:

Jamest wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Mind also can't be reduced to non-physical as we know of no minds existing without a physical substrate, and the minds we do know of apparently cease existing when the physical substrate is damaged or dies.


The mental itself is the substrate, the fundamental substance of reality.


So you say that mental itself is the substrate, the fundamental substance of reality, but then somehow you didn't say that minds exist without brains? :lol:

So which came first, the mind or the brain? Mind, right? Right? Is that really a strawman or your position? Of course not.

So you are saying that mind existed without brains, so mind is not contingent on brains. Ergo, exactly as I pointed out, and therefore not a strawman in the slightest.

While I understand the difficulty for you in keeping on top of your poorly conceived ideas, I don't think it's much of a challenge to remain consistent across just 3 or 4 posts.

But well done for evading another difficulty you didn't want to address.



Monistic Idealism wrote: If anything, that's you who said that: apparently computers can be conscious according to you, even though there's no brain. Go ahead and say the computer is analogous to the brain, it's still not a brain.


It's amazing how you can go from pretending you didn't say what you actually said, to then claiming I said something I never did.

Recall that I asked you a question (How can you tell the difference between the quality of consciousness a human allegedly possesses, and the allegedly simulated consciousness a computer is limited to possess?) and no matter how hard you writhe around in gymnastics, you can't declare that a question I posed to you amounts to an affirmative statement I made.

Or do we need to just toss all forms of logic and semantic clarity out?

I neither said that computers are conscious nor that they're not (or can't be)... my interest therein was in delving into your solipsism, which is why I posed a question for you to respond to.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Or, apparently your argument is terminally insufficient in establishing your desired argument lol fail


Or you could just, ya know, read the first premise of the argument lmao


Yeah, it was faulty as I pointed out in the first post.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Wed May 23, 2018 4:28 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Wed May 23, 2018 4:22 pm
AkamiaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 147Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:This reeks of a sock account lol

Sock account? Of whom? :lol: I'm not a damned sock account, bub. I just happen to agree with Sparhafoc's objections. And Ghost's, for that matter.

As I pointed out a bit ago, the hard problem of consciousness deals with this already. Describing functional states doesn't tell us what its like to have experience from the first-person.
Perhaps... I'm not sure there's any way to tell us what it's like to have experience from the first person except experiencing from the first person, which everyone does anyway. I know, not the kind of rigorous response you're looking for. I'm not a philosopher, and to make matters worse, I'm responding while sleep deprived. However...

I cited an argument from John Searle on this if you had read closer. What I noted in my previous paragraph and the argument from leads me to believe computers cannot be conscious. Address my arguments before you conclude I have no reasons for what I believe.

The Chinese Room experiment is faulty in a few ways.

Problem #1: Let's say we have a hypothetical Turing Test-compliant AI. It's no more alive when switched off than the code is alive when printed out on paper and stored in a room... somewhere. In much the same way, a heap of neurons on their own cannot be said to be alive. It takes all this working at the same time to produce consciousness. When our hypothetical AI is turned on, it produces results indistinguishable from human consciousness. Ergo, asking the man in the room whether he knows Chinese is missing the point of how consciousness operates and where it comes from. It's not the man who has to understand Chinese, it's the code and instructions. The man is just a tool for executing those instructions, like how blood and electrical conductivity by potassium and sodium ions is a tool for executing functions in the human brain. It's the algorithm itself when combined with the operations of the man that understands Chinese.

Searle responded to this problem by suggesting the necessary algorithms are internalized by the man instead, but the man somehow still doesn't understand Chinese. However, it doesn't even matter where the algorithms are; it could be on paper in the room, in a computer, in the man's head, or on the freakin' moon where the man has to look at it through a telescope for all the difference it makes. It's still the algorithm combined by the ability to execute it doing the work and understanding.

Problem #2: The algorithm itself. The man is going through the same algorithm that a computer that "understands" Chinese is executing. He may be doing them manually, or in his own head, but he's still doing the exact same thing. Maybe the pens, paper, and cabinets are a form of "help". Let's give him a calculator too. A robot buddy, maybe. We keep going down this road until he's basically typing into a computer to get the results he's looking for, and at no point will we cross the line where suddenly the computer is doing the work compared to the man. Surprise; the man is now talking to a Turing Test-compliant computer!! We can do this with Searle's rebuttal to the first problem, too, though we might have an incident with the man with the computer in his head having a mental problem. But this is a thought experiment, so who cares?

But this comes back to whether the man needs to understand Chinese at all. For the experiment to conclude that computers cannot be conscious, you need to demonstrate this. The man no more needs to understand Chinese than the pixels on your device's screen need to understand English as they project this very forum page for you to read our responses to your thread.

Problem #3: The experiment begs the question that human consciousness is special and different. To accept the conclusion that machines cannot comprehend the same way humans do, you need to assume humans think differently to begin with. Otherwise, the experiment is blown straight out the airlock; you have to assume that there is something different about the man, and that he must somehow understand Chinese as he's going through the process.

I want you to compare a brain running on connected neurons, and a computer running on silicon that perfectly simulates a brain. The difference between them is irrelevant, ergo, the Turing Test is valid, unless you assume some form of non-materialist dualism (which you claim you reject; your OP's fourth premise), so we've come full circular reasoning here. The idea that understanding can only happen in organic brains (let alone just human ones) is bio-chauvinism that no one has any business asserting.

We do experience. "I think, therefore I am", and all that crap. But we have no proof this exists in others (the problem of hard solipsism), so we rely on projecting this consciousness onto people we can interact with. The idea that this assessment should only apply to humans and cannot ever, under any circumstances, apply to computers, androids, or other forms of artificial intelligence, is special pleading, friendo.

Oh yeah, in case anyone's wondering, I ripped this off of RationalWiki's article on Chinese Room, with a little tailoring. They explain the problem better than my sleep-deprived brain ever could. I need to sleep. I'd probably get failed for my laziness if I were writing a paper on this, but right here, right now, I don't care; in the end, the thought experiment needs revision if it is to prove anything the OP wants it to.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Last edited by Akamia on Wed May 23, 2018 4:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Wed May 23, 2018 4:24 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron