What is it that gives people a consciousness?

Post Reply New Topic

Mapping percepts to actions (no matter how perfectly rational) isn't the same as being (self-)aware.



To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I don't know whether you have a genuine subjective experience or whether you are a really clever AI that passes the Turing test.

I have no idea what "mapping percepts to actions" might mean. Would it be related to "adding beans to pink"?


Dropping the meaningless "genuine", I'd say that I have a subjective experience and I am a really clever machine that probably could occasionally manage to pass the Turing test (provided I'm allowed to cheat, at times).

The definition comes from the Norvig text I mentioned earlier, which very neatly identifies a rational agent as a mapping from percepts (various sensory inputs) to rational actions (based on these percepts).

Of course, none of that definition implies 'sentient'.



The 'genuine' makes a huge difference in this case. That means you experience first person qua first person; it is doubtful that machines can ever do that.

How very behaviourist of him - a definition of thinking as a list of reactions to inputs.


Depending on your flavour of 'sentient', which can of course merely imply having percepts.

So often, the words used come with these extra "obvious" meanings. Such as 'sentient' implying some internal 'feeling', but with no attempt to explain what that means.

And, 'sentient', I would assert, implies nothing about actions. Should I be totally paralysed, with utterly no means of acting on the outside world, I don't think that woul change my sentience.



Again, I dropped the word, because I felt that it was carrying exactly that baggage: the implication that there is "something else" that distinguishes a "genuine subjective experience" from a plain "subjective experience". As a machine, I refuse to have any truck with this baseless otherness.

I think that "consciousness" is an example of "emergence", a phenomenon occurring when a certain level of complexity is reached, ( and perhaps to different degrees depending on the degree of complexity).

I believe that humans are machines, ( amazing, brilliant, complex, ... but machines), some/many of whom have trouble accepting that that is what they are. Perhaps that is because so many are brought up to believe in the illusion of free will, and attach great value to this imagined quality of human existence, which it is true does not square too well with being a machine, ( or part of one) .

.

I am not a machine.

In what way?
.

...............and the debate re-ignites.


try this....

if i were to say " i am not a machine"

it cannot be wrong....it is after all MY OPINION.

I'm greater than the sum of my parts.

That is exactly what "emergence" is about.

When something reaches a certain level of complexity, interesting new phenomena emerge. The "thing" ends up both greater and smaller than the sum of its parts. "Greater than" because of the emergent phenomenon, "smaller than" because each one of the parts becomes restricted in its possibilities of individual expression, like cells only express a minute part of their genetic material for instance.

Look it up, it's a very interesting subject.

.

(grin)

Try this: "I am not an elephant". I might say this, but I wouldn't deny that I could be wrong. It is, after all, only my opinion that I am not an elephant. However, I would find that as I proceeded to explain to someone just why that was my opinion, I would find that they agreed with me.

And next "I am not a killer". I may indeed blurt this out, insisting that it was not merely my opinion, but true! However, on examination of the statement, I would realise that I was wrong. I very nearly killed a spider, half an hour ago, as it walked under my keyboard. In fact, I did consider catching it (at some risk to its life) and putting it out the window. I didn't. However, I've killed many insects, etc. Wilfully, at times. I try to avoid that, but I have little patience with flies.

Finally, "I am not a machine". This is not my opinion. When someone else asserts this, I'm quite happy for them to say that it is their opinion. If I then ask "In what way [are you not a machine]?", I'd hope for some meaningful dialogue, as opposed to "Because I say so" or the woolly "I'm greater than the sum of my parts".

The emergence of the "I" from the sum of the parts (the "machine") is not some magic extra thing. It is just a convenient way of describing a phenomenon that only becomes apparent at some some level of complexity.

A cut diamond is just a crystalline form of carbon. It's reflective surfaces are rather pretty. "Pretty" is an emergent phenomenon of the collection of carbon atoms. So are "surfaces" and "reflection". No individual carbon atom does/has any of these things. Indeed, the same atoms can be rearranged to have none of those things.

ok...killer.

leave the bothersome flies and spider wildlife crawling about your home alone.

.

but if i say..it cannot be wrong, it is true because i said it.

does this not imply i am conscious of having an ego that has emerged in my carbon based frame?

and that this ego is part of a consciousness?

have i not emerged?

machines can be correct , precise and accurate as can quantified measuring machines used to detect blood alcohol and earthquakes.

but as you have pointed out, i am none of these things.......i am right because i have a conciousness.

It is the fact that consciousness is layered that gives people a consciousness.
The higher level of consciousness is aware of the lower level (is observing it).
In most animals and all plants, this higher consciousness lies dormant, so their self-consciousness is more limited.
Their actions and reactions are entirely controled by the cosmic mind whereas humans have a certain amount of freedom to make their own conscious choices. Of course this so-called freedom of choice is only relative to the level of consciousness you are using. There is no absolute free will.

Free will is basically the ability to perform actions that are of your own choosing, is it not? I am using my free will at this very moment because I am choosing to reply to your post.

But some factor/factors led to that decision. And those factors arose from others, which arose ... ... etc.

It is just your particular perspective on/limited perception of the process which leads you to describe, or experience, the choice as "free". And our culture doesn't encourage us to see through the illusion.

.

I wouldn't think too hard about this.