₦airaland Forum

diridiri:
In retrospect, upon being asked this same recycled question, I should've asked you to go down to specifics as to how a human being might have an opinion. Upon hearing your detailed answer, I would have asked why such a thing required intervention from the immaterial.

Also, I answered "I don't see why not" as a response to you asking if I thought it was possible.

Lastly, the red part is not a concession. I meant that the neural networks are planned in the sense that their functionality is planned. The structure is not. The functionality of a program is so high in the level of abstraction that calling it "programming" is like calling instructing a child on how to accomplish a task manipulating them like a mannequin.

LordReed:
Doesn't make it any less subjective because it remains an internal monologue about the quality and quantity of the experience same as you. For instance one of the reasons we have differing pain thresholds is because we have different physical makeup, what is registering as pain for you might not for someone else, that is part of the subjectivity. Even if we know precisely the quanity and quality of the pain inducing input it won't make the reception of it any less subjective.

diridiri:
On the bit about me being circular:
Actually, you can't.

1. That's just true. Am I missing something? If I claimed that X was possible, wouldn't a claim that X was actually be impossible be a refutation of my point?
2. Again, you posited that something was impossible. Me saying that you cannot prove this is not being circular or making a moot point. It is punching a hole in a statement you made.
3. The third statement doesn't work either. I only brought up possible structures that could bring about consciousness because you made a hard point that it was impossible. You then waxed lyrical about the inaccuracies that come about from using the fact that science is constantly progression as a refutation to your point. I then asked if you would then suggest that anything not currently proven is de facto impossible. That question is a direct result of the claims you previously made.

On the last part of your comment (since you have not yet elucidated on the penultimate section), I will concede on the fact that it was a bad point, but a point made in my stupidity. I don't really know why I even let you take me through this rabbit hole in the first place. I should have stopped you when you started bringing up the point about "proving that subjectivity can be expressed in a robot", since my entire argument is and has been that there is no evidence that an immaterial being is required for "subjectivity", and that there is nothing about "subjectivity" that requires the immaterial.

diridiri:
ALLEGEDLY? LOL
What do you mean "allegedly"? Are you about to say what I think you're about to say?

diridiri:
This is a joke, isn't it?

diridiri:
The resulting neural networks are not planned by the programmer (they are in a vague sense, but only in a vague sense)

diridiri:
Seeing as a good number of these points are, in some way addressed in your other comment, I'll be brief here.

I state that it is possible for science to accomplish a feat because you stated that it was impossible.

It is a direct refutation to your statement, which was supported by the fact that you have not provided a real reason as to why such a thing would be impossible.

Or would you have me believe that anything not currently proven is de facto impossible?

You also seem to completely ignore my main point about the experiencing subjectivity bit. You have not yet demonstrated that this is something other than a purely physical phenomenon. Now, I propose that, assuming it were simply a physical phenomenon, it could be hypothetically perfectly mapped to the structure of a computer, producing the same result. Now, one might retort that I have no proof it is purely physical, but that's a warped way of looking at things. Before supposing supernatural influence, one must ensure that all the possibilities of a physical influence have been ruled out.

Why would you bring up the uncertainty of proving self-consciousness? Doesn't that also imply that your hard stance on its impossibility is irrational? After all, if you were wrong and a mapping really did recreate self-consciousness, you could simply cross your arms and point your nose to the sky, denying any apparent observations that might suggest self-consciousness, and you could feel justified in yourself, correct?

LordReed:
Emotions are a little more complex because they involve endocrinal inputs. I suppose you could theoretically compute that into the algorithms but that is a little more complicated.

Diridiri:
Baseless assertion, yet again, on two counts:

1. It assumes that a hypothetical robot with a subjective experience would be able to be fully captured, simply because it was a robot. This assumes that, simply because something is programmed, every little detail of its functionality is pre-planned.

Have you ever heard of unsupervised machine learning?

2. The entire paragraph is an argument from incredulity. It seems like you simply feel that all the mapping in the world could not translate the specific feeling and nuance of a particular emotion, but I am yet to be presented with a concrete reason why that is.

Diridiri: Right, but the physical and the mental comprise a human being, correct?
Then, seeing as human beings are made up of components that are both "objective" and "subjective", does that mean that human beings are both?

I mostly asked my initial question in jest because I did not understand what it meant to refer to an entire "being" or "thing" as subjective. I could say an opinion is subjective, or a thought is subjective, or a memory is subjective. Could I say an entire human being was subjective, though? What exactly would I mean, if I said that? By saying that robots are "objective", you are being similarly absurd. If a robot was capable of abstract thought, those thoughts would perhaps be "subjective". I don't know how exactly it would then follow that the robot was subjective.

diridiri:
Ah. I was waiting for you to inevitably make this point.
The burden of proof does not fall upon me to make any such claim. You even say why it doesn't: My position is that "I don't see why it's impossible". This is in opposition to yours which is that it is definitely impossible.

Furthermore, that statement can not be validly made about anything. It can be made against an opinion that something is definitely impossible, and is a direct challenge to prove the impossibility of such a thing, which is why I made the claim in the first place. One would do well to remember that I was the one who responded to a comment that you made on materialism. I was challenging something you said.

LordReed:
What you can't measure is the quality or quantity of a subjective experience.

LordReed:
What you can't measure is the quality or quantity of a subjective experience. The kind of hot water I can withstand would have my kids screaming in pain even though I can measure the temperature of the water. Measuring the temperature of the water won't make my kids feel the pain less. We can even conduct nerve conduction studies and measure the intensity of the signals the kids are receiving, it still won't make them feel the pain less. Consequently, being able to know a pre-programmed feeling nailed down to its every exact detail and preprogrammed nuance won't stop the machine from have its own subjective experience. You can not measure the subjective experience the machine is having because like yours it is entirely internal and within the construct feeling the experience.

budaatum:
Deepsight! I never read book, watch nollywood, bollywood, hollywood, seen people in love around me or loved myself, na only you "a woman I am in love with"?

I know you feel what is subjectively described as joy. And happiness. And gladness. Plus some, and I can't believe you label us ignorant and incapable of learning.

diridiri:
A nature, mind you, that the article does not support in any way whatsoever. One can only make such a logical leap if one presupposes that consciousness requires the immaterial. The article does not satisfactorily explain why this is the case, it just makes baseless assertions here and there. I notice you have not done so as well.

The first paragraph is pretty weird. It implicitly supposes that there exists some aspect of human nature that is not predefined or set within a given objective code or program. It also makes the claim that "a thing which is preprogrammed is intrinsically objective in nature as opposed to subjective". Yes, to the observer, anyway. But if the preprogrammed thing was capable of subjective mental processes, then that's a moot point.

Even with regards to human beings, assuming that you were correct, there would still be facets of the human body that were completely objective, like how the immune system operates, for instance. So it is possible for things to be objective and subjective in different areas.

According to your second paragraph then, if the chemical and electrical reactions in the human brain could be mapped and analyzed in as much detail as a line of code or a circuit could, we would all magically cease to have a subjective experience? Or are you going to assert that such a thing is impossible?

diridiri:
Typically when one refers to something as "true" or "accurate" in science, one actually means that it is "true beyond reasonable doubt" in the sense that it so perfectly matches observations made about the universe that it makes little sense not to adhere to the model or theory in question. With this knowledge in mind, it becomes obvious why exactly one can dismiss a supposition even if future advancements remain uncertain. If a supposition seems to contradict too strongly to too much of the observations made, it is more likely to be false than true. With some suppositions, this likelihood is so biased towards falsehood that it is accurate to call it impossible.

This is the same line of reasoning used when referring to any impossibility (with the exception of logical impossibilities like "X is both X and not X". If someone told me that the real Barney visited their child, I would say it was impossible, but there still exists a slight chance that magic exists and Barney actually visited their child. It's just too ridiculous, unlikely, and out-of-left-field to even entertain.

Quantum Physics presents scenarios that border on magic? Well, I will concede that they might seem "magical" at a cursory glance, the same way that the concept of a Heliocentric universe might seem "magical" to one who was totally illiterate on the matter. "After all", they might say, "the sun very much APPEARS to rotate around the Earth, so why the over-complicated explanation over a seemingly simple matter?". The fact is that, unlike magic, the scenarios presented by these models were derived not by armchair thinking and idle presuppositions but by observations of the universe supported and corroborated by other observations. You then see why an understanding of the field in question is necessary: If you do not understand the reason why the "scenarios bordering on magic" are presented, you will forever see them as somewhat magical. It is only with adequate understanding in the field that you comprehend the necessity of such scenarios. This applies to EVERY dense field of knowledge.

In what sense do you mean?
I can't comprehend what it would mean to experience infinity, but I can certainly comprehend the concept. I'm certain you can, too, or you would be utterly lost on the topic. Infinity just means endless, or at least approaching a value of endless magnitude. I might not be able to imagine an infinite substance, but I can express and understand the implications of the concept, the same way I can comprehend the concept of cold fire or eternal bliss, unimaginable as those two might be.

LordReed:
Say a machine was programmed to feel pain and each time it feels pain it was programmed to scream, how would you be able to tell the difference between what the machine is undergoing from what a human undergoes? In other words are you saying that being able to measure something means it is no longer be subjectively experienced?

budaatum:
The purpose of sensors is the sensing of the sensations they "experience".

No?

diridiri:
I believe I already explained in the comment you got the prompt from why I distinguish between these two. Although there are mechanistic reasons for being skeptical about exploring the edge of the universe,

I have yet to receive any such reason as to why consciousness requires an immaterial component.

Well, that's the first impression I had as well when coming across this opinion. However, given that I am not an astrophysicist (or any kind of physicist), I believe that it is infinitely more likely that I simply lack the sufficient information to comprehend the statement fully than that it is untrue.

diridiri:
That depends on what you define as "feel".
The entire discourse with you reminds me of the common apologist argument (paraphrased) "Every building must have a builder, and therefore every creation must have a creator". The arguments presented by the article you forwarded myself and LordReed a few days ago do not explicitly confess to using this type of logic, but one gets the impression that this is the sort of logic being used to come to such conclusions.

If you wish to articulate why being capable of emotional experiences is exclusive to living things, you need to either prove that the definition necessarily implies that the process is being undertaken by a living being, or prove rigidly that non-living beings are restricted by some quality (or the lack of some quality) from being capable of it. Tempting as it might be to simply assume these things are true, reality need not conform to our beliefs.

The matter of consciousness and emotion are especially relevant to this point, since we are bound to view our subjective mental experiences in a, well, subjective manner. They are not things that we rationalize, but things we feel. We are ourselves chained by them. This can lead us to think more of them than we ought to - they dictate our very essence, after all. Eventually, however, this attitude must be judged as being fundamentally infantile and self-centred, and then discarded with the other archaic infantile beliefs. One must acknowledge that there is no rule under heaven that dictates that the nature of things be governed by our perspective.

In the first place, I don't see any significant difference (at least in the abstract sense) between a robot and a human being.

Most responses are either indirect to the point of irritation or desperate pleas by my interlocutor that I "open my eyes" and "just think about it".

budaatum:
A thermometer 'experiences' the temperature and 'talks' to you about its 'feelings'.

Consider.

diridiri:
The rate of expansion of the universe seems like a good reason to do so.
Not even considering the very reasonable impossibility of light speed travel, the edge of the universe is some 46.5 billion light years away. By the time you reached the edge, the universe would have surpassed you by a significant amount.

From what I've found out, there isn't even any consensus as to whether the universe HAS edges. Some opine that the universe is infinite.

budaatum:
I appreciate your 'sensitivity'. And the intelligence of this thread.

Hypocrite buda just labelled you. Twice.

diridiri:
You say that it is as fundamental as the problem of time travel or teleportation or probing outside the universe. It isn't. Those three problems are very reasonably considered impossible. The topic of time travel is far beyond my depth as a non-physicist, the second is technically possible if you somehow copy every single molecule in a human being's body, and the third is also beyond my depth. What I am certain of, however, is that the supposed impossibility of three of those tasks rests on good justification.

LordReed:
That is the only definition that fit with the facts available to me so I am not merely redefining it. If according to you pain is something that is felt by the ghost in the machine you will have to provide the facts that fit with this definition.

budaatum:
I think a person's sensitivity should be respected by those who see deeply instead of labelling them so you don't need to bother.

Labelling just shows one is shallow hearing.

LordReed:
Wait, you think otherwordly beings are injecting these "latency of all potentials" into physical bodies?

LordReed:
I gave a definition of pain that is firmly entrenched in the workings of the physical body but it seems you think pain is something more. What is your own definition of pain?

LordReed: BTW at what point does human foetus get a mind, immediately when the zygote starts dividing?

LordReed: BTW at what point does human foetus get a mind, immediately when the zygote starts dividing?